PROCEEDINGS
MINNESOTA
Third Meeting off trie
Second Session (Reconvened)
Dulutti, Minnesota
April 22-23, 1971
CONFERENCE
In the Matter of Pollution of Lake Superior
and its Tributary Basin-Minnesota-
Wisconsin-Michigan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
THIRD MEETING
OF THE
SECOND SESSION (RECONVENED)
OF THE
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF LAKE SUPERIOR
AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN
held in
Duluth, Minnesota
April 22, 23, 1971
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Opening Statement - Mr. Dominick 5,311,333,442
D. S. Bryson 13
C. A. Johannes 16
E. T. Fride 32,273,297,
307,446
G. J. Merritt 199,367,397
H. W. Bergson 225
Honorable Vftn. G. Milliken 226
B. M. Niss 230, 330
C. H. Stoddard 242, 328
Honorable F. H. Scheuring 257,403
E. A. Roach 262
E. Kirsch 266
R. Nelson 270
I. Burchard 271
K. Haley 289,299
Dr. H. A. Andersen 325
S. J. Gadler 334
Rev. C. Dirksen 337
Mrs. A. Harvell 339
L. Jandrt 341
G. Gimich (read by Don Hanson) 349
L. Lueschow 351
T. G. Frangos 355
F. B. Frost 361
-------
la
CONTENTS
PAGE
Hon. B. Boo 366
J. Johnson 367
J. Sarchet 394
W. Johnson 398
A. A. Jensen 404
T. F. Wisniewski 410
M. Knutson 418
Executive Session 452
-------
Ib
CONTENTS
COMMUNICATIONS PAGE
George Roseneau and John M. Oliver 313
Mrs. Nancy Scofield 314
Mrs. C. Tidwell 315
Mrs. Davis W. Hubbard 316
Robert and Viola Brown 317
Laughton High School 318
James P. Bronner 319
Mrs. George R. Mattson 320
Dorothy M. Cox 321
Marie Frey 322
Hon. John D. Dingell 323
Carl W. Gutman 324a
Hon. Philip Ruppe 324b
Dr. Betzabe Allison, Dr. John Allison 324b
Dr. and Mrs. Otto Ruehr 324c
Mr. and Mrs. John Larue 324c
EXHIBITS
1. "Reserve Mining Company's Response to Inquiry from the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference Technical Committee"
(See p. 33)
2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Study from
Summer, 1968
(See p. 310)
These exhibits are on file at Hq. EPA, Washington, D.C.
and Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
-------
2
Third Meeting of the Reconvened Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of Lake Superior and its Tributary Basin in the States
of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan - April 22-23, 1971.
PRESIDING: VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. David D. Dominick Mr. Murray Stein
Acting Commissioner Assistant Commissioner for
Water Quality Office Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. Water Quality Office
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
Francis B. Frost
Chief Engineer
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
Theodore Wisniewski
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Thomas G. Frangos
Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Robert C. Tuveson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Albert Lea, Minnesota
Dr. Howard A. Andersen, Chairman
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnespolis, Minnesota
Grant J. Merritt
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnespolis, Minnesota
James 0. McDonald
Director of Regulatory Programs, Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
Dale S. Bryson
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
-------
PARTICIPANTS:
Clarence A. Johannes, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Edward T. Fride
Attorney-at-Law
Duluth, Minnesota
Herbert W. Bergson, President
Save Lake Superior Association
Secretary, Northern Environmental Council
Duluth, Minnesota
Honorable William G. Milliken
Governor, State of Michigan
(read by H. Bergson)
Bruce M. Niss
Research Associate
Northern Environmental Council
Duluth, Minnesota
Charles H. Stoddard
Resource Consultant
Wolf Springs Forest
Minong, Wisconsin
Honorable Frank H. Scheuring
Mayor of Silver Bay
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Eugene A. Roach, President
United Steelworkers of America
Local Union 5296
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Eldon Kirsch
Staff Representative
United Steelworkers of America
Virginia, Minnesota
Ryan Nelson
Ashland High School
Ashland, Wisconsin
Irene Burchard
Vice-Chairman, Wisconsin Sector
Northern Environmental Council
Duluth, Minnesota
-------
3d
PARTICIPANTS (cont'd):
K. Haley
Vice-President, Reserve Mining Company
Manager, Research & Development Division
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Steven J. Gadler
Private Citizen
St. Paul, Minnesota
Pastor Clifford Dirksen
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Mrs. Arlene I. Harvell
Editor, Save Lake Superior News
Duluth, Minnesota
L. Jandrt
Private Citizen
Toste, Minnesota
George Giraich
Babbitt Steel Workers
Local 4575
Babbitt, Minnesota
Lloyd Lueschow
Water Quality Technical Committee
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Honorable Ben Boo
Mayor, City of Duluth
Duluth, Minnesota
James Johnson
Superintendent of Sanitary Services
Duluth, Minnesota
Jack Sarchet
Project Coordinator
Village of Grand Marais
Minnesota
Wayne Johnson
Attorney-at-Law
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Axel A. Jensen
Superintendent, Water Sewer Department
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Merwin Knutson
Chairman, Carlton County Soil and Water
Conservation District
Carlton County, Minnesota
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
LAKE SUPERIOR ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Apri I 22-23, 1971
Mrs. Duane Allen
601 So. 66th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN 55807
Dona Id Aluni
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
Babbitt, MN
David B. Anderson
Associate District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
1033 Post Office Bldg.
St. Paul , MN 55101
David W. Anderson
Bio log i st
Reserve Mining Co.
S i Iver Bay, MN
Marty Anderson
22 Davis Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
Stanley Anderson
632 N. 60th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN 55807
Phi I Iip Anick
1401 Mac Arthur Ave.
Ashland, Wl
A. F. Asplund
44 Ash Blvd.
Babbitt, MN
Carol Bacon
I 10 Hays Ci.
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
John P. Badalich
Associate
Quirk, Lawler, Matusky Engineers
Box 546
South St. Paul, MN
Jack H. BaiIey
10043 North Shore Dr.
Duluth, MN 55804
John J. Baker
Consulting Engineer
Iron Range Communities
RR Wai lace & Assoc.
Box 481
Hibbing, MN
D. J. Baumgartner
Chief, Coastal Pol
U.S. Environmental
200 SW 35th
CorvalI is, OR
ution Research
Protection Agency
Gary Baune
Wm. Kelley High School
10 Field Road
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
Wm. S. Beck
Arrowhead Regiona
900 A I worth
Duluth, MN
Planning Commission
Herbert W. Bergson, President
Save Lake Superior Assri.
3630 Crescent View
Duluth, MN 55804
John P. Bergson
Jack D. Salo, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
15 E. 1st St.
Duluth, MN 55802
Mary H. Bergson
Save Lake Superior Assn.
3630 Crescent View Ave.
Duluth, MN 55804
Glenn R. Bergstrom
Grand Marais, MN
Al I en Beri auk
Reporter
Silver Bay High School
S i Iver Bay, MN
Arthur V. Biele
City of Duluth Water Dept.
414-416 W. 1st
Duluth, MN
-------
-2-
4a
Mrs. Earl Biggins
Lax Lake Property Owners Assn.
Star Route, Box 98
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
Brady Binde
Kelly High SchooI
30 Nelson Dr.
SiIver Bay, MN
Benjami n J. Biaci k
Attorney
U.S. Steel Corp.
700 Missabe Bldg.
Duluth, MN
R. E. Blankenburg
Saganaga Outfitters
GunfI int TraiI
Grand Marais, MN
Mrs. Frank P. Blatnik
League of Women Voters
4902 Oneida
Duluth, MN 55804
Arnold W. Blomquist, Ph.D.
Presi dent
National Biocentric Inc.
2233 Hamline Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55113
James BonneviIIe
Independent Citizen
40th Ave. W. & 9th St.
Duluth, MN
Ben Boo
May, City of DUluth
Duluth, MN
George A. Bourman
Structural Technician
U.S.A.F.
Duluth, MN
Lye I I Brand
United Northern Sportsmen
319 - 76th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Martin Brink
Reserve Mining Co.
71 Edison Blvd.
S iIver Bay, MN
Bernard L. Brommer
105 E. Toledo St.
Duluth, MN 5581 I
Mrs. Ronald Brunko
Housew i fe
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
27 Ives Rd.
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
Lynn D. Buri
Civil Engi neer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mi nneapolis, MN
Karen Bystrom
Students for Saving Lake Superior
122 N. El I is Ave.
Ashland, Wl
Thomas Caine
Great Lake Divers
615 N. 16th Ave. E.
Duluth, MN 55812
Conrad J. Carl son
136 Bank Blvd.
S iIver Bay, MN
Mrs. Melvin Carlson
Reserve Mining Co.
136 Banks Blvd.
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
Rick Carl son
Citizens for Silver Bay
60 Davis Drive
SiIver Bay, MN
Rita Carman
27 Evans Ci re Ie
S iIver Bay, MN
Vernon W. Carter
Water Plant Oper.
Vi I I age of S iIver
SiIver Bay, MN
Bay
Raymond Chagnon
Northern Environmental Council
281 I E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55812
-------
4b
Lois Chase
Teacher
325 West 5th St.
Duluth, MN
Robert Chisel
Babbitt Steelworkers
Box 250
Babbitt, MN
Bob Christiansen
Reporter
Box 70A Star Route
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
Mrs. B. W. Clam
Local 5296 Steelworkers
Si Iver Bay, MN
Credit Union
Don Cole
UtiIities
46 Fern
Babbitt, I*
Commissioner
Robert J. Connor
Steelworkers L. U. 5296
16 Law
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
LesIie A. Cooper
Reserve Mining Co.
28 Banks Blvd.
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. Wm. A. Cox
Deputy Clerk
ViI I age of SiIver Bay
109 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Quincy Dadisman
Reporter
MiIwaukee Sentinel
10817 N. San Marino Dr.
Mequon, Wl 53092
Al Dahlgren & Karen
39 Evans Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Mi ke Danz
Save Lake Superior
I I 16 - Nth Ave. W.
Ashland, Wl
Wm. J . Dei nhammer
Reserve Mi ning Co.
Babbitt, MN
Thomas E. DeWitt
District Engineer
State of Wisconsi n
Dept. of Natural Resources
Spooner, Wl
Larry Dickinson
Kelly High School
Star Route
Si Iver Bay, MN
George Dimich
U.S.W.A. Local 4757
38 Elm Blvd.
Babbitt, MN 55706
George Ditsworth
Oceanographer
U.S. Environmental
200 S.W. 35th
CorvalI is, OR
Protection Agency
Beverley DriscolI
LWV of Minnesota
Route 2
StiI I water, MN 55082
Leo Ducharme
Retired Reserve Mining Co.
I I 12 East 3rd St.
Duluth, MN 55805
Bob Eckstrom
Wm. Kelly High School
26 Gibson Road
Si Iver Bay, MN
Roy Edwards
Beaver Bay, MN
Jay A. Empie
District Conservationish
Soil Conservation Service
Superior, Wl 54880
-------
4c
Mr. & Mrs. Harold A. Engman
140 Banks Blvd.
S iIver Bay, MN
J. H. Evans
Private individual
515 Warwich
St. Paul, MN 551 16
Donald Eyinck
1457 Haze I wood
St. Paul, MN 55106
Larry & Jean Feldt
United Steel workers
32 Horn Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
'Mr. & Mrs. John Filipovich
502 Ugsted Road
Proctor, MN 55810
Fred M. Fox
Outreach Worker
Family Service
128 W. 1st St.
Duluth, MN 55802
James N. Frericks
Steel worker Local
15 Lee Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
5296
Rick Frey
Citizens for Silver Bay
29 Davis Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN
Mrs. Walter H. Frey
CounciI Women
ViI I age of Si Iver Bay
29 Davis Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
Mr. Walter H. Frey
Steel workers 5296
29 Davis Drive
SiIverfey, MN 55614
E. T. Fride
Attorney, Reserve Mining Co.
1200 A I worth Bldg.
Duluth, MN 55802
Gary Gange
Social Worker
St. James Childrens Home
320 Lucester
Duluth, MN
Mark A. Gae
Apt. 34F, Bel I Circle
S i I ver Bay, MN
Bonn ie Gou I ette
31 Law Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN 55614
James Gray
98 Hays Circle
S i I ver Bay, MN
Mrs. James D. Gray,
98 Hays Circle
S i I ver Bay, MN
Jr.
Wesley A. Grosh
Lia ison Off icer
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Ft. Snelling Federal Bldg.
Twin Cities, MN 551 I I
Pat Grady
Student
906 Grandview
Duluth, MN
Ave.
Mrs. R. J. Grathe
U.S. Steel workers
20 Adams Blvd.
SiIver Bay, MN
K. J. Grathe
Steel workers 5296
20 Adams Blvd.
S iIver Bay, MN
5296
-------
4d
Mrs. John C. Green
Students for Environmental Defense
9773 N. Shore Drive
Duluth, MN 55804
Mrs. E. G. Greenwalt
Reserve Mining Co.
22 Bel I Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Harry C. Grounds
477 S. Cretin
St. Paul, MN 55105
TKDA, St. Paul
Representing McKinley, MN
Mrs. Wm. W. Hagen
D.F.L. Ladies Group
501 E. Sky Iine Pkwy.
Duluth, MN
Trudy Hagstrom
SSLS
Ashland High
I 101 IIth Ave. W.
Ashland, Wl
K. M. Haley
V.P. Manager R & D
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
SiIver Bay,'MN 55614
Barbara Ha I I igan
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN 55804
Debbie Hanson
43 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
J. Lou i s Hanson
Home Secretary
Gay lord Nelson, U.S.S.
Box 707
Mel I en, Wl
Martin Hanson
Wise. Res. Consu. Council
Box 707
Mel I en, Wl 54546
Mrs. Glenn Harriman
Reserve Mi ni ng
27 Edwards Dr.
S iIver Bay, MN
Mace Harris
MPCA
Cloquet, MN
Mrs. ArIene I. HarvelI
Editor
Save Lake Superior News
1612 Waver Iy Ave.
Duluth, MN 55803
Mrs. George Hein
Beaver Bay, MN
Dr. D. Herman
Res. Microbiologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon
Duluth, MN
Jay Ho I men
14 Field Road
Si Iver Bay, MN
Tim Horvat
Wm. Kelly High School
63 Horn Blvd.
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
Clayton B. Howk
Lake Superior Licensed Guides
Box I I 6
Cornucopia, Wl 54827
Raymond Hudson
Wm. KelIy High School
49 Davis Dr.
SiIver Bay, MN 55614
Miss Mary Hugo
Save Lake Superior
510 N. 13th Ave. E.
Duluth, MN
Evelyn P. Hunt
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN 55804
-------
4e
Keith Huseby
15 Gibson Road
Si Iver Bay, MN
Gerald Iverson
Local 5296 U.S.W.
36 Garden Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN
James B. Isackson
Save Lake Superior Assn.
Duluth, MN
Les Jandrt
Tofte, MN
Mrs. Karl Jevning
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
22 Drake Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Karl A. Jevning
22 Drake Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Mrs. Adrian Johnson
#5296 Steelworkers Silver Bay
38 Aiken Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Adrian Johnson
United Steelworkers
38 Aiken Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Clai r Johnson
Kelley High School
28 Davis Drive
Si Iver Bay, MN
EI ma N. Johnson
SLSA
4707 Pitt
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Gunnar Johnson
Box 463 MTD Rte.
Two Harbors, MN
James Johnson
Students for Saving Lake Superior
I 123 IOth Ave. West
Ashland, Wl
James A. Johnson
Supt. of Sanitary Services
City of Duluth
211 City Hal I
Duluth, MN 55801
Mrs. John Johnson
School Teacher
2201 Pershing St.
Duluth, MN 5581 I
Wayne G. Johnson
ViI 1 age Attorney
Silver Bay - Beaver Bay
Norshor Bldg.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Richard A. Johnston
City of Fraser
Chisholm, MN
Daniel Jorgenson
32 Davis Dr.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Lena Kachmarzuiski
36 Dogwood
Babbitt, MN
Lawrence J. Kachmarzuiski
36 Dogwood Blvd.
Babbitt, MN
Raymond Kalkbrenner
Recording Secretary
U.S.S.W. #5296
43 Horn Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Mrs. Darrel Kempffer
Two Harbors, MN
Richard Kienitz
Mi Iwaukee JournaI
2 W. Miffie St.
Madison, Wl
Mi ke Kimbrell
Silver Bay Reporter
Kelley High School
I 18 Banks Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
-------
4f
Mrs. Keith Kinnear
22 Edison Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Dorothy Kli nker
Student
Reserve Mining Co.
Star Route Box 88
S iIver Bay, MN
Gary L. Knutson
Students
Star Route Box 95A
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. John R. Kohlbry
League of Women Voters
2928 Greysolon Road
Duluth, MN
Jill Kolberg
Ashland High SSLS
1000 6th Ave. W.
Ashland, Wl
George R. Koonce
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware St. S.E.
Mi nneapolis, MN
Nancy E. Kreher
President
Students Saving Lake Superior
1310 Vaughn
Ashland, Wl 54806
Wm. E. Krueger
52 Fir
Babbitt, MN
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Kuerg
Babbitt, MN
A. F. Laidlaw
1944 Flandrau St.
St. Paul, MN
Soil Conservation Service
Stan Landa
Reserve Mining Co.
810 E. Patt
Ely, MN
Raymond Langet
Reserve Mining Co.
85 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Herbert Larsen
United Steel workers Local 5296
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. W. Lauder
Homeowner
5518 London Rd.
Duluth, MN 55804
G. Fred Lee
Professor of Water Chemistry
University of Wisconsin
Water Chemistry Program
Madison, Wl 53706
Mrs. Vernon D. Lee
President - Silver Bay LWV
90 Hays Circle
S i Iver Bay, MN
Mrs. J. E. Li en
Housew i fe
Reserve Mining Co.
91 Hays
Si Iver Bay, MN
Mr. & Mrs. John Lind
Resort
Box 117, E. Star Rte.
Two Harbors, MN
Dean A. Lindberg
Chief Chemist
Continental Oil Company
Box 8, WrenshalI, MN 55807
RusselI Lakey
Tech. Sales Rep. AI
1523 N. Durkee St.
Appleton, Wl 549 I I
ied Colloids, Inc.
Mrs. Robert A.
51 Hays Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
Lee
-------
A. J. LeGeault
Local 5296 U.S.W.A.
26 James Rd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Armond E. Lemke
Research Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN 55804
Edwarc; N. Leonard
Chemist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN 55804
Royce R. Lewis
USDA, Soi I Conservation Service
2706 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN
Donald M. Lindahl
14 Hays Circle
Si Iver Bay, MN
C. E. Lovold
Kings Landing Marina
P.O. Box 427
Beaver Bay, MN
Richard Lugeanheal
Reserve Mining Co.
49 Garden Drive
S i Iver Bay, MN
Carl A. Lund
City of Duluth,
Duluth, MN
Thelma Luthanen
Babbitt, MN
Jay Robert Mackie
Reserve Mi n ing Co.
Babbitt, MN
Gordon Madson
Prem, Inc.
408 Board of Trade
Duluth, MN 55802
Rm. 201 City Hal
Wm. H. Magie
Executive Secretary
Friends of the Wilderness
3515 E. 4th St.
Duluth, MN 55804
Richard C. Mahal
ViIlage of Babbitt
38 Fir Circle
Babbitt, MN 55706
Thomas E. Ma I mo
Chamber of Commerce
SiIver Bay, MN
Debbie Mann
Student
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
32 Field Road
S iIver Bay, MN
Mr. & Mrs. Elmer Mann
Reserve Min i ng Co.
32 Field Road
S iIver Bay, MN
Brenda Markley
Kelley High School
Beaver Bay, MN
Robert S. Mars, Jr.
WP & RS Mars Co. & NEMDA
215 So. 27th Ave. West
Duluth, MN 55806
J. Martinsen
Steel workers
S iIver Bay, h
5296
W i I lard Maeter
3009 E. 1st St.
Duluth, MN 55804
Robert Mattila
5296 Local Steel workers
49 Law Dr.
SiIver Bay, MN
Mr. & Mrs. Milton Mattson
Beaver Bay, MN
-------
4h
Vi ncent R. Mattson
Research Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN
Li I Iian MaxwelI
33 Evans
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. Vera G. Me Ii n
216 N. 14th Ave. E.
Duluth, MN
Mr. & Mrs. Me I by
Voyageurs Marina
Grand Portage, MN
Mr. & Mrs. Glen J. Merritt
2035 Columbus Ave.
Duluth, MN
Phi II i p Nel son
Process Supt.
1206 Wi I son Ave.
Cloquet, MN
Ei Ieen D. Marshart
V ice Cha i rman
Northern Environmental
601 Christie Bldg.
Duluth, MN
Roger Mi eke I son
27 Gibson Road
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. Lloyd Mi I Ier
ViI I age of S i Iver Bay
19 Arthur Circle
S iIver Bay, MN
R. L. MitchelI
Reserve Mining Co.
Babbitt, MN 55706
G. Molstad
38 2nd St.
Proctor, MN
Mi lo J. Munson
SSLS
413 14th Ave. West
Ashland, Wl
Daniel Murphy
SLSA
2720 E. 7th St.
Duluth, MN
Counci
Ralph Nelson
Forester
1708 Jefferson
Duluth, MN
St.
Ryan Nelson
Ashland High SSLS
I 100 Mac Arthur
Ashland, Wl
George Nikkola
Reserve Mining Co.
39 Edison Blvd.
S i I ver Bay, MN
Cindy Norman
Silver Bay High School
42 Aiken Circle
S i Iver Bay, MN
Lois Okon
Student
2219 Ensign St.
Duluth, MN
Dr. Dale W. Olsen
MPCA
461 5 London Road
Duluth, MN
John 01 iver
36 Law Dr.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Mrs. Otto Overby
East Star Route
Two Harbors, MN
Otto Overby
East Star Route
Two Harbors, MN
Mrs. Mary Palmer
University Methodist Church
1818 Me I rose Ave.
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Myrna Panno
Steel workers Union 5296
Si Iver Bay, MN
-------
41
Mr. & Mrs. Jos.
53 Ash Blvd.
Babbitt, MN
Pastika
Kenneth PavI ing
Reserve Mi ning Co.
St. Rt. #2 Box 113
Embarrass, MN
Edwin C. Pearson
United Northern Sportsmen
2202 Hi I I crest Dr.
Duluth, MN
Becky Pel key
Wm. Kelley High School
29 Evans Circle
S i Iver Bay, MN
MiIton E. Pelletier
President, United Northern Sportsmen
3680 Munger Shaw Road
Duluth, MN
Ron Peterson
SSLS Member
614 St. Claire St.
Ashland, Wl
Peter Petric
38 Edison Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Jerry Pittman
5723 Wyoming St.
Duluth, MN
Mi ke Pittman
5723 Wyoming St.
Duluth, MN
RusselI H. Plumb, Jr.
University of Wisconsin
Water Chemistry Laboratory
Madison, Wl 53706
Howard L. Potter
Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission
Christie Bldg.
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Donald Prestidge
Reserve Mi ni ng Co.
31 Burk Dr.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Jeanne Price
SSLS
I 104 3rd Ave.
Ashland, Wl
E.
Frank A.
NationaI
Duluth, !
Pug Iisi
Water Qua
ity Laboratory
Mrs. Evelyn J. Putnam
Duluth Audubon Society
1407 Woodland
Duluth, MN
Richard Puttonen
Independent citizen
40th Ave. W. 9th St.
Duluth, MN 55807
Mrs. M. J. Ri
631 4th Ave.
Two Harbors, I
ey
Gene A. Roach
United Steel workers
S iIver Bay, MN
Deloris E. Roach
Star Route
S iIver Bay, MN
Mrs. Ma Ivi n Rob inson
II Ives Rd.
S i Iver Bay, MN
Malvin M. Robinson
I I Ives Road
Si Iver Bay, MN
Marvin T. Robinson
Local 5296 USW
42 Adams Blvd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
-------
Wm. D. Rolfe
Repr. City of Fraser
Chisholm, MN
Gloria Rosenau
45 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Mrs. George Rosenan
45 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
George Rosenau
State Farm Insurance Co.
45 Hays
Si Iver Bay, MN
Warren Roske
North Star Chapter Sierra Club
3048 N. Lee
Mi nneapolis, MN
Earl H. Ruble
Earl Ruble & Assoc., Inc.
217 Lake Ave. So.
Duluth, MN
Franklin Ryder
Civil Engi neer
Corps of Engi neers
St. Paul, MN
Bruce St. Germa i n
SSLS
322 Nth Ave. E.
Ashland, Wl
WiI mar L. SaIo
Dept. of Chemistry
UMD, Duluth, MN
Mrs. Arthur H. Samuel
16 Floyd Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
L. L. Sarchett
Project Coord.
ViI I age of Grand Mara is, MN
Mary Sarum
School
SiIver Bay, MN
Frank H. Scheuri ng
Mayor of S iIver Bay
70 Garden Drive
SiIver Bay, MN
Gerald D. Schissler
Metro. Reporters
Court Reporter
8920 83rd St. Ct.
Cottage Grove,'MN
Howard Schmitz
SLSA
1306 N. Central
Duluth, MN
Thomas W. Schmucker
Eve Ieth Fee Off ice
P.O. Box 521
Eve Ieth, MN
Mrs. Richard Schneiderhan
Beaver Bay, MN
Ernest Schober
2205 East 5th (SCS)
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Dennis Severson
94 Hays Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Helen Seymour
1925 East 1st
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Don Sieger
17 Cedar Dr.
Babbitt, MN
Dona Id J. Sieger
17 Cedar Dr.
Babbitt, MN
Mrs. Margaret Silverness
1904 North 51st Ave. E.
Duluth, MN 55804
Vernon Simula
SLSA
3879 Midway Road
Duluth, MN
-------
12
4k
Jerry S i nger
The Duluthian
220 Medical Arts Bldg.
Duluth, MN 55802
Frank J. Siskar
Mayor
ViI I age of McKinley, MN
Walter A. Ska I sky
19 Evans Cr.
SiIver Bay, MN
Kim Louise Skog
26 Davis Drive
SiIver Bay, MN
John R. Skoug
Steel worker Local Union 5296
31 Bel I Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Frank R. Smith
Director, SLSA
1422-1/2 East 1st St.
Duluth, MN
Wesley E. Smith
Research Aquatic Biologist
1822 East 3rd
Duluth, MN
Gerald J. Smrstick
USWA 5296
I 7 Evans Ci rcle
S i Iver Bay, MN
Stephen A. Stepec
Reserve Mining Co.
42 E. Beacon Hill Road
Ely, MN 55731
Anton Sterle
United Northern Sportsmen
2418 West 15th St.
Duluth, MN 55806
Leif 0.
Duluth,
Subm
Charles H. Stoddard
Resources Consultant
Northern Environmental
600 Christie Bldg.
Duluth, MN 55802
Counci
John R. Suffron
Environmental Control Engineer
White Pine Copper Co.
White Pine, Michigan
Dave Sutherland
KelIey High School
100 Edison Blvd.
SiIver Bay, MN
George Sutherland
100 Edison Blvd.
S iIver Bay, M
Leonard R. Sve
E. Star Rte., Box I20A
Two Harbors, MN 55616
Ragnald Sve
East Star Rte.
Two Harbors, MN
Roy J. Tanner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Canal Park, Duluth, MN
Joe Thomsen
Mayor, Village of Grand Mara is,
David S. Thornton
Independent citizen
5065 Hermantown Rd.
Duluth, MN
Sandy Tom Iinson
SSLS
Ashland, Wl
Ray Van Den Heuvel
Vi I lage CounciIman
10 Charles Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
Harold Varney
71 Banks Blvd.
S iIver Bay, MN
Mark Viola
KelIey H i gh School
39 Arthur Circle
SiIver Bay, MN
- S iIver Bay
-------
13 41
Char Ies WaIbridge
Biol. Lab. Technician
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Vern WaIenti n
Private citizen
20 James Rd.
Si Iver Bay, MN
Rudy Wend I and
4757 Local
Star Route
Babbitt, MN
Otto Westenfield
Mayor
Village of Floodwood, MN
Elsie Western
SLSA
Two Harbors, MN
RonaId L. WiegiI
Research Associate
Mineral Resources Research Center
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Mary Wing
I 3 James Road
SiIver Bay, MN
Theodore F. Wisniewski
Asst. to Administrator
Division of Environmental Protection
Wis. Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wl 537 I I
Mary Woods
SSLS
Ashland, Wl
Bernie Young
5296 Local Steel workers
Star Route Box 60
Si Iver Bay, MN
Bernard Zupancich
Zupancich Bros. Grocery Store
SiIver Bay, MN
-------
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
PROCEEDINGS
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. DAVID D. DOMINICK
MR. DOMINICK: I'd like to welcome you all, ladies and
gentlemen, to the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference.
I Understand we have a number of high school students in
the audience. Is that from Ashland High School, is that correct?
Very good. Glad to have you here on the Second Annual
Earth Day.
I also understand that we have a number of citizens from
Silver Bay here, and we welcome you.
The conference is hereby officially opened.
This second session of the conference in the matter of
pollution of Lake Superior and its Tributary Basin in the States of
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan has been reconvened under the pro-
visions of Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The first session of this conference was held on May 13-15, 1969, and
the conferees met in executive session on September 30 and October 1,
1969.
The second session met on April 29 and 30 of 1970 and met
again on August 12 and 13 of 1970.
The conference again met on January 14 and 15 of 1971.
Both the State and Federal Governments have responsibilities
in dealing with water pollution control problems. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act declares the States have primary rights and
responsibilities for taking action to abate and control pollution.
Consistent with this, we are charged by law to encourage the States
-------
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
in these activities. At the same time the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency is charged by law with specific
responsibilities in the field of water pollution control in
connection with pollution of interstate and navigable waters.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that pollution of
interstate or navigable waters endangers the health or welfare of
any persons shall be subject to abatement. This applies whether
the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such water after discharge
into a tributary.
The purpose of this conference is to bring together the
State water pollution control agencies, representatives of the
Environmental Protection Agency and other interested parties to
review the existing situation and the progress which has been made,
to lay a basis for future action by all parties concerned, and to
give the States, localities and industries an opportunity to take
additional and indicated remedial action under State and local law.
At the January 14-15, 1971 conference session, a plan was
submitted by Reserve Mining Company for the disposal of the taconite
tailings in Lake Superior. The conferees did not endorse any method
of disposal at the last session, but established a Technical
Committee to evaluate Reserve's plan and to consider land disposal
methods as well. The Committee was to complete its work within
45 days. This was done, and the conference today will consider the
report of the Technical Committee.
At this point in time I would like to have the conferees
introduce themselves, starting on my left, on your right, down at
the end of the table, will you please identify yourselves and the
-------
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
agencies which you represent.
MR. FROST: Francis B. Frost, Chief Engineer, Michigan Water
Resources Commission.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Theodore Wisniewski of the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
MR. FRANCOS: Thomas Frangos, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
MR. STEIN: Murray Stein, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
MR. DOMINICK: I'm David Dominick, I am the Acting Commissioner
of the Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency, in
Washington, D.C., and I am the representative of Administrator
Ruckelshaus of the Environmental Protection Agency.
MR. McDONALD: James 0. McDonald, Director of Regulatory
Programs, Region 5, Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago.
MR. BRYSON: Dale Bryson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago.
MR. TUVESON: Robert C. Tuveson, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
MR. ANDERSEN: I'm Howard A. Andersen, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
MR. MERRITT: My name is Grant J. Merritt, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Executive Director.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you. The parties to this conference
are the official State and water pollution control agencies of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Participation in this conference will be open to repre-
sentatives and invitees of these agencies and such persons as informed
-------
8
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
me that they wish to make statements. However, only the representatives
of the State water pollution control agencies and the Environmental
Protection Agency constitute the conferees.
Now, a word, if we may, about the procedures governing the
conduct of the conference. The conferees will be called upon to make
statements. The conferees, in addition, may call upon participants
whom they have invited to the conference to make statements. In
addition, we shall call on other interested individuals who wish to
present statements. At the conclusion of each statement, the conferees
will be given an opportunity to comment or ask questions, and I may
ask a question or two. This procedure has proven effective in the
past in reaching equitable solutions.
At the end of all of the statements, we shall have a
discussion among the conferees and try to arrive at a basis of
agreement on the facts of the situation. Then we shall attempt to
summarize the conference orally, giving the conferees, of course,
the right to amend or modify the summary.
Under the Federal law, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency is required at the conclusion of the conference to
prepare a summary of it, which will be sent to the conferees. The
summary, according to law, must include the following points: No. 1,
occurrence of pollution of interstate waters subject to abatement
under the Federal Act; No. 2, adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of that pollution; and No. 3, the nature of delays, if any,
being encountered in abatement of the pollution, and the Administrator
is also required to make recommendations for remedial action, if such
recommendations are indicated.
-------
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
A record and verbatim transcript of the conference is being
made by, and could you identify yourself, please.
THE COURT REPORTER: Gerald Schissler, St. Paul.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you.
This is being made for the purpose of aiding us in preparing
a summary and also for providing a complete record of what is said
here. It usually takes about three or four months for the transcript
to come out in printed form. If you wish a record beforehand, you can
check with the reporter, who is on contract to us, and make your own
arrangements with him to prepare a transcript.
I should indicate we do not print in color, so take into
account any charts you may present will be done in black and white.
Try not to refer to colors if you use graphic aids in your presentation,
as they will be meaningless in the reading of the transcript.
We shall make copies of the summary and transcript available
to the official State water pollution control agencies. We have
generally found that for the purpose of maintaining relationships
within the States, that people who wish summaries and transcripts
should request them through their State agency, rather than come
directly to the Federal Government. The reason for this is that when
the conference has been concluded, we would prefer people who are
interested in the problem, to follow their normal relations in dealing
with the State agencies rather than the Federal Government. That has
worked successfully in the past and we would be most happy to make
this material available for distribution.
I would suggest that all speakers and participants other
than the conferees making statements come to the lectern and identify
-------
10
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
themselves for purposes of the record.
I would like at this point to turn to the agenda which has
been drawn up in consultation with the conferees and read from that
agenda and receive any statements from the conferees as to the adequacy
of the agenda: Statements by Federal or State elected representatives;
a statement by EPA summarizing past conferences, to be conducted by
Mr. Dale Bryson; a report of the Lake Superior Technical Committee;
a statement by the Reserve Mining Company; statements by Minnesota
relative to Reserve Mining Company discharge; statements by Wisconsin
relative to Reserve Mining discharge; statements by Michigan relative
to Reserve Mining discharge; statements by private citizens or groups
relative to Reserve Mining discharge; statements by other Federal or
State agencies relative to Reserve Mining discharge; and discussion by
conferees.
We would hope to be able to conclude the majority of our
business with respect to the major discharger in this conference area,
the Reserve Mining Company, today, but we must keep that agenda
flexible in order to examine all of the facts.
Tomorrow it is planned to have statements by private citizens
or groups on other subjects; statements by Federal or State agencies
on other subjects; proposed provisions to Lake Superior water quality
criteria; status of compliance of dischargers in the conference area
from the following states in this order: Wisconsin, Michigan and
Minnesota; a discussion of the red clay area problem by Wisconsin; and
a discussion of other recommendations.
Are there any comments from the conferees at this time on
this agenda?
Very well. We would hope to stick to this agenda as carefully
-------
11
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
as possible. We want to accommodate everyone here who has taken time
and trouble to come and express an interest in this matter, and if
there are any extraordinary circumstances which require that you
testify, please present them to me personally, but we would hope to
stick to this agenda as closely as possible.
I would like to turn now to statements by Federal or State-
elected State Representatives.
We have a number of telegrams and messages here, including
letters. I would like to ask the conferees that these messages and
letters be placed in the record verbatim. Is there any desire that --
does any other conferee have additional telegrams or statements?
Well, there are not that many, and I might just read them
to make them available to the entire audience.
"I urge that you require Reserve Mining Company to dispose
of tailings on land. Please don't allow continued dumping in Lake
Superior. Help us to keep our lake clean, beautiful and live. Dr.
and Mrs. Otto Ruehr, South Range, Michigan."
"Cause Reserve Mining Company proposal for disposing of
taconite tailings has been found unacceptable. I now urge the
Enforcement Conference to devise criteria for an acceptable disposal
plan to be carried out by the company within a specified time period.
It is time to focus attention not on how or to what degree the pol-
lution will stop but when it will stop. Philip E. Ruppe, Member of
Congress, llth District of Michigan."
"The endangered state of Lake Superior being under active
discussion, we protest the Reserve Mining Company's being meanwhile
allowed to continue dumping in the lake and request that the company
-------
12
Opening Statement - David D. Dominick
be required to store their rock waste on the land until a final
decision is reached. Dr. Betzabe Allison, Bio-science Department,
Michigan Technology; Dr. John Allison, Chemistry Department, Michigan
Technology."
"As residents of the copper country in upper Michigan, we
want our names added to the list of those urging the immediate
stoppage of dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior. Please
force the Reserve Mining Company to use an on-land disposal for their
wastes. Please save Lake Superior from further pollution. Don't
allow Reserve Mining Company to delay any longer. Mr. and Mrs. John
Larue of Houghton, Michigan."
A statement from Carl W. Gutman, Co-chairman of Citizens to
Save Superior's Shoreline. "Conferees, to whom it may concern:
Citizens to Save Superior's Shoreline of Marquette, Michigan, Michigan
Branch of Save Lake Superior Association, wishes to reiterate its
position on Reserve Mining Company's protracted dumping of iron ore
tailings daily into Lake Superior. Under no circumstances must this
be allowed to continue. Profits cannot now be at the expense of
people and the environment. Reserve should be forced to halt production
immediately until a satisfactory(read clean)disposal plan can be
implemented. The debt it owes to the public in fouling the
environment is inestimable and the damage it has inflicted is ir-
reversible. Since Reserve Mining officials now know full well they
are the major polluters of Lake Superior, their continued disregard for
the environment is an affront to the public and a travesty to future
concern on the part of big business. For Federal Agencies to allow
this condition to exist is to perpetuate a grievous error. Sincerely,
-------
13
D. Bryson
Carlton W. Gutman, Co-chairman, Citizens to Save Superior's Shoreline."
Those represent the messages that have come to our attention.
I'd like to turn now to Mr. Dale Bryson with a statement
summarizing past conferences.
DALE S. BRYSON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL OFFICE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. BRYSON: On January 16, 1969, the Secretary of the
Interior called a conference in the matter of pollution of the waters
of Lake Superior and its Tributary Basin on the basis of reports,
surveys and studies indicating that interstate pollution was occurring,
and in accordance with Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The conference first met on May 13th to the 15th, 1969, and
reconvened in Executive Session on September 30 and October 1, 1969.
The conference has subsequently met April 29th and 30th, August 12th
and 13th, 1970 and January 14th to 15th, 1971.
At the first session of the conference, the conferees con-
cluded that the general quality of the water of Lake Superior is
excellent, and that the lake is a priceless natural heritage which
the present generation holds in trust for posterity, with an obligation
to pass it on in the best possible condition.
The largest single source of waste discharge to Lake
Superior is from the Reserve Mining Company taconite beneficiation
plant in Silver Bay, Minnesota. The conferees concluded at the first
session that there was presumptive evidence in the record to indicate
that the discharges from Reserve Mining Company endangered the health
-------
14
D. Bryson
or welfare of persons in States other than that in which such discharge
originated and this pollution was subject to abatement under the pro-
visions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The conferees also
addressed themselves to other discharges of waste originating in
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and concluded that there are other
discharges causing pollution of Lake Superior, endangering the health
or welfare of persons in States other than those in which the dis-
charges originated, and were also subject to abatement under the pro-
visions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The conferees recommended that all dischargers provide
secondary biological waste treatment or its equivalent by January 1974
or earlier if required by Federal-State Water Quality Standards. Reserve
Mining Company, because of the complexities involved, was requested to
undertake further engineering and economic studies relating to pos-
sible ways and means of reducing by the maximum practicable extent
the discharge of tailings to Lake Superior and to submit a report on
progress to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the conferees
by July 26, 1970. The report was to include a tentative timetable for
necessary action. In issuing the Summary of Conference, First Session,
the Secretary of the Interior recommended that a working copy of the
progress report be readied by April 1, 1970, with the final progress
report submitted by the July 26, 1970 date.
At the April 29-30, 1970 meeting of the Second Session, the
Reserve Mining Company presented its preliminary progress report, a
working copy of its progress report. At the August 12-13, 1970
meeting of the Second Session, the committee presented a further pro-
gress report. In light of the discussions at the Second Session, the
-------
15
D. Bryson
conferees recommended that the Reserve Mining Company provide to the
conferees, through the State of Minnesota, preliminary plans for
abatement of the pollution from its discharge to Lake Superior by
December 1, 1970, and the final plans and specifications by
September 1, 1971 for accomplishing its remedial program. All other
dischargers causing pollution of Lake Superior or its interstate
tributary streams were listed by the conferees along with final
completion dates for construction and placing in operation remedial
facilities.
Reserve Mining Company failed to submit the preliminary plans
by December 1, 1970. The company did request an extension of this
deadline which was not granted. At the January 14-15, 1971 Conference
Session, the committee submitted their preliminary plan titled "Plan
to Modify Tailings Discharge System." In order to effectively evaluate
Reserve's proposal, the conferees established a technical committee
and charged it with evaluating the plan put forth by Reserve and also
to consider land disposal of the taconite tailings. The committee
was instructed to report back to the conferees in 45 days. At this
session the Technical Committee will present its report and make its
recommendations.
While Reserve Mining Company has occupied a great share of
conference time and consideration, the other dischargers in the
conference area have not been ignored. All dischargers except Reserve
Mining Company have been placed under final requirements by the States
that will effect compliance with conference requirements. The States
will present a progress report on status of compliance later in the
conference.
-------
16
C. A. Johannes
This conference has taken strong action against all sources
of pollution to preserve and protect the general overall excellent
water quality of Lake Superior. Appropriate legal action has been
taken where necessary to achieve compliance with established require-
ments. All legal and/or administrative actions will continue to be
used as necessary to achieve compliance with the conference require-
ments.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
I'd like to hear now from Mr. Johannes, giving a report of
the Lake Superior Technical Committee.
CLARENCE A. JOHANNES
ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. JOHANNES: My name is Clarence A. Johannes. I'm the
Acting Director of the Division of Water Quality of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
The report of the Technical Committee is as follows:
The discharge of taconite tailings from the Reserve Mining
Company at Silver Bay, Minnesota, its effect on Lake Superior and
method of control, have occupied a large portion of the conference
discussions. At the January 14-15, 1971 conference, Reserve Mining
Company submitted a "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System." The
conferees established a Technical Committee to evaluate the plan
presented and also to consider land disposal of the taconite tailings.
The committee was instructed to report back to the conferees .in 45
days.
-------
17
C. A. Johannes
The following committee was designated by the conferees:
Minnesota: Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, John P. Badalich, succeeded by Mr. Merritt in March,
and appointed myself from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
named official representative in March.
Lovell E. Richie and George M. Koonce, both of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
In Wisconsin, Thomas G. Frangos, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources; Theodore F. Wisniewski, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, named official representative in January. Lloyd
Lueschow, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, was an alternate.
From Michigan we had Joe Bal, Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Thomas L. Kamppinen, Michigan Water Resources Commission
as an alternate.
From the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Dale Bryson
was the Secretary, and Dr. Donald Mount served as Advisor to the
Committee.
The Technical Committee held meetings in Minneapolis on
January 19, 26, February 2-4, 11, 25, and March 5 of this year.
In order for the committee to evaluate alternative methods
of disposal of taconite tailings, more detailed information was
needed than the indefinite method of "on-land disposal." The
committee, therefore, delineated methods of disposal they felt were
representative of the various alternatives available. These alter-
native methods were of necessity, general conceptual methods in place
of detailed specific methods that specified processes and piping
arrangements. These alternatives are described in Attachment A, which
-------
18
C. A. Johannes
is appended to this report.
If a true environmental impact assessment is going to be
made of alternative methods of disposal, a number of considerations
involving water, land and miscellaneous other aspects must be con-
sidered. The committee recognized this and developed a list of
criteria to use in evaluating any method. These are presented in
Attachment B to this statement. In reviewing Attachment B it becomes
evident that it would be impossible for any method of disposal to
minimize the impact on all of the criteria at one time. In other
words, a disposal method may satisfy certain criteria at the expense
of other criteria. It is at this point that environmental trade-offs
must be considered.
The committee combined the alternate methods oĢ disposal
and the evaluating criteria in tabular form, establishing a rating
system and distributed the information to various groups to elicit
discussion on the subject. The following organizations were requested
to appear before the committee to discuss their evaluation and any
other pertinent material. These were the Minnesota Environmental
Control Citizens Association, the Save Lake Superior Association,
the Northern Environmental Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Reserve Mining Company, the U. S. Bureau of Mines, and
the U. S. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
A summary of these organizations' discussion with the
committee is available in the committee minutes and will not be pre-
sented here. The appearance by these groups helped to establish impor-
tant concepts and served to highlight the difficulty of discussing
conceptual methods of tailings disposal and achieving a consensus of
-------
19
C. A. Johannes
opinion. Varying viewpoints were presented by the groups as to methods
of achieving adequate disposal. For example, Minnesota Environmental
Control Citizens Association, Save Lake Superior Association and
Northern Environmental Council favored a method of disposal of the
total tailings on-land in an area near Lax Lake. On the other hand,
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, while not making a
judgment on the alternative, said such a location for a tailings
lagoon presents certain safety hazards and possible impairment to the
land uses in that area which must be evaluated. Instead they suggested
as an alternate that a portion of the plant be relocated closer to
the mine. Reserve Mining Company explained that the latter plan would
nor be feasible.
The "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" as presented
by the Reserve Mining Company at the January 14-15 Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference was reviewed by the committee. The committee
concludes this method of disposal is unacceptable as it does not comply
with appropriate pollution abatement regulations. The main concerns
relative to this method are:
a. The proposed method would not eliminate green water.
b. The proposed method would not materially reduce dissolved
solids discharged to the lake.
c. The proposed method would not materially reduce the sus-
pended solids discharged to the lake, and
d. The proposed method would employ a flocculent which
would be discharged to the lake and which would have unknown ecological
impact.
When considering the abatement of an existing source of
-------
20
C. A. Johannes
pollution, the historical policy of the State and Federal Regulatory
Agencies has been to rely upon the discharger to develop the approp-
riate acceptable method of waste treatment consistent with established
guidelines. If the method proposed by the discharger is found to be
unacceptable, appropriate additional guidance is furnished the dis-
charger for use in making the proper corrections prior to resubmission.
In the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference situation, general guidance
and criteria are provided in the conference recommendations. Specifi-
cation of remedial facilities in securing compliance have been left
to each conferee for polluters located within its jurisdiction. The
Lake Superior Technical Committee feels that the same consideration
should apply to the Reserve Mining Company method of disposal.
We therefore condluded as a committee that the "Plan to
Modify Tailings Discharge System" as presented by Reserve Mining
Company is an unacceptable method of waste disposal.
No other firm methods of tailings disposal were presented
to the conference for evaluation.
The committee was unable to obtain and develop alternative
disposal methods in sufficient detail to technically evaluate them.
It is the responsibility of a waste discharger to develop
an acceptable method of waste treatment for presentation to the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
It is the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory
agencies to provide guidance to the discharger, in this case Reserve
Mining Company, as to the acceptability of a method of disposal and,
if unacceptable, to provide guidance as to the modifications necessary
to become acceptable.
-------
21
C. A. Johannes
The Lake Superior Technical Committee reccommends that:
1. Reserve Mining Company be instructed to develop a means
of taconite tailings disposal that will eliminate the causes of con-
cern delineated above and elsewhere in the conference proceedings.
2. Reserve Mining Company be provided with the appropriate
criteria upon which an acceptable method of disposal can be designed.
That concludes my report, Mr. Chairman.
(The above - mentioned report follows in its entirety.)
-------
22
LAKE SUPERIOR ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
ON
TACONITE TAILINGS DISPOSAL
MARCH 1971
-------
23
LAKE SUPERIOR ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
ON TACONITE TAILINGS DISPOSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
On the basis of reports, surveys or studies the Secretary of the
Interior, on January 16, 1969, called a Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Lake Superior and Its Tributary
Basin (Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan) under the provisions of Section 10
of the Water Pollution Control Act as amended.
The conference held sessions on May 13-15, 1969; September 30 -
October 1, 1969; April 29-30, 1970; August 12-13, 1970, and January 14-15,
1971.
The discharge of taconite tailings from the Reserve Mining Company
at Silver Bay, Minnesota - its effect on Lake Superior and method
of control have occupied a large portion of the conference's discussions.
At the January 14-15, 1971 conference, Reserve Mining Company submitted
a "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System." The conferees established a
Technical Committee to evaluate the plan presented and also to consider
land disposal of the taconite tailings. The committee was instructed to
report back to the conferees in 45 days.
The following committee was designated by the conferees:
Minnesota: Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
John P. Badalich, succeeded by Grant J. Merritt in March.
Clarence A. Johannes, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
named official representative in March.
Lovell E. Richie, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
George M. Koonce, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
-------
24
Wisconsin: Thomas G. Franges, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Theodore F. Wisniewski, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, named official representative in January.
Lloyd Lueschow, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
(Alternate).
Michigan: Joe Bal, Michigan Water Resources Commission.
Thomas L. Kamppinen, Michigan Water Resources Commission
(Alternate).
Federal: Dale S. Bryson, Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Office,(Secretariat).
Dr. Donald I. Mount served as an advisor for Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office, to the committee.
II. COMMITTEE ACTIONS
The Technical Committee held meetings in Minneapolis, Minnesota on
January 19, 26, February 2-4, 11, 25, and March 5, 1971.
In order for the committee to evaluate alternative methods of disposal
of taconite tailings, more detailed information was needed thanthe indefi-
nite method of "on-land disposal." The committee, therefore, delineated
methods of disposal they felt were representative of the various alterna-
tives available. These alternative methods were of necessityj general
conceptual methods versus detailed specific methods that specified processes
and/or piping arrangements. These alternative methods are described in
in attachment A.
-------
25
If a true environmental impact assessment is going to be made of
alternative methods of disposal, a number of considerations involving
water, land and miscellaneous other aspects must be considered. The com-
mittee recognized this and developed a list of criteria to use in eval-
uating any method. These are presented in attachment B. In reviewing
attachment B it becomes evident that it would be impossible for any method
of disposal to minimize the impact on all of the criteria at one time.
In other words, a disposal method may satisfy certain criteria at the ex-
pense of other criteria. It is at this point that environmental trade-offs
must be considered.
The committee combined the alternate methods of disposal and the
evaluating criteria in tabular form, established a rating system and dis-
tributed the information to various groups to elicit discussion on the
subject. The following organizations were requested to appear before
the committee to discuss their evaluation and any other pertinent material:
Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association, Save Lake Superior
Association, Northern Environmental Council, Minnesota Department of Natu-
ral Resources, Reserve Mining Company, U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Sport
Fisheries & Wildlife.
A summary of these organizations' discussion with the committee is
available in the committee minutes and will not be presented here. The
appearance by these groups helped to establish important concepts and
served to highlight the difficulty of discussing conceptual methods of
tailings disposal and achieving a consensus of opinion. Varying view-
points were presented by the groups as to methods of achieving adequate
disposal. For example, Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens
-------
26
Association, Save Lake Superior Association and Northern Environmental
Council favored a method of disposal of the total tailings on land in an
area near Lax Lake. On the other hand, the Minnesota Department of Natu-
ral Resources, while not making a judgement on the alternative said such
a location for a tailings lagoon presents certain safety hazards and
possible impairment to the land uses in that area which must be evaluated.
Instead they suggested as an alternative that a portion of the plant be
relocated closer to the mine. Reserve Mining Company explained that
the latter plan would not be feasible.
The "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" as presented by the
Reserve Mining Company at the January 14-15 Lake Superior Enforcement
Conference was reviewed by the Technical Committee. The committee con-
cludes this method of disposal is unacceptable as it does not comply with
appropriate pollution abatement regulations. The main concerns relative
to this method are:
a. The proposed method would not eliminate green water.
b. The proposed method would not materially reduce dissolved solids
discharged to the lake.
c. The proposed method would not materially reduce the suspended
solids discharged to the lake.
d. The proposed method would employ a flocculent which would be
discharged to the lake and which would have unknown ecological
impact.
When considering the abatement of an existing source of pollution
the historical policy of the State and Federal regulatory agencies has
been to rely upon the discharger to develop the appropriate acceptable
-------
27
method of waste treatment consistent with established guidelines. If
the method proposed by the discharger is found to be unacceptable, appro-
priate additional guidance is furnished the discharger for use in making
the proper corrections prior to resubnrission. In the Lake Superior En-
forcement Conference situation, general guidance and criteria are pro-
vided in the conference recommendations. Specifications of remedial
facilities in securing compliance have been left to each, conferee for
polluters located within its jurisdiction. The Lake Superior Technical
Committee feels that the same consideration should apply to the Reserve
Mining Company method of disposal.
III. CONCLUSIONS
The Lake Superior Technical Committee concludes that:
1. The "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" as presented by
Reserve Mining Company is an unacceptable method of waste disposal.
2. No other firm methods of tailings disposal were presented to the
conference for evaluation.
3. The committee was unable to obtain and develop alternative dis-
posal methods in sufficient detail to technically evaluate them.
4. It is the responsibility of a waste discharger to develop an
acceptable method of waste treatment for presentation to the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
5. It is the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory agencies
to provide guidance to the discharger, in this case Reserve
Mining Company, as to the acceptability of a method of disposal
and, if unacceptable, to provide guidance as to the modifications
necessary to become acceptable.
-------
28
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Lake Superior Technical Committee recommends that:
1. Reserve Mining Company be instructed to develop a means of
taconite tailings disposal that will eliminate the causes of
concern delineated above and elsewhere in the conference
proceedings.
2. Reserve Mining Company be provided with the appropriate criteria
upon which an acceptable method of disposal can be designed.
-------
29
Attachment A
DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPOSAL
1. Present method Of discharge. Discharge all tailings and wastewater,
untreated, directly to Lake Superior from existing facility at
Silver Bay.
2. Proposed method Of discharge. This encompasses the plan entitled,
"Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System," as presented at the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference. It entails hydro-separation
of the coarser tailings and coagulation of the hydro-separator over-
flow. The combined underflow from the clarifiers and hydro-separators
will be discharged in the conduit down the face of the existing delta,
150 feet below the lake's surface. The clarified overflow will be
discharged to the harbor area.
3. Modified proposed method. Method No. 2 above modified for direct
recirculation of clarifier overflow for use as process water with no
discharge to the harbor. Assume an acceptable coagulant is used.
Assume existing launderers are removed.
4. Lake Shore tailings pond. A dike of coarse tailings would be built in
the lake with the base approximately 100 feet deep. Subsequent to
construction all tajlings would be discharged to the pond vith the over-
flew being recirculated as process water. The proposal would eliminate
the discharge of any tailings to the lake other than the coarse tailings
required to build the dikes.
5. Soli ds to denuded area . Separation of solids at plant site utilizing
system as described in number 2. Solids would be hauled to a remote
site for disposal in a denuded area. Complete recirculation of clari-
fied water for use as process water.
6. Coarse material to Lake Superior, fines toland disposal. Coarse
material would be separated at the plant without use of a flocculent
utilizing processes described in number 2. This material would be dis-
charged to Lake Superior in approximately 10,000 gallons per minute of
water. The fine fraction of tailings would be discharged to a settling
pond on land. Assume recirculation of any overflow from the pond for
use as process water, and hence, no discharge from the pond area to a
surface water course. Assume diversion of natural runoff around the
pond.
7. Coarse material to Lake Superior, fines to land disposal, overflow to
surface water course.Assume conditions same as No. 6 except that over-
flow from settling pond meets all applicable effluent standards for dis-
posal of surface waters.
-------
30
8. Total tailings on land, no discharge to a surface water course. Total
tailings would be discharged to a settling pond with the overflow being
recirculated for process water. All natural drainage would be diverted
around the settling pond.
9. Total tailings on land, overflewto surface water. Total tailings
would be discharged to a settling pond with the overflow from the site
meeting all applicable effluent standards for disposal to surface waters.
10. Relocation of beneflclatlon plant near the existing mine site. Assume
process water is obtained, frcm the immediate area initially with com-
plete recirculation of settling pond overflow thereafter. Assume makeup
water is obtained from the immediate a.rea.
-------
Attachment B _,
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF DISPOSAL
WATER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Meets Federal-State water quality standards:
a. 5 JTU turbidity
b. 30 mg/1 suspended solids
c. 1 mg/1 phosphorus
d. 10/100 nil fecal caliform
e. pH 6.5 to 8.5
f. Secondary treatment or equivalent
f. Non-degradation
2. Minimum discharge to surface waters
a. Suspended solids
b. Dissolved solids
3. Minimum appropriation of surface waters
4. Minimum discharge of chemical additives to surface waters
5. Esthetically pleasing
LAND CONSIDERATIONS
6. Acceptable for:
a. Wildlife
b. Timber & pulp production
c. Recreation
7. Esthetically pleasing
8. Reclaimable
9- Minimum post-operative maintenance
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
10. No dust problem
11. Flexibility to accomodate process changes
12. Adequate capacity to handle future tailings production
13. Economically feasible
lit. Technically feasible
15- Reliability
16. Short construction time
-------
32
E. T. Fride
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you very much.
Do we have any comments or questions on the report presented
by the representative of the Technical Committee? Comments or questions
from the conferees?
State of Wisconsin?
MR. FRANCOS: We will reserve any comments until we comment
on the Reserve Mining situation.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you.
State of Michigan?
MR. FROST: No, sir, not at this time.
MR. DOMINICK: State of Minnesota?
MR. MERRITT: Minnesota has no questions at this time.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you.
We'll hear now from the Reserve Mining Company
All right, Mr. Fride.
EDWARD T. FRIDE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. FRIDE: Mr. Commissioner, conferees, my name is Edward
Fride. I am a practicing lawyer in Duluth. I'm appearing here on
behalf of Reserve Mining Company.
At the January 15, 1971 Session of this conference, the
conferees concurred in the establishment of a Technical Committee,
which was charged with responsibility, and I quote, "The committee
will consider land disposal as well as the underwater disposal plan
presented here and come up with its evaluation as well as its recom-
mendations. . .the Committee can just look at the feasibility of this
kind of thing and hopefully get in touch with Reserve or any of the
-------
33
E. T. Fride
other parties and ask them to consult with them and see what recom-
mendations they can come up with.
"Now, I think we are faced" and I'm continuing the quote
"with several propositions. We are faced with the proposition of
and let' s start the other way by saying we are going to entertain the
Reserve proposal for underwater disposal as is. We are going to
entertain that and recommend it with modifications. We are going to
reject it and tell them to go to a land disposal system, or we are
going to reject it completely, that they have not come up with a
remedial program and take appropriate action legal action and let
the court decide what the solution should be... I would strongly urge
that everyone get all their theories out on the table at least at
this go-around...." end of quote.
This then was the charge to the Technical Committee.
Responsive to the Technical Committee's request, Reserve Mining Company
appeared before it on February 3, 1971, and submitted at that time its
written response to the committee's inquiry. A copy of that response
has been previously supplied to the conferees, and at this time, Mr.
Commissioner, I would like to formally make such response an exhibit
in these proceedings.
MR. DOMINICK: Without objection that will.be done.
(The response referred to is entitled "Reserve Mining
Company's Response to Inquiry from Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
Technical Committee" and is marked Exhibit 1 and is on file at HQ, EPA,
Washington, D.C. and Region V, Chicago, Illinois.)
MR. FRIDE: Statements and activities pertinent to the
Technical Committee are summarized and referred to in my affidavit
-------
34
E. T. Fride
which I submitted to the Minnesota District Court, which is attached
and made a part of the statement which I am presenting this morning.
Mr. Merritt's responsive affidavit is attached to my statement for its
informative value.
By letter dated April 15, 1971, from the Environmental
Protection Agency, Reserve was furnished the report of the Lake
Superior Technical Committee, which has just been formally presented
by Mr. Johannes of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff. I
think it's significant and should be noted that the report provides
in part, and I quote, "The Committee was unable to obtain and develop
alternative disposal methods in sufficient detail to technically evaluate
them..." And just pausing for moment, I think it is significant as
to whether or not, as you review the committee's report, whether they
were in position to meet the charge that was addressed to them. The
report continues, "It is the responsibility of the appropriate
regulatory agencies to provide guidance to the discharger, in this
case Reserve Mining Company, as to the acceptability of a method of
disposal and, if unacceptable, to provide guidance as to the
modifications necessary to become acceptable... Reserve Mining Company
be provided with the appropriate criteria upon which an acceptable method
of disposal can be designed." End of quotes from that Technical
Committee report.
Now, inasmuch as the "guidance" and the "criteria" contem-
plated by the Technical Committee has not been presented to Reserve,
it would be now premature for Reserve to make an analysis and
evaluation of the Technical Committee report, and the proposed agenda
referred to by the Commissioner provides that following this statement
-------
35
E. T. Fride
by Reserve, there will be statements by Minnesota relative Reserve's
discharge. I think it is significant that just last Monday at the
April 19 meeting of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - and
parenthetically, may I suggest that this conference under the Federal
law is a conference of the agencies', it does not purport to be a
conference reflecting the views of any individual or any single
political figure, but rather under law, it is a conference of the
agencies. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on April 19, 1971,
at its regular monthly meeting unanimously passed a motion to the
effect that the Minnesota representatives are obligated to make clear
to the conferees that any Minnesota statements or Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency staff reports which may be presented to this conference
have not been approved or sanctioned by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and do not reflect the policy of that Agency, since any policy
considerations contained in any such statements or staff reports have
not been the subject of an opportunity to review or vote on them by
the Agency which is the official party to this conference.
Now, subsequent to the presentation of Reserve's modification
plan to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on February 8, 1971, that
Agency directed its staff to engage in good faith negotiations with
Reserve Mining Company consistent with Judge C. L. Eckman's decision
of December 15, 1970. That court directed negotiation was also the
subject of a subsequent order, in which the Court said that while there
was evidence of an arbitrary position taken by the director, that the
Agency itself had made clear to the court as it had made clear to its
staff, that it wanted to engage in good faith negotiations with Reserve
Mining Company consistent with the judge's order. The plan that was
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was presented on
February 8. Now, there may be some question here as to times. But it
-------
36
E. T. Fride
perhaps, parenthetically, could be noted that Reserve had until
May 15 of 1971 to present a plan to the Minnesota Agency. It did not
wait until May 15. It came in as soon as possible on February 8, and
presently, we are hopeful that there will in fact be good faith
negotiations between Reserve and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The plan of Reserve, as Mr. Bryson has noted, was presented
to this conference at its January 15, 1971 Session.
It is respectfully requested, Mr. Commissioner and conferees,
that Reserve be afforded an opportunity to later respond during this
conference session to any statements to be made with respect to Reserve's
plan by the States, private citizens or groups, Federal or State
agencies or the conferees. Until Reserve is made aware of further
conference proceedings, it has not been provided with the guidance
contemplated by the Technical Committee report, quote, "As to the
acceptability of Reserve's plan (as represented) and, if unacceptable,
guidance as to the modifications necessary to be acceptable" as con-
cluded by the Lake Superior Technical Committee of this conference.
Again, it would be premature for Reserve at this point, without such
guidance and without such criteria, to attempt to make any meaningful
response to the Technical Committee report.
As the Commissioner noted in his opening remarks, this
conference was convened under Section 10 (d) (1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. That Act contains a congressional declaration
of policy which states, and I quote, "...It is declared to be the
policy of Congress to recognize, preserve and protect the primary
responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling
water pollution...Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as
impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the
-------
37
E. T. Fride
States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such
States."
The Act goes on to provide that, "Consistent with the policy
declaration of this chapter, "that I referred to, "State and interstate
action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters shall be
encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or pursuant
to Court Order under Subsection (h) of this Section, be displaced by
Federal enforcement action."
Now, as the conferees and the audience are well aware, both
Reserve Mining Company and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
have expended very substantial effort in the Minnesota Courts in
attempting to arrive at a final legal conclusion of the controversy.
The issues litigated have included whether certain interstate water
quality standards are reasonable as applied to Reserve, and
significantly, whether Reserve is polluting Lake Superior within the
meaning of the very stringent Minnesota definition of pollution, or
is guilty of creating any nuisance by its discharge. These issues
have been determined at the trial court level.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, after the decision
that I referred to, moved the Court for amended findings or a new
trial. Now, this motion has been denied by the Court as of April 8, 1971.
On April 20, last Tuesday, Reserve Mining Company was served
with a Notice of Appeal by the or to the Minnesota Supreme Court
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Now, in making this appeal
to our Supreme Court in this State, the Agency is obviously expressing
its intention to pursue the matter to the highest appellate court in
Minnesota for final determination. Thus, until the Minnesota Supreme
Court has resolved the matter, Reserve is subject to possible con-
flicting directives, and in the light of the congressional policy to
-------
38
E. T. Fride
which I have referred, under which this conference was convened, it
is respectfully submitted that the conference should defer further
action until the Supreme Court determination sought by Minnesota is
available. This is not in any way to suggest that Reserve is un-
willing to promptly evaluate any criteria and guidance proffered by
the conference with respect to possible modification of its tailings
system. Affirmatively, it is most willing to evaluate and consider
any guidance offered by this conference to the company, just as it is
more than willing to negotiate in good faith with the Minnesota
Agency with respect to any possible modifications.
It is, of course, not desirous of being placed in the un-
tenable position of obeying one of several conflicting directives at
its peril. To that end, and in view of the primary responsibility
of Minnesota, it is also recommended that the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and Reserve negotiate with respect to a modification
as contemplated by the Court Order and the expressed desire of the
Minnesota Agency. Any such agreement could form the basis for a
Minnesota recommendation to this conference, and aid in what all well
intentioned parties desire a prompt, fair and a reasonable solution
to this controversy; which, of course, should consider the impact of
the discharge on the total environment, air and land, as well as
water, and a solution which does not threaten the continuance of
Reserve's significant contribution to this area, the State and the
Nation.
That, Mr. Commissioner, concludes the statement which
Reserve would like to submit at this time. I am, of course, available
to respond to any questions, but I do, as I indicated earlier,
respectfully request an opportunity to again be heard at this session
-------
39
E. T. Fride
of the conference to discuss with the conferees any guidance or
criteria that may be suggested by the conferees.
MR. DOMINICK: Are there any questions by the conferees?
MR. STEIN: I have a comment about the representatives of
Minnesota not being authorized to speak for their Board. I think
in all cases we have that problem when a conferee comes to any
conference. Matters which come up at the conference cannot be
anticipated, and often the conferee has to make a judgment on how
he is going to react one way or the other. Then, of course, any
State Board has the privilege of ratifying it. However, I think
from the Federal point of view, if we are going to utilize this
procedure, when we send an official notification to a State and it
sends the representative, we have to assume that he is speaking for
the State for the purposes of this conference, and the recommendations
will be sent to the Administrator of EPA in accordance with Federal
law. This is what the law provides. If the State responds by sending
a conferee here, we certainly assume the good faith and credit of
the State in sending the duly authorized representative to the con-
ference.
MR. FRIDE: Well, Mr. Stein, Mr. Commissioner, if I may just
respond to that comment.
I am sure that what you have indicated is probably the
general rule and is one that provides for practical workability at
most conference sessions. In many respects, however, I suggest that
this conference relating apparently as it does to one discharger, at
least the principal focus is obviously in that direction, is some-
what unique from a number of other conferences. And I suggest, too,
that an agency which is the conferee, should and must have, in
-------
40
E. T. Fride
fairness and consistent with its responsibilities, an opportunity to
give instructions to the conferees who are representing that particular
agency.
Now, the subject - and I don't want to take a great deal of
the conferees time on it, but I think it's quite pertinent and quite
important - the point that you bring up, because we are dealing here
with a rather unique situation, I suppose it isn't always the case
where the principal civilian antagonist of a company ends up purporting
to act in judgment of the views which he has long expressed. I
think that when Mr. Merritt appeared before the Technical Committee,
he took a very definite stand - one that I think has been consistent
with his long held views on the subject, but which I submit operated
to really frustrate an honest technical evaluation of Reserve's plan
or any other plan. Because he stated simply that any plan or com-
bination of plans which did not envision total on-land deposition of
Reserve's tailings would not be acceptable, and he purported to be
speaking in an official capacity. Now, with that kind of an input,
if you will, to the Technical Committee, it was hardly in a posture
to do that which the charge of this conference stated; namely, to
objectively evaluate Reserve's plan, to come up with any recommen-
dations as to modifications if the plan was found unacceptable, and
also to evaluate any other plan. It is significant to note that
no other plan was presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
I think that as practical people we can't simply deal in concepts.
We have to deal in reality, and that concept, and I'm not suggesting
that it isn't a sincerely held viewpoint, but it does get into the
situation where you may not have a committee able to fulfill its
charge. And it was with respect to that that the agency took the
-------
41
E. T. Fride
specific direction that it did that I have referred to last Monday
when similar viewpoints were expressed by Mr. Merritt to the agency.
He suggested, and an inquiry was made who did he speak for in ex-
posing total on-land deposition, and the response was himself and
the Governor. Well, the agency specifically took the action that
I referred to, and I think in that light it is significant and it
is not just the normal situation where you have somebody clothed
with apparent authority. You have a specific directive that Minnesota,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is not committed to total
on-land deposition of Reserve's tailings, and so with that, Mr.
Stein, I think we have a little bit different situation than would
be the normal case in a conference procedure.
MR. DOMINICK: Mr. Fride, if I may speak to that presen-
tation of yours. I do not intend, as Chairman of this conference,
to go behind any actions taken by the Technical Committee which has
filed its report with us. That report was filed with the con-
currence and with the approval of all members of that Technical
Committee, and they reported back to this conference. The Technical
Committee found that the disposal plan presented by Reserve Mining
Company was unacceptable, and I believe spelled out many of the
reasons for its unacceptability.
As to the problems that you have discussed within the
agency of the State of Minnesota, I, as Chairman, also do not in-
tend to go behind those questions. We are dealing in an official
capacity with the State of Minnesota. We have given official
notice to the State of Minnesota, and we assume that the repre-
sentatives here are speaking for the sovereign State of Minnesota.
-------
42
E. T. Fride
With that, I would turn the mike to any other conferees
that wish to comment on this point.
MR. MERRITT: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioner, if I may
be permitted to make a short reply.
MR. DOMINICK: You certainly may.
MR. MERRITT: Thank you, Mr. Dominick. I appreciate your
comments, and I think that we should recognize, first of all, that
the conferees, Dr. Andersen, Chairman of our Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, and Mr. Robert Tuveson, and myself as Executive
Director, are fully authorized to be here and represent the State
of Minnesota.
I would like to just briefly reply to some of the comments
of Mr. Fride. We have been through this before, and I don't think
we should get involved in any detailed argument back and forth, and
I am a little bit surprised that it came up again. We have been
through this at least twice now in the last week, and I have made
my comments. But I think for the record since Mr. Fride has made
certain allegations that I should respond, and I would like to
briefly mention the attack against me by the Reserve Mining Company
in my appearance before the Technical Committee and the allegation
that I have frustrated the work of the Technical Committee of this
conference. I deny that categorically, and I want to explain just
exactly what happened, briefly. I attended the last committee
session on March 5, 1971 in Dale Bryson's office of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The draft of the Technical Committee report was
there and contained the essence of the report that has been pre-
sented by the committee here today, and specifically contained the
finding that the Reserve Mining plan was unacceprable. Now, how
-------
43
E. T. Fride
could I frustrate the work of that committee? I think that charge
is false, and I think the drafts of the committee reporrs will sub-
stantiate what 1 have said.
Now, Mr. Fride and Reserve Mining Company, and I assume
you're speaking when you talk about my arbitrary attitude, Mr.
Fride, for the company, I know this isn't a personal attack by you.
MR. FRIDE: It certainly isn't.
MR. MERRITT: I would like to explain just what this is
all about if I might, briefly, Mr. Chairman.
What Mr. Fride and the company seem to be saying is that
because the Governor of Minnesota,, the Governor of Wisconsin, and
now I'm pleased to hear and see, the Governor of Michigan, have en-
dorsed on-land disposal; and 1, in my official capacity as the
representative of the Governor of Minnesota, Governor Wendell Anderson,
have made certain statements in regard to that policy; and I fully
support that policy that somehow this is arbitrary. I think the
question that is before this governmental body and other govern-
mental bodies in the country today is whether we, as governmental
representatives, representatives of the people, if you will, can
carry out the will of the people. The Governors haven't taken
any arbitrary stand here. They have campaigned throughout the
length and breadth of their States, and I can speak for Governor
Anderson in this regard. This is a policy which is based on the
people that he has talked to and the will of the people of the
State of Minnesota. It is not an arbitrary stand. It is not a
stand that he accepted just because I told him to, by the way. It
is a position which he arrived at independently, I might say, and
his position is just basically this that the people of Minnesota
-------
44
E. T. Fride
are insisting that these taconite tailings be deposited on-land.
Just one more point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. In line
with what Mr. Stein said - and I fully subscribe to his views -
I think what Mr. Fride and the company are seeking here, when he
states that he understands the procedure of this conference but
that there ought to be some special exception, is that the Reserve
Mining Company is the only discharger that is not under an abate-
ment schedule, and that chart up on the wall behind the confer-
ence table here points that out, I think very dramatically. When
you read the legend, the only circle that is entirely black, which
signifies no treatment, is Reserve Mining Company. Now, when they
take the position that Mr. Fride is requesting, they're asking for
continuation of the special consideration that they have received
over the past two years from this conference and from others, and
I'd like to just end by quoting from a statement Mr. Murray Stein
made to the last session of this conference when he stated in
reference to the Reserve Mining matter, "I feel that this special
consideration of one polluter must end."
Thank you.
MR. FRIDE: Mr. Commissioner, perhaps if I might cer-
tainly I have not and do not now intend to make any personal
criticism of Mr. Merritt's views. I think, however, that there
may be differences of opinion which are a proper subject of con-
ference deliberations.
The word "arbitrary" that I utilized was not my word,
but rather a District Judge's word in describing the actions taken
by Mr. Merritt at the Technical Committee sessions, and so I am
simply quoting his word, not any others.
-------
45
E. T. Fride
I might just suggest, Mr. Commissioner, that in this
situation when one says that we will not go behind a particular
report, I know that you have a legal background. I know that.
I suppose it would only be a fair situation when, for example, a
doctor might register a diagnosis, I think it would simply be
fair to ask him whether he's examined the patient before he
would operate; and I think that that is what I am referring to
in making it a part of the record. The situation is I think that
the Technical Committee representatives are certainly well inten-
tioned and generally very technically qualified. But the question
is what was the frame of reference in which they were put, and
what kinds of attitudes were expressed to them which they were
trying to accommodate and yet live within the charge of the
committee of this conference? And so I simply refer to that and
make it a part of the record, because I think it is fair. I
think you know that when we talk about legalisms, this company is
branded in the medium, through a Technical Committee report, that
a plan is quote "unacceptable" end of quote.
Now, I think perhaps all of us may have some idea what
the Technical Committee had in mind when it made that statement.
It said that the plan as presented is not acceptable. It didn't
address itsel-f to possible modifications. But the fact of the
matter is that this company is subjected to a great deal of crit-
icism simply by the use of that term. And I suggest that it is
an important function of the conference, as they come to grips with
the Technical Committee report, to properly inquire whether the
Technical Committee had the opportunity to fulfill its charge and
whether or not its report purports to be an objective evaluation
-------
46
E. T. Fride
of Reserve's plan, possible modifications to it, and possible land
deposition. I think that is a proper and a fair question for this
conference.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you, Mr. Fride, for your considered
statements. I would like to respond to some of the issues and
questions that you have raised with respect to the Technical Com-
mittee. Then I would hope that we could recess for a short time
and after the recess receive statements from the various States.
But responding to some of your concerns, I do not believe
that the Reserve Mining Company has been unfairly treated by the
handling of this Technical Committee report. The report clearly
states why the plan as proposed by Reserve was found to be un-
acceptable:
a. The proposed method would not eliminate green water.
b. The proposed method would not materially reduce dis-
solved solids discharged to the lake.
c. The proposed method would not materially reduce the
suspended solids discharged to the lake.
d. The proposed method would employ a flocculent which
would be discharged to the lake and which would have unknown
ecological impact.
Further, I think the committee went to some length in its
report to discuss the traditional role of those who are regulated,
as opposed to the regulators - be it a State agency or a Federal
.Agency - the role being that in order to abate pollution those who
are being regulated are requested, and in the past have fulfilled
those requests, to come up with acceptable plans for treatment and
disposal of their wastes. In this case, the Technical Committee
-------
47
E. T. Fride
pointed out very clearly that there had not been plans developed
with sufficient specificity, with sufficient detail to present
to the Technical Committee alternatives for on-land disposal, and
therefore the committee was unable to give its attention and give
its technical expertise to such on-land disposal proposals. I
think those two points need to be made.
Are there any other questions or comments here from
conferees?
MR. STEIN: I have one other legal one, that I hope
won't kick off a debate. I just made the first one on the
authority of the State conferees for the record, and I have an-
other legal point which Mr. Fride raises which goes to the heart
of the matter. When you say it is submitted that the conference
should defer further action until the State Supreme Court determi-
nation sought by Minnesota is available, now, the notion here is that
we defer any action here until the State court takes action. Now,
again, we are faced with the proposition - and I duly respect
your thesis on this, Mr. Fride, and your citation of the law - but
if we followed that procedure, then any conference anywhere in
the country could be held up by someone taking the case to a State
court, appealing it, and then getting the notion that we should
wait and not take any action here until we have an appeal. A
roughly similar case was just considered - a case brought by
Ohio. It went to the Supreme Court, where the United States Supreme
Court said that the conference was the place to handle the case
and that the court would not be appropriate. Now, I think we have
to get this kind of balance, but I think what you are raising here
is a key question. If your thesis were true, then the conferees
couldn't say anything and we would just go home and wait for the
-------
48
E. T. Fride
Minnesota Supreme Court.
MR. FRIDE: Well, Mr. Stein, as I am sure you are well
aware, the Ohio case that you refer to in the United States Supreme
Court was perhaps a little broader than the comment mentioned. That
decision was one which simply stated -- said that the United States
Supreme Court was not the proper forum to initiate legal action
because the United States Supreme Court was not properly equipped
to evaluate facts. It did refer to trial court's ability so to do
and also referred to the conference proceedings, and the point I
think being very properly one that here we have already expended a
great deal of effort in giving everybody an ample opportunity to
ventilate their views, scientific and otherwise, in the court. It
is not Reserve Mining Company's decision to appeal that case to the
Minnesota Supreme Court. Reserve Mining Company was and is willing
to abide the judgement of that court, but since the Minnesota Pol-
lution Control Agency has taken the initiative and action in
appealing, it obviously must follow, I suggest, that a court -- a
Supreme Court of the State having jurisdiction over the parties in
possession of the facts is in a position to make a definitive
ruling on the subject. Now, if this conference or some subsequent
action comes up with a directive which is in conflict with that of
the Minnesota Supreme Court, I think we are in the obvious illogical
and unfortunate position of (1) being forestalled by activity which
tends to minimize the opportunities to do that which Reserve Mining
Company is most willing and anxious to do -- resolve this matter
on a fair and equitable basis; and (2) if we get a conflict develop-
ing through the conference route as opposed to the Minnesota Supreme
-------
49
E. T. Fride
Court route, then who is to take precedence? Well, Congress, as I
am sure you are well aware, Mr. Stein, has already addressed itself
to this possible problem saying that the State in which the discharge
occurs, that agency has the primary responsibility. And so I sug-
gest that we permit the implementation of that congressional policy
by allowing the State to pursue that remedy which it has chosen to
get a definitive decision, and I think we'll be closer in point of
time to a solution. I am not suggesting for a moment, as I try to
make clear, that everything stop until that court acts. I told the
agency last Monday, I told the District Court, I have told this
conference, that Reserve is more than willing to evaluate criteria
to try to come up with something acceptable. But, obviously, in
order for there to be any kind of a meaningful resolution, there
has to be some kind of concurrent action by this conference, by
the court, or agreement on some course of action that will tend
to eliminate the dilemma that anybody is faced with having the
possibility of one judge on one side or one administrative agency
on the other side issue completely contradictory orders.
MR. STEIN: I don't think that is what I am addressing
myself to. But I don't know, Mr. Fride, how significant it is who
makes the appeal, because in a sense we would have to determine
whether we were going to defer action under a Federal endorsement
procedure by who made the appeal, whether it was the plaintiff or
the defendant. I am not sure the Congress had this in mind. But
I also would like to point out, that we do recognize the primary
rights and responsibilities of the case, and if I recall that trial
judge's comment, he did say that this case probably involved more
scientific testimony than probably any other case in the history of
-------
50
E. T. Fride
Minnesota. And you might recall, if you would look just at the
list of the scientific witnesses, that on request we supplied to
the State of Minnesota 11 of those witnesses. So we did cooperate
fully with the State in its case. We would hope that in this
reciprocal problem we have of water pollution control, the State
is going to cooperate with this as they have in these proceedings.
MR. FRIDE: I might just suggest, Mr. Stein, and I am
most aware of the distinguished Federal scientists who appeared during
the 7-week trial, and I think it is significant to note that the
judge in evaluating all of that testimony, in effect, suggested
that his conclusion was consistent with the views held by those
distinguished Federal scientists who did appear. And I think
that that is a significant and an important kind of a recogni-
tion, but, actually, if we could take and eliminate some sense of
the politics from this problem and rely on technical experts, I
think we could reach a solution to this problem much more rapidly.
And I might suggest, too, Mr. Stein, that I am not suggesting at
all that the State of Minnesota be prohibited from doing that which
it has solemnly assured the court and its duly elected -- duly ap-
pointed citizen members, that it wants to negotiate in good faith;
it wants to try to resolve it. All I am suggesting is let's give
them an opportunity to do so.
Now, I think that later on today you may have the benefit
of a report from a member of the staff of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. I say that because Mr. Merritt was kind enought to
supply me with a copy of it last evening. I think in that report
there is some indication that the Minnesota Agency is not yet com- '
pletely in a posture where it can definitively arrive at a conclu-
sion. And all I'm suggesting to this conference is that in the light
-------
51
E. T. Fride
of the congressional policy, in the light of the position of the
agency, that it wants to try to negotiate and resolve this matter
in good faith, and certainly in the light of Reserve's willingness
to do so, that if this were to come to pass, it could form the
basis for a significant recommendation to this conference and would
be consistent with both our State and Federal laws.
MR. DOMINICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Fride.
Yes, do you have a question?
MR. FRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
DR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am Howard A. Andersen,
Chairman of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency of Minnesota,
and although it seems redundant now, and I didn't bring along my
own cheering section, yet the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
did in truth on April 19 instruct me to make it clear to this
conference that any views expressed by any of its conferees, do
not express the considered viewpoint of the agency. We have not
had a chance to evaluate the technical reports and have not dis-
cussed this matter in detail.
We are in a peculiar position in Minnesota. We are
under conflicting orders by different courts, and this is one of
the reasons I believe that we would like to make it clear that the
agency has not taken a position as yet.
MR. DOMINICK: Mr. Merritt, you said that you had one
further question for Mr. Fride.
MR. MERRITT: Yes, I do, Mr. Commissioner.
In connection with his report on Page 5, if I might re-
fer to Page 5. Mr. Fride, referring to your comments of- the com-
pany's position on Page 5, where Reserve states its willingness to
-------
E. T. Fride 51a
promptly evaluate criteria and its cooperation in evaluating
and considering any criteria that the conference may come up
with later in the session, I find it interesting that you use
these words "evaluate and consider." Would Reserve Mining Com-
pany accept the direction -- in other words, accept, not just
"evaluate and consider", but accept any direction from this con-
ference for on-land disposal?
MR. FRIDE: Well, I don't like too many medical analogies,
but would you accept going to a doctor and having him tell you that
he is going to perform surgery without indicating why or to what
extent? I think that the suggestion that, at this point in time,
before the conferees and before the Minnesota Agency have had an
opportunity to enunciate what the criteria and guidance are, it
would be totally impossible for me to say at this point in time
that it was considered something that could be accepted or re-
jected without really understanding and knowing what it is and
what kind of guidance is proper. I just couldn't do that, Mr.
Merritt.
MR. DOMINICK: Any further questions for Mr. Fride?
Thank you very much, once again, Mr. Fride.
(Mr. Fride1s statement in its entirety follows.)
I suggest we take a 15-minute recess and be back to hear
the comments of the States. (A short recess was taken.)
MR. DOMINICK: Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to hear
now from the State of Minnesota and its conferees.
Mr. Merritt, Dr. Andersen, Mr. Tuveson, would you please
present the position of the State of Minnesota.
-------
52
STATEMENT OF RESERVE MINING COMPANY
TO
APRIL Z2-23, 1971 SESSION OF
LAKE SUPERIOR ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
My name is Edward T. Fride. I am a practicing lawyer in
Duluth, Minnesota. I am appearing on behalf of Reserve Mining Company.
At the January 15, 1971, session of this Conference the Conferees
concurred in the establishment of a "Technical Committee" which was
charged with responsibility:
"The Committee will consider land disposal as well
as the under water disposal plan presented here and come
up with its evaluation as well as its recommendations.
* * * The Committee can just look at the feasibility of
this kind of thing and hopefully get in touch with Reserve
or any of the other parties and ask them to consult with
them and see what recommendations they can come up
with.
"Now I think we are faced with several proposi-
tions. We are faced with the proposition of--and let's
start the other way by saying we are going to entertain
Reserve's proposal for under water disposal as is. We
are going to entertain that and recommend it with modifi-
cations. We are going to reject it and tell them to go to
a land disposal system, or we are going to reject it
completely, that they have not come up with the remedial
program and take appropriate action legal action--and
let the Court decide what the solution should be. * * *
I would strongly urge that everyone get all their theories
out on the table at least at this go-around * * *. "
Responsive to the Technical Committee's request, Reserve
appeared on February 3, 1971 and submitted at that time its written re-
sponse to the Committee's inquiry. A copy of that response has been pre-
viously supplied to the Conferees and at this time I would like to formally
make such response an exhibit in these proceedings. Statements and
-------
53
activities pertinent to the Technical Committee are summarized and re-
ferred to in my Affidavit submitted to the Minnesota District Court which
is attached hereto and made a part of this statement. PCA Director
Merritt's responsive Affidavit is attached.
By letter dated April 15, 1971, from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Reserve was furnished the report of the Lake Superior Technical
Committee which has just been formally presented by Mr. C. A. Johannes
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff. It is noted that said report
provides in part:
"The Committee was unable to obtain and develop
alternative disposal methods in sufficient detail to
technically evaluate them * * *. It is the responsibility
of the appropriate regulatory agencies to provide gui-
dance to the discharger, in this case Reserve Mining
Company, as to the acceptability of a method of dis-
posal and, if unacceptable, to provide guidance as to
the modifications necessary to become acceptable.
* * * Reserve Mining Company be provided with the
appropriate criteria upon which an acceptable method of
disposal can be designed. "
Inasmuch as the "guidance" and "criteria" contemplated by the
Technical Committee has not been presented to Reserve, it would be now
premature for Reserve to make an analysis and evaluation of the Technical
Committee report.
The proposed agenda provides that following this statement by
Reserve Mining Company there will be statements by Minnesota relative to
Reserve's discharge. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on April 19,
1971 at its regular monthly meeting unanimously passed a Motion to the
effect that the Minnesota representatives are obligated to make clear to the
- 2 -
-------
54
Conferees that any Minnesota statements or Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency staff reports which may be presented to the Conference have not
been approved or sanctioned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and do not reflect the policy of the Agency since any policy considerations
contained in any such statements or staff reports have not been voted on
by the Agency.
Subsequent to the presentation of Reserve's modification Plan to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on February 8, 1971, that Agency
directed its staff to engage in good faith negotiations with Reserve Mining
Company consistent with Judge C. L. Eckman's decision of December 15,
1970, of which a copy is hereto attached as an exhibit. The Court directed
negotiation was also the subject of the appended Court Order of April 7.
Reserve's Plan was formally presented to this Conference at its January 15,
1971 session.
It is respectfully requested that Reserve be afforded an oppor-
tunity to later respond during this Conference session to any statements to
be made with respect to Reserve's Plan by the States, private citizens or
groups, Federal or State Agencies, or the Conferees. Until Reserve is
made aware of further Conference proceedings, it has not been provided
with the guidance "as to the acceptability of (Reserve's Plan as presented)
and, if unacceptable, guidance as to the modifications necessary to be
acceptable" as concluded by the Lake Superior Technical Committee of this
Conference.
- 3 -
-------
55
It would obviously be premature to attempt any response at
this time without such guidance.
The Lake Superior Enforcement Conference was convened by
Notice under Section 10 (d) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended (33 USCA 1160, et seq. ). That Act includes a Congressional
declaration of policy (33 USCA 1151 (b) and (c) ) stating:
"* * * it is declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve and protect the primary respon-
sibilities and rights of the States in preventing and
controlling water pollution.* * *. Nothing in this
chapter shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States
with respect to the waters (including boundary waters)
of such States. "
That Act further provides in Section 10 (b) (33 USCA 1160
(b) ):
"Consistent with the policy declaration of this
chapter, State and interstate action to abate pollution
of interstate or navigable waters shall be encouraged
and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or
pursuant to Court Order under Subsection (h) of this
Section, be displaced by Federal Enforcement action. "
As the Conferees are aware, both Reserve Mining Company and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have expended substantial effort in
the Minnesota Courts in attempting to arrive at a final legal conclusion of
the controversy. The issues litigated have included whether certain inter-
state water quality standards are reasonable as applied to Reserve and
whether Reserve is polluting Lake Superior within the meaning of the
stringent Minnesota definition of pollution or is guilty of creating any
nuisance by its discharge. These issues have been determined at the Trial
Court level.
- 4 -
-------
56
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Motion for Amended
Findings or a New Trial was denied by the Court as reflected in the
attached Order of April 8, 1971. On April 20, 1971, Reserve Mining
Company was served with the attached Notice of Appeal to the Minnesota
Supreme Court by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In making the
Appeal Minnesota is obviously expressing its intention to pursue the
matter to the highest Appellate Court in Minnesota for final determination.
Thus until the Minnesota Supreme Court has resolved the matter Reserve
is subject to possible conflicting directives and in the light of the Con-
gressional policy evidenced in the Statute under which this Conference was
convened, it is respectfully submitted that the Conference should defer
further action until this Supreme Court determination sought by Minnesota
is available. This is not to suggest that Reserve is at all unwilling to
promptly evaluate any criteria and guidance proffered by this Conference
with respect to a possible modification of its tailings system. Reserve is
and has been willing to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies. It
does not, of course, wish to be in the position of obeying one of several
conflicting directives at its peril. To that end and in view of the primary
responsibility of Minnesota it is also recommended that the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and Reserve negotiate with respect to a modification
of Reserve's discharge as contemplated by the Court Order and the expressed
desire of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any such agreement
could form the basis for a Minnesota recommendation to this Conference
- 5 -
-------
57
and aid in what all well intentioned parties desire: a prompt, fair and
reasonable solution to this controversy which considers the impact of
the discharge on the total environment--air and land as well as water--
and does not threaten the continuance of Reserve's significant contribution
to this area, the State and the natibn.
- 6 -
-------
STATS OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF LAKE
58
D I X ri" R I C T CO U Ģ 'ŧ
SIXTH JUDICIAL
****** *
OF si::'-7A?.D p.
Reserve Mining Company,
Appellant,
vs. A?
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency,
Respondent.
* * * * * * *
STAT2 OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ST.LOUIS)
EDWARD T. FRIDE being first duly sworn deposes and says:
1. That he is an attorney at law duly admitted to practice
in the State of Minnesota and is a member of the firm of Sullivan,
*-:anft, rlastings, Fride & O'Brien with offices at 1200 Alworth
Building, Duluth, Minnesota.
2. Affiant has appeared as counsel for Appellant Reserve
Mining Company in all proceedings involved herein.
3. The decision of The Honorable C. L. 3ckman rendered on
December 15, 1970 in the above matter stated in part:
"28. After 15 years of operation- and discharge GO.
tailings into Lake Superior by the Appellant,the; v.:v;lc ^r.ce
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 lift or the reproduction thereof,
or any interference with navigation."
Exhibit A
-------
59
"29. Appellant's discharge of tailings into Lake
Superior has had a measurable effect upon Lake Superior
and the use thereof in regard to:
(1) The aesthetic enjoyment of the Lake by the
increase of the 'green water phenomenon1 both within and
without the zone of discharge as described in the Permi
(2) A decrease in the presence of Pontoporeia, com-
monly known as scud, in the vicinity of the zone of discharge.
This fish food used primarily -by smelt has had only a minimal
and immaterial effect on the fish population of the Lake * * *."
"36. Pursuant thereto, adoption of such modified
methods of discharge require the immediate attention of
Reserve Mining Company and negotiations and study by Reserve's
and Respondent's agencies, with a reasonable timo to arrive
at a mutually-acceptable plan between Reserve and the Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency; that to insure the establishment
of such a mutually- agree able modification and to prevent a
stalemate in such negotiation, it is necessary that the Court
retain jurisdiction of this matter. * * *"
ŧ* * * ŦEhe court concludes that the present method
of discharge of tailings from its plant at Silver Bay, Minne-
sota, shall be altered and modified by Appellant Reserve Mining
Company to the extent that the disposition of fine tailings
into Lake Superior and the distribution thereof into areas
outside of the so-called 'great trough' is discontinued."
"5. Pursuant thereto, Appellant Reserve Mining Company
shall submit to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on or before
May 15, 1971, for its approval, such plans for modification
as are necessary to accomplish the result set forth in paragraph
4 above. After such approval by Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Reserve shall have two additional years in which to
build, install, and put into operation such approved modified
method of tailings discharge."
"6. The District Court shall retain jurisdiction of this
matter for the purpose of insuring the implementation and good-
faith negotiations towards a satisfactory modification of dis-
charge and a reasonable and equitable solution of this controver-
sy. To that end, this Court, upon application of cither party,
shall exercise its authority to take further evidence, if nec-
essary, and to render a final decision therein in the event thai;
no mutual agreement as to such modification can be reached between
the parties." * * *
-2-
-------
"* * * In the judgment of this Court, any modification must
insure the flocculation of the fine tailings and the deposit ^
of all the tailings by conduit to the floor of the great trough,
where they will remain, eliminating thereby their dispersion to
other parts of Lake Superior, and elimination of complaints of
aesthetic loss, net or shore slime, drinking water contamination,
or eutrophication by increased algal growth. In support of this
solution, the Court has gleaned from the Respondent's experts
that the deposit of the tailings on the Lake floor in a relatively
quiescent condition would substantially remove their apprehensions
as to their effect upon the Lake's ecology, aesthetics, or navi-
gation."
4. In accordance with the Court's decision Reserve Mining Com-
pany completed a "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" which con-
templates flocculation of the tailings and deposition under water by
conduit of the thickened slurry. Said Plan is summarized in Exhibit A-l
attached.
On January 19, 1971, Affiant advised John Badalich, Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency of the completion
of this Plan and submitted sufficient copies of it to him to permit
preliminary evaluation by the Agency staff and members and requested
an opportunity to formally present the Plan to the Agency on February
8, 1971.
A Memorandum on Reserve Mining Company dated February 2, 1971
by George R. Koonce, Acting Chief, Section of Industrial and Other
Wastes of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, stated in part:
11 * * * The Company's consulting engineer proposes the
use of hydroseparators and thickeners to concentrate the tailings
with the addition of a flocculating agent. The concentrated
underflow from the clarifiers will be piped some 150 feet below
the surface and deposited on the lake bottom within the Company's
permit zone. The tailings delta is to be stabilized to prevent
erosion of fines into the lake.
There are advantages to this plan over the present
method of disposal. The increased density of the tailings
stream will create a stronger density current which will
help to carry tailings toward the bottom. There will be fewer
-------
61
fines in the effluent so there should be less dispersion of
material away from the discharge point, either vertically
or horizontally. Because the outlet will be 150 feet below
the surface of the lake, wind and currents should not have
as great an effect on the drift of the tailings. Thus, a
smaller area of the lake bottom will probably be covered
with tailings. The proposed method would bring a lesser
amount of fine tailings in contact with fresh lake water
and thus the rate of solution of the solids might be reduced.
* * * "
5. In accordance with said Court Order, Appellant on February
8, 1971 presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the
"Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" hereto attached as Ex-
hibit A-l. During the course of the discussions which followed the
presentation of the Plan,Reserve Mining Company through Kenneth M.
Haley, its Vice President and Manager of Research & Development, pre-
sented a "Summary" of various other concepts of tailings disposition
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A-2. Following Reserve's presen-
tation the Agency members discussed the necessity of an evaluation
including impact of various concepts on the total ecologyland, water
and airand instructed its technical staff to evaluate Reserve's Plan,
possible modifications of it or any alternative plan presented. Such
evaluation was to occur by and through Respondent's representatives
on the "Technical Committee" of the Lake Superior. Enforcement Confer-
ence and also apparently independently. Specifically the staff was
instructed to refrain from making or following political judgments
and to honor Judge Eckman's directive to proceed in good faith and
negotiate with regard to Reserve's Plan. Attached as Exhibit A-3
is an excerpt from those deliberations and instructions. Attached
as Exhibit A-4 are the views of one member of Respondent.
-4-
-------
62
6. On January 15, 1971, Reserve Mining Company presented to
the reconvened session of the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
its "Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge System" previously identified
as Exhibit A-l. During the Conferees' deliberations which followed
the Plan's presentation, Dr. Donald Mount, Director of the National
Water Quality Laboratory, of the Environmental Protection Agency
was asked to comment on the Plan by the Chairman and other Conferees.
Excerpts from his comments are attached as Exhibit A-5.
7. At the commencement of the January 14, 1971 Session of the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference, Minnesota Governor Wendell
Anderson stated, before Reserve's Plan had been submitted or described
to either the Conferees or Respondent, that:
"Last August when I was here, I indicated that if the
Conference found interstate pollution I felt it would be
most appropriate if they would issue a proper order indi-
cating that Reserve Mining would have to provide appropriate
facilities on-shore, and I also indicated I felt that a very
specific time table should be adopted."
8. On January 15, 1971, the Conferees convened in Executive
Session and concluded that the Conference would establish a Technical
Committee. The Chairman and representatives of Minnesota, Michigan
and Wisconsin concurred in a charge to the Technical Committee which
is attached as Exhibit A-6 .
9. The Technical Committee held meetings in Minneapolis, Minne-
sota on January 26, February 2-4, 11, 23, and March 5, 1971.
On January 27, 1971, the Technical Committee sent to Reserve
Mining Company a table requesting Reserve to evaluate alternate dis-
posal methods and further requesting Reserve to appear before the
Committee on February 3, 1971. Reserve Mining Company appeared
-------
63
before said Technical Committee on February 3, 1971 and submitted
at that time its response to the Agency's inquiry which is hereto
attached as Exhibit A-7. During all other sessions of the Technical
Committee Affiant is informed and believes that no other Plan for
tailings modification or change was presented to the Committee by
any of the individuals or groups who chose to appear.
10. On March 5, 1971 Grant Merritt, newly appointed Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, informed the
Committee that, as the official representative of Respondent, he
would refuse to endorse, recommend or participate in any Plan or
modification that did not completely eliminate any discharge of
water containing any amount of Reserve's taconite tailings to Lake
Superior. He stated that he would only endorse or participate in a
Plan or recommendation that precluded any discharge to Lake Superior,
Minnesota rivers, streams, surface or ground waters which could in
any way reach Lake Superior. He said this prohibition was absolute
regardless of any effect on receiving waters and regardless of whether
such discharge complied with all existing Minnesota laws and regula-
tions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Mr. Merritt stated that any contrary views previously expressed
by Minnesota representatives to the Technical Committee should be
disregarded as they did not now represent the "new" policy. He said
further that any prior statements by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, formerly the Minnesota Conservation Department,
that that Department was opposed to a method of disposal of tailings
on land in the Lax Lake area because of safety hazards and the im-
pairment to land uses in that region should be disregarded and he
-------
64
would confer with the Commissioner of that Department so as to ob-
tain a change in such position.
When informed by the Secretariat and other members of the
Technical Committee that even tentative concepts presented to the
Technical Committee by the Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens
Association, Save Lake Superior Association, and Northern Environmental
Council could not meet the newly announced policy of "zero discharge"
Mr. Merritt responded by stating that "zero discharge" was the policy
and no water from any source containing any amount of Reserve's tail-
ings would be permitted to reach Lake Superior or any rivers, ground
waters, surface waters which might lead thereto.
Affiant was in attendance at said Technical Committee session
as an observer and attached as Exhibit A-8 is Affiant's Summary of
some of those proceedings.
11. Wisconsin representatives to the Technical Committee sub-
mitted a report attached as Exhibit A-9 which states that Wisconsin
rejected Reserve's Plan and refused to consider any modification to
it allegedly premised on the Wisconsin Statute prohibiting the dep-
osition of "stone or sand" in waters within the jurisdiction of
Wisconsin. Wisconsin, like Minnesota and Michigan, has a Permit
system which when complied with authorizes deposition of materials
in State waters. Exhibit A-10 is a memorandum prepared by Affiant
which questions the legal sufficiency of Wisconsin's position.
12. The Michigan representative to the Technical Committee
included Reserve's Plan as among the "recommended methods" as re-
flected in Exhibit A-ll. Preliminary drafts of the Technical
Committee deliberations prior to the position taken by Mr. Merritt
-------
65
as described above are appended as Exhibits A-12, A-13 and A-14.
13. In support of the Motion herein reliance is placed on
the deposition of Grant Merritt, an attorney appointed as Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on March 1, 1971,
and on the deposition of Lovell Richie, Assistant Director, Division
of Water Quality of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, who is
a member of the tehnical and scientific staff of the Agency and
has been so employed by Respondent and its predecessor continu-
ously since April, 1958.
Mr. Merritt testified that he had no formal education or ex-
perience in the sciences involved with the ability to analyze or
judge the impact of alleged pollutants on the environment; that he
has never inspected or visited Appellant's plant or the mine or plant
of any other iron ore or taconite producing facility in Minnesota or
outside of Minnesota; that he has never inspected or visited any
tailings pond or basin utilized for on-land deposition of tailings
either in Minnesota or outside of Minnesota; that he has not analyzed
Respondent's records and studies disclosing the monitoring and sur-
veillance of Appellant's discharge which has been conducted by Minnesota
Agencies prior to the commencement of Appellant's operations and since;
that he did not claim any technical, scientific expertise in either
determining or analyzing or weighing effects of alleged pollutants
on the environment; that he refused to answer whether he would place
reliance on people with technical, scientific expertise in such
fields to give him knowledge and understanding about such subjects;
*-.hat he refused to answer whether he would place any reliance on the
-------
66
technical staff of Respondent in reaching scientific judgments about
effects of alleged pollutants on the environment; that he regards
Judge Eckman's decision of December 15, 1970 with respect to the
submission of the Modification Plan and good faith negotiations
with respect to it as simply a "suggestion of the Court" rather
than an Order; that he has not reviewed Reserve's Plan appended
as Exhibit A-l; that he has not requested any analysis of Reserve's
Plan from any staff member of Respondent or any consultant whom he
deems qualified to express an opinion with respect to it; that he
has not sought nor does he deem it necessary to secure the approval
of a majority of the members of Respondent prior"to taking the
position which he claimed was an official one of the Respondent at
the March 5, 1971 Session of the Technical Committee described above;
that the views which he expressed to said Technical Committee are
views which he has held for many years as an active leader in various
conservation groups; that he knows of no plan in any written form
for total on-land deposition of Reserve's tailings except the Bureau
of Mines Plan presented as a part of the Stoddard report and upon
which Mr. Merritt places reliance; attached as Exhibit A-15 are
excerpts from said Bureau of Mines report; that he knows of no other
municipality, industry or other entity which may discharge an
effluent that is subject to the same prohibition as Appellant's
as reflected in the "policy" stated by Mr. Merritt to the Technical
Committee and others; that he knows of no other discharger in
Minnesota which is subject to an absolute prohibition on its dis-
charge to Minnesota waters regardless of whether the discharge
-------
67
meets all effluent requirements and all legal regulations and statutes
in the State; that he was unable to identify any individual who was
technically qualified whose views he would accept on the alleged
pollutant effects of Reserve's discharge on Lake Superior but that
he regarded any layman's views as entitled to the same weight which
should be accorded the views of Dr Donald Mount, Director of the
National Water Quality Laboratory; that he declined to answer ques-
tions relating to whether Mr. Merritt drafted the letter which
Governor Anderson sent to General Clarke appended as Exhibit A-16;
That Lovell Richie testified by way of deposition that he
had been familiar with Reserve's discharge and the studies and in-
vestigations of it made by Respondent since 1958; that he concurred
with Dr. Mount's views as expressed in Exhibit A-5; that the Tech-
nical Committee had not had any plan presented to it for on-land
deposition of Reserve's tailings so as to permit an evaluation of
the impacts of such a concept on the total environment; that Wisconsin
representatives relied on the Wisconsin Statute described above and
that Minnesota representatives felt bound by the position taken by
Mr. Merritt of "zero discharge"; that Mr. Richie's evaluation of
Reserve's Plan was such that if it were modified by appropriate
testing of flocculents and re-circulation of the overflow clarifier
discharge to the maximum extent practicable consistent with Reserve's
operation that the Plan as modified would satisfactorily meet 'the
concerns raised about Reserve's discharge.
14. The foregoing described actions and other activities re-
vealed in the depositions filed in this matter disclose that the
-------
68
new Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has
attempted to usurp the legal functions, powers and duties of the Re-
spondent Agency as vested in said Agency by Minnesota Statutes 115.03,
115.04, 115.05, 115.42, 115.43, 115.44, 115.45, 115.47, 116.07, et al.
Said actions preclude objective analysis by either the Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control Agency, the Technical Committee or the Conferees to the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference. Such actions represent political
judgment not based on fact and constitute illegal prohibitions and
regulations. Said actions are apparently designed to except Reserve
Mining Company from application of and protection of Minnesota Statutes
and Regulations as well as to nullify the Court's decision herein.
Said actions unlawfully discriminate against Reserve Mining Company
when compared with all other dischargers in the State of Minnesota.
Said actions also seek to cause an illegal modification or revocation
of Reserve's Permits duly issued by the Minnesota Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission, the Minnesota Department of Conservation and the
Corps of Engineers. Said actions .further attempt to prohibit Reserve's
discharge under the guise of unauthorized executive and administrative
regulation, and wrongfully interfere with valued property and contract
rights of Appellant.
15. On March 8, 1971, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting. Despite the passage
of. .some 30 days since Rcccrvc' s formal presentation of its Modification
Plan, the Agency has taken no action with respect to Reserve's Plan
except through the acts of its new Executive Director described above
and hence it is doubtful that the Agency will engage in good faith
-------
69
negotiations contemplated by the Court's Order herein.
Appellant has advised Respondent of its willingness to sub-
mit proposed flocculents to extensive governmental testing, analysis
and approval as well as to consider possible modifications in Reserve's
Plan relating to the clarifier overflow water and other aspects of
the contemplated discharge. The position of the Executive Director
that only "zero discharge" would be authorized, however, compels the
conclusion that no modification of the proposed Plan would be accept-
able and hence the Court should, in Appellant's view, exercise the
jurisdiction retained herein to order a modification consistent with
its decision.
16. During his deposition Mr. Merritt testified that he would
attempt to convene hearings before the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency on the question' of whether Reserve was violating the Permit
issued by Respondent's predecessor, the Minnesota Water Pollution
Control Commission, within six months from March 1, 1971. Attached
as Exhibit A-17 is an analysis by Respondent's Technical Staff of
the issue of whether Reserve is in violation of such Permit.
Further Affiant saith not save that this Affidavit is made in
support of Appellant's Motion for Order Rendering Final Decision. ŧ
Edward T. Fride
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _^___ day of March, 1971.
-------
37 70
SUMMARY
Of numerous tailings disposal concepts investigated by Reserve's
Engineering Task Force-, "on-land" deposition received considerable
attention. Other taconite producers in Minnesota, other states and other
countries utilize the method. Reserve's original concept in the late 1940's
called for the use of an on-land tailings basin near the mine. In fact, the
1920-1924 taconite plant operated unsuccessfully at Babbitt, Minnesota, by
Mesabi Iron Company deposited its tailings on land, the common, accepted
practice in mineral processing for decades. Reserve itself re-equipped
that old plant and operated it as a small pilot plant to train personnel, test
equipment and processing methods, utilizing a low-lying, swampy area there
for tailings disposal, even though it had become clear that two features of
the Babbitt area would force Reserve to an unusual and more expensive
system.
The first factor was the lack of sufficient water to sustain as large
an operation as Reserve contemplated. The processing of Reserve's
taconite into iron oxide pellets requires a minimum of 55 tons of water for
each ton of pellets. This can be "new" water or reclaimed, recirculated
water. The Babbitt pilot plant experience showed that a closed-circuit
water system would require a minimum of 7% new water, Therefore,
water and not the ore is the largest raw material required. Reserve's
mineral deposit at Babbitt is on the Laurentian Divide where there is in-
sufficient water for a processing plant the size of Reserve's--even though
this would have been the preferred location from a cost standpoint. This
-------
38 71
was one of the two principal reasons why Reserve was forced to transport
the crude taconite mined at Babbitt 47 miles to Silver Bay for processing--
resulting in increased capital and operating costs for the railroad, ore
handling equipment, two separate industrial installations, towns, etc.,
with attendant duplication of certain activities and facilities.
The second factor that prevented Reserve from building its pro-
cessing plant beside the mineral body at Babbitt was that no suitable land
area was available in the region which was large enough to impound the tail-
ings Reserve would produce.
This was documented in the extensive permit hearings held between
1947 and I960, and recently confirmed by Judge C. Luther Eckman's find-
ing:
"The principal reasons for the location of
(Reserve's) plant at Silver Bay rather than
the mine site near Babbitt were the lack of
necessary water, the lack of an appropriate
area for tailings deposition at the mine
site ***"
For these reasons, Reserve built its processing plant on the shore
of Lake Superior, after extensive investigations were made by Reserve and
the appropriate governmental agencies to assure that the discharge of tail-
ings into the lake would have no material adverse effect on the quality of the
water, on aquatic life or any of man's beneficial uses of the lake.
Other Minnesota taconite operations have large, low-lying areas
in the vicinity of their processing plants which are suitable for tailings dis-
posal. These areas do not have any appreciable amount of natural surface
water draining through them, nor do they require high dams or dikes to
-------
39
72
impound water and tailings. The many square miles they cover were
primarily wastelands and bogs upon which little vegetation grew. In con-
trast, the terrain near Silver Bay is rugged and so hilly that great damt
would be required to form an impoundment. The construction of dame
would be unusually expensive and difficult since the area is so rocky and
little natural dam building materials are found in the area. Further, the
closest area (encompassing Lax Lake) is not below or on the same level
as Reserve's processing plant. Instead, it is about 800 feet higher and
about five miles distant--posing additional problems of great magnitude
for engineers, operators and ecologists.
The plan Reserve proposed on January 15 is unique and imagi-
native in some respectshuge thickeners and hydroseparators, the piping,
pumping and flocculating of great volumes of water and solids, the recir-
culation of clarified water into the harbor and'thence into the plant. But
these considerations exist in the "on-land" tailings disposal schemes, as
well. The only segment of the plan which is not duplicated in the on-land
schemes is the buoyancy-controlled pipes which will convey the tailings
into deep water to form the sand reef 150 feet below the lake's surface.
However, such pipes are available on the market today and the technique
is being used elsewhere successfully.
The plan proposed by Reserve on January 15 does not require as
much capital investment nor annual operating cost as some of the schemes
investigated by Reserve's Engineering Task Force. But it is not the least
expensive; two other proposals would have been much less costly..
-------
40 73
During the past two years, the entire Silver Bay-Babbitt region
was carefully studied for potential on-land disposal sites by Reserve's
Engineering Task Force:
One or more of the nationally-known engineering consulting firms
--members of the Task Force--actually investigated ten different "on-land"
disposal concepts. These and all other proposals were carefully considered
before Reserve selected and proposed on January 15 the plan it believes to
be best from an environmental, technical and economic standpoint.
Eight of these ten "on-land" investigations made by Reserve's
Engineering Task Force involved the Lax Lake area. One study concerned
depositing the tailings along the lakeshore. The other called for returning
the tailings to the eastern Mesabi Range. Some of the disadvantages of
each of these ten plans are cited briefly below.
LAX LAKE AREA
1. This area is prime hunting, fishing, recreation and resort
country.
2. Seasonal and year-around homes near the lake would be
covered by tailings. Lax Lake itself would cease to exist
and would become a part of the large tailings basin.
3. The drainage from the 71-square mile watershed which
flows through this area would exceed Reserve's process
requirements, so excess water (containing unsettled very
fine tailings) from the basin would have to be released to
the Beaver River and thence to Lake Superior. Much of
the year these tailings would enter Lake Superior at the
-------
41 74
surface--without the benefit of a heavy density current.
These fine particles would likely remain in the surface
waters of the lake and be carried by surface currents and
be dispersed over a wide area of the lake before they
settled naturally.
4. The tailings deposited as an underwater reef would be in
contact with the neutral to slightly basic water of Lake
Superior. Thus, practically no elements would go into
solution. In contrast, the water of the Lax Lake area is
slightly acid and could leach some of the elements from
any tailings deposited there. These dissolved solids
leached from tailings would enter the Beaver River and
then flow on into Lake Superior.
5. The lower pH (slightly acid) water from the tailings basin
would enter the ground waters of the area carrying with it
more dissolved solids from tailings deposited there.
6. Dust from blowing tailings could be expected to cover a
wide area.
7. Two of the eight proposals involved hauling coarse tailings
containing 18% moisture in electrically-heated, insulated
railroad cars to prevent freezing during winter months.
This concept and the proposed equipment are new and un-
tried and extensive pilot testing over at least three winters
would be necessary before implementation could be con-
sidered.
-------
42
75
8. In three of these Lax Lake studies, coarse tailings con-
taining 18% moisture would be stockpiled on the present
tailings delta during the winter months to avoid cold
weather handling problems. These tailings would be re-
claimed during the summer months and hauled in conven-
tional equipment for disposal. We believe these piles of
coarse tailings with 18% moisture would freeze solid during
i
the winter. It is questionable whether this frozen tailings
stockpile would thaw sufficiently in the summer months to
permit reclamation. Any such practice would require large
scale testing before it could be considered feasible.
9. A Lax Lake area tailings basin, high upstream from the
Beaver Bay-North Shore region, could present a safety
hazard. A huge system of dams and dikes--among the
largest in the world--would present the constant threat of
leakage or rupture.
10. Upon depletion of Reserve's mineral body (approximately
40 years), a Lax Lake tailings basin would be nearly full
and in a short time natural surface drainage from the 71-
square mile area would overflow the tailings basin with
rains and spring thaw, carrying some fine tailings into
the Beaver River and Lake Superior, in spite of efforts to
vegetate the area against erosion.
11. The same type thickening system would thicken the tail-
ings slurry for pumping to the impoundment area as would
-------
43 76
be used for pumping the tailings to an underwater reef.
The same type and amount of flocculants would be used
and the thickener overflow would be handled in the same
manner through Reserve's harbor. Thus, any objections
raised with respect to the use of flocculants in Reserve's
plan would apply to these on-land tailings basin systems.
12. Incomplete capital costs for these on-land disposal
systems range from $44, 100, 000 to $195, 1 38, 000.
Annual expenditures for on-land tailings disposal proposals
range from $7,823,000 to $27, 284,000. Few, if any,
objections to Reserve's present or proposed disposal
methods would be relieved.
13. Construction times for these on-land disposal facilities
would range from five to six years. As noted in Reserve's
report, the underwater reef disposal system could be
operational within two years after approval by the proper
regulatory agencies.
14. Most on-land disposal systems in use by other taconite
operators have some alternate means to discharge tailings
in the event of an emergency. However, the o'nly emergency
discharge of tailings available to Reserve would be to Lake
Superior.
DISPOSAL OF TAILINGS IN OR NEAR A MINE ON THE MESABI RANGE
A number of persons have proposed that Reserve's tailings be
hauled back to the Mesabi Range and deposited in open pits. It is obviously
-------
44 77
impossible to use any active open pit mine for such deposition and most
exhausted natural iron ore mines represent a "bowl" of taconite which,
hopefully, will someday be processed by others. So it would be fool-
hardy to fill these pits with tailings. However, members of Reserve's
Engineering Task Force investigated use of an area near Reserve's
mine (but not controlled by Reserve) for the deposit of tailings produced
at Silver Bay.
Some assume that simply because the hopper cars which haul
the taconite to Silver Bay return to Babbitt empty, they would be able to
carry tailings back to the ranges. However, important factors are over-
looked. Babbitt is approximately 47 rail miles away from Silver Bay and
more than 700 feet higher in elevation, and one section of the railroad is
more than 900 feet higher than the Silver Bay car dump location. Thus,
the loaded ore cars proceed down-grade from-Babbitt and the empties
return up-grade. Therefore, only about one-third as many loaded cars
could be hauled from Salver Bay back to Babbitt with same horsepower.
Thus, much additional equipment would be required to rail haul tailings
from Silver Bay to Babbitt.
Obviously, Reserve's total discharge (water and tailings) cannot
be transported by rail to Babbitt, as others have suggested. So much
water is used that the tailings constitute only a tiny per cent of the total
discharge. Piping such a volume of liquid so far and so high would be
out of the question even if there were no "freeze-up" problems.
-------
45
78
However, one of the Task Force investigations called for re-
moving most of the water at Silver Bay, leaving the tailings with about
20% moisture. The first step of this moisture removal would involve
thickening equipment very much like that proposed in the underwater reef
plan. Flocculants would be used in these thickeners to clarify the water.
After thickening, the tailings would be filtered. Both the clarified water
and the filter water would be discharged into the harbor, then pumped
back into the process plant.
Filtered takings would be hauled by railroad cars to an area
adjacent to the Babbitt mine where thaw shed equipment would be required
to thaw out frozen cars during winter operation. Further engineering has
indicated that the preliminary estimates of capacity of the thaw sheds was
inadequate. Far larger thaw sheds would be needed, or the freezing would
have to be prevented by designing equipment to dry the tailings to about
one per cent moisture at Silver Bay. Another alternative would be to use
electrically-heated, insulated railroad cars to haul the wet tailings during
severe cold weather months. Such equipment does not exist today. In
either case, three winters would be required for pilot engineering investi-
gations and trial periods to develop satisfactory means of handling tailings
with 20% moisture during severe winter weather.
Stacking conveyors would be used to deposit these tailings on land
in layers approximately 50 feet deep. Although trees, grass and shrubs
would be planted on the tailings as soon as possible, the very nature of the
operation would Iravr K^'; < m-c.-'. n t XJIGF,(-C' iu v/ind before this ground cover
could grow and devoir ;> I'lffirir/itJ / i<. pi-,'.v> i.t M,i\vir-r clu?;' storms. The
-------
46 79
Further, the site itself has swamp water draining through it and
these slightly acid waters would leach elements from tailings piled there.
This area drains into the Dunka River, into Birch Lake and into the
Border lakes.
The area selected for piling these tailings is far too small to
accommodate all tailings that would be produced during the life of the
Babbitt mine. There were so many other unsatisfactory factors about
this proposal that engineering was suspended without investigating other
areas. It probably would be necessary to go as much as 1 5 miles south
of Babbitt to locate an area large enough to be considered as a possible
site. This region is also swampy, however, and drains into Lake Superior,
so the same disadvantages with respect to dissolved solids would apply.
Three years would be needed to construct these facilities after
a three-year period of engineering, investigation and pilot trials. Thus,
the earliest such a system could be operational would be six years.
Preliminary estimates place incomplete capital expenditure for
such an on-land tailings scheme at about $74, 132,000 and the estimated
annual expenditure in excess of $12,000,000. Clearly, from an environ-
mental, technical or economic viewpoint, such a plan would not be
feasible.
LAKESHORE TAILINGS PILE
Another of the investigations concerned a high tailings pond to be
built on land on the lakeshore. In this proposal exactly the same thicken-
ing equipment and the same flocculating agent would be used as is proposed
for the underwater reef plan. The thickener overflows would go into the
-------
47
80
harbor before pumping back for recirculation into Reserve's plant, just as
is planned in the Reserve underwater reef plan. Coarse tailings (+150
mesh) from the scalper^.hydroseparators and the hydroseparators would
be pumped to the lake's edge to make additional land upon which the fine
tailings would be deposited. This would produce three miles of tailings
beach exposed to wave action which undoubtedly would mean fine tailings
would be constantly entering in the surface waters of the lake.
The fine tailings (-150 mesh) from the four thickeners would be
pumped to movable cyclone classifiers around the edge of this entire area.
The coarse discharge from these clones would be used to increase the
height of the periphery around the area, and the fines would be discharged
toward the center where they would settle. Water would be drawn from
these impounding areas through decant towers into Reserve's harbor
adjacent to the plant water intake. Before the high edge could be built,
the tailings would have to be dried, thus about two-thirds of the tailings
deposited in the area would be dry at all times, causing an almost continu-
ous blowing dust problem over many miles in the vicinity of Silver Bay.
No one could live in the community, in all probability. Also, this dust
would blow out over the lake. Entering the lake in this manner, these
fine wind-borne tailings would stay in suspension for a considerable time
before settling.
These tailings piles would ultimately reach a height of 280 feet
above the lake level, which is higher, for example, than Palisade Head,
one of the scenic cliffs on the North Shore. They would tower about 200
-------
81
48
feet higher than the roadbed of Highway #6l. The tailings pile between the
highway and the waters of the lake would be 2-1/4 miles long. In spite of
the best efforts to grow vegetation on the slopes of the tailings piles, they
would be extremely unsightly along the shore of Lake Superior.
A partial estimated capital cost for this proposal was $31, 369,000.
The estimated average annual expenditure would be $5,477,500.
Under this proposal, far more tailings would be entrained in sur-
face waters of the lake than at present. Also, wave action and surface
waters of the lake would be constantly "weathering" tailings and eroding the
face of the coarse tailings "dike. "
Critiques by independent consultants of on-land tailings deposition
methods are contained in the Appendix, pages 68 - 80.
Photographs showing some of the areas which would be engulfed
by a tailings basin in the Lax Lake area, and showing the height of Palisade
Head as contrasted with Highway #61, Silver Bay and Lake Superior are
contained in the envelope at the end of the Appendix.
Concern for total ecological effects of any method of tailings dis-
posal must be the paramount consideration. On that premise, it is respect-
fully submitted Alternative Method of Disposal Number 2 should be the
recommended solution.
-------
82
1
2 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
3 REGULAR MEETING
4 BOARD ROOM OF OFFICE BUILDING
5 717 DELAWARE ST. S.E.
6 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440
7 FEBRUARY 8, 1971
8
9
10
11 (The following discussion occurred sub-
12 sequent to a presentation by Reserve Mining
13 Company of its plan to modify tailings discharge,
14 and following questions by the agency members
15 and staff of Edward T. Fride, attorney for
16 Reserve Mining Company, Kenneth Haley, Vice-
17 president and Manager of Research and Development
18 of Reserve Mining Company and Dr. Leon W. Wein-
19 berger, Reserve Mining Company Environmental
20 Consultant.)
21
22 .,
Exhibit A-3
23 * *
24
25
-------
83
^ 2_
1
2 MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSEN: Mr. Tuveson.
4 MR. TUVESON: I don't think we can just
5 sit idly by while all these things are going on
6 around us. I think we have three problems and I
7 was concerned with them at the beginning of the
8 hearing this afternoon and I'm still concerned
9 with them.
10 I'm concerned first because the Court in
11 Lake County did direct us to explore the problem
12 with Reserve Mining Company and look at some al-
13 ternatives and, to use the language, "Proceed in
14 good faith and negotiation".
15 I think that we have to do this. I think
16 that whatever we do has to be taken in light of
17 what the Attorney General has done and is doing.
18 I think, however, the Attorney General is
19 interested in some of the scientific problems
20 involved.
21 If we go to on-land disposal there may be
22 other air and land pollution problems that we
23 don't have now with under water deposition.
24 I don't think at this point that I'm ready
25 to make a judgment either way.
-------
84
1 I'd like to be able to make just a poli-
2 t1c>al judgment of what the people say, kind of
3 an easy way to come out. I'm also aware of the
4 Federal and State Conference, the Enforcement
5 Conference now that has appointed a technical
6 committee. We have staff members on that tech-
7 nical committee.
8 I think, Mr. Chairman, that our staff
9 should make a detailed evaluation of this plan
10 that was presented to us today.
11 I think they should also make an evalua-
12 tion of available information as to the desir-
13 ability or lack of desirability of on-land dis-
14 posal in the lax Lake area or back in the area
15 of Babbitt somewhere. I think the staff could
16 pull together some of the information that's
17 being gathered by the Federal and State Confer-
18 ence.
19 I think it would be helpful to the
20 Attorney General. I don't think it means that
21 we're backing off from the position we've taken
22 in Court that we believe our standards apply to
23 Reserve Mining Company, I wouldn't want to imply
24 that in any way.
25 I don't think we should tell the staff
-------
85
1 either that we expect them to come up with an
2 answer, but if they don't have enough informa-
3 tion I would expect they would be objective
4 enough about it to say that "We don't know enough
5 about on-land disposal now so that we can't rec-
6 ommend it", or if they do think there's enough
7 Information, they should recommend it.
8 If they don't have enough information,
9 they should tell us so we can either get it our-
10 selves or tell someone else to get it.
11 I don't think we can mark time. I think
12 the staff should stay right with the problem. I
13 guess --
14 I don't know how to put all this into a
15 motion. Maybe it isn't necessary, but I think
16 the staff should be proceeding along those lines.
17 DR. BORTCHART: Mr. Tuveson, I gather what
18 you are saying is that you feel that in line with
19 the expressions from several members of the
20 agency here this afternoon, that we don't feel
21 ready to make a judgment on this, that we should
22 be provided with continuing staff advice and
23 input, and that the only way for us to get that
24 is for the staff to continue to work with us on
25 this.
-------
86
1 MR. TUVESON: That's right, I don't think
2 we c-an make a political judgment and reject the
3 present system or the proposed system of dis-
4 charging tailings into that lake unless we know
5 what the alternative is.
6 DR. BORTCHART: Mr. Chairman, along this
7 line I'd like to express a judgment simply as
8 one member of the agency.
9 I would hope that the agency and the staff
10 are not at this time committed by anything that's
11 been said up to know, committed irrevocably to
12 land disposal of these wastes.
13 It seems to me that if one looks at the
14 law that created this agency, there is language
15 in there about land use, questions and issues
j^ that are related to pollution abatement and con-
17 trol .
jg I think we've got a very serious landuse
19 question involved here. It was implied in some
20 of the discussion earlier this afternoon, and I
2i think it should be pointed up, we have a long
22 history of land disposal of tailings and wastes
23 on the Mesaba Range.
24 As one looks ahead to the taconite epic
0/ that lies ahead of us over the next half century,
-------
87
or perhaps even several Gentries for all anyone
knows, it's perfectly obvious we are talking
about a very large future deposit of tailings
4 in the vicinity of the Mesaba Range.
5 I think that there are some que stions
6 that have to be faced as to how these tailings
7 are going to be handled, what kinds of lands
8 are going to be zoned to accommodate them.
9 At the same time it seems to me if we
10 are considering, as an alternative to disposi-
11 tion in Lake Superior, going back up to Babbitt,
12 which is on the Mesaba Range and which would be
13 simply a continuation of the trends that are
14 already there, that's one thing, but if we are
15 talking about land disposition in the Lax Lake
16 area or anywhere else in the Finland State For-
17 rest and Superior National Forrest, I think we
18 are talking about moving a very large part of
19 a problem that so far has been confined to the
20 Range, moving it down into one of the most
21 scenic areas of the Middlewest.
22 ' I think there is a real issue here as
23 between under water disposition and land dispo-
24 sition somewhere on the North Shore, and I for
25 one would not be ready at all to enforce some
-------
88
7
1 kind of a position that pinned us into a corner
2 in^'favor implicitly of a land solution and
3 against a water solution at this point.
4 I think that the evidence that would per-
5 suade me that this was the route to go is simply
6 not in. In fact, we haven't even talked about
7 some of the most important questions, in my judg-
8 ment.
9 I would be very anxious to support Bob's
10 concern that the staff continue to study this,
11 continue to advise us and, secondly, that the
12 staff keep in mind the legislative language in
13 our own bill that created us that talks about
14 land use, because I think it's one of the major
15 questions in this particular matter.
16 MR. HARRIS: Just one question, did our
17 commitment with the Federal and State Conference,
18 did that commit us to anything in advance?
IP MRS. NELSON: As I remember it, Mr. Stein
20 specifically made the point that our minds
2i should not be closed, or that the technical com-
22 mittees minds should not be closed to any alter-
23 native until all segments were examined, that we
24 should not cure one problem and create a worse
25 one.
-------
89
8_
1 I think that's some of the things that
2 Professor Bortchart was referring to, some of
3 the things he had in mind, and along with that,
4 when you put it on land, what effect does this
5 have leeching back into the lake?
6 Can that be controlled as compared to
7 what you are doing?
8 As they say, we just don't have enough
9 evidence of all the alternatives. It's easy to
10 say "should we stop doing this?", but would the
1] other thing be worse?
12 I agree we need much more information on
13 the whole matter,
14 MR. TUVESON: Yes. I'd like to have some-
15 one kind of put this problem of the entire envi-
16 ronment up there in one package so that we could
!7 better weigh the pros and cons.
18 I'm not sure that it's fair to ask Reserve
19 Mining Company to develop those figures for us
20 because, well, I guess we don't place too much
2i creditability in them, at least that's tradi-
22 tionally our approach.
23 Maybe the agency members themselves can
24 come up with some way to approach this problem
in an objective fashion. John, I would think
-------
90
1 that would be of your line,
2 DR. BORTCHART: I would think this could
3 be done, particularly if the full resources of
4 the various state agencies are utilized, people
5 from the Department of Natural Resources, Geo-
6 logical Survey, as I'm sure .the staff will do.
7 I would think that there are a lot of
8 resources around within the state agencies that
9 could be brought to bear on this question.
10 Again I feel very strongly that if some
11 of the very simply flat out statements that
12 have been made about this solution were followed,
13 it would lead to a real disaster.
14 I'm very anxious that we do everything
15 we can to make sure that the solution that is
16 arrived at here is an optimal one,
17 MR. GAOLER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Koonce
18 prepared a memo here which everybody seems to
19 have ignored.
20 MRS. NELSON: I read it.
21 MR. HARRIS: I got it all marked up.
22 MR. TUVESON: But he states, "If this
23 plan is adopted the agency would have to grant
24 a variance from the effluent standards of Regu-
25 lation WPC 15".
-------
91
1 MRS. NELSON: You and I discussed that
2 at some length just a little bit ago.
3 MR. GAOLER: Are you considering that?
4 DR. BORTCHART: Well, yes, I'm consider-
5 ing it.
6 MR. GAOLER: I just wondered, you'd rather
7 pollute the water than the soil?
8 DR. BORTCHART: That's not what I'm say-
9 ing, I'm saying when we consider the applica-
10 tion of WPC 15 to this problem, I might decide
11 that there are some specific changes in the word-
12 ing of it that are called for.
13 I think it may say some things about this
14 problem that we really don't want it to say;
15 I'm not talking about polluting the water.
16 MR. GAOLER: If there's something that
17 should be brought out, certainly it should be
18 brought out.
19 DR. BORTCHART: That's why I'm concerned.
20 MR. GAOLER: We don't want to keep any-
2i thing secret.
22 MRS. NELSON: Bob wasn't talking about
23 keeping anything secret, he was talking about
24 the staff pursuing and informing us which is
25 quite the opposite of keeping anything secret.
-------
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
92
11
MR. GAOLER: I think the staff should
pursue it. I don't know why this wasn't brought
up.
DR. BORTCHART: It's been brought up by
you.
MR. GAOLER: I just brought it up.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSEN: Is that enough of a
directive? It seems to me it is. Is that
enough of a directive to the staff, Lyle, Mr.
Smith?
(Chairman Andersen referring to Mr. Lyle
Smith on the PCA Staff.)
* * *
MRS. NELSON: Let's take up the next
matter.
* * *
1
-------
93
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ..
My Commission Expires February 28, 1976
17 "
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
BE IT KNOWN that I took the foregoing
hearing on said date and at said place; that I
was then and there a Notary Public in and for
said County and State; that this transcript is
a true record of the foregoing proceedings as
taken by me and transcribed under my direction
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIS 9TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 1971.
"DAviTTA. sWrre~
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota
12
-------
94
! JNIOK.T1 WEST JPAJPE.X CJOiVil-WIN Y
A Subsidiary of Pollatch Forests. Inc.
CLOQUET. MI>JN:SOTA 55V2O
January 19, 1971
Mr. John Badalich, P.E.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware Street, S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Subject: LAKE SUPERIOR HEARING, January 14 - 15, 1971
Re: RESERVE MINING COMPANY PROPOSAL
Dear John:
Because of a cold, I was not able to attend any of the sessions but read
the news reports with interest. I was encouraged by the fact that Reserve came
in with a proposal, which shows substantial progress has been made in the past
two years since hearings were first held. As you know, my philosophy has always
been that the object of the game is the prevention of pollution. Many of the
environmental groups will not accept this premise unless the method used is one
which they have promulgated. I liked Murray Stein's remarks at the beginning of
this conference re same when he said to the effect, "Let's not prejudge before
we hear the story." (Not a direct quote.)
Now a committee - of which you are one member - has been appointed to
evaluate Reserve's proposal. Basically it must be judged on its merits, but
a few considerations are pertinent.
1. Reserve has made a proposal (this came hard).
2. It is Reserve's money which will be spent.
3. They can't afford to spend so much if it doesn't provide a successful
solution to the problem.
4. Failure gives them practically no salvage for equipment to be used
otherwise (such as land based disposal).
5. There is no near land on shore available.
6. Proof of rapid pollution in the Lake by their present disposal manner
has not been made.
7. Proof of a slow pollution in the Lake is still a matter for great argument,
but we can't afford to take the long-range chance that drifting
colloidal fines may be harmful.
8. The size of the "Great Trough" depository is many times more than ample
to hold all the wastes.
9. If the new system doesn't provide containment in the Trough, Reserve is
the loser because four years from now they would have to build
another system or modify this one.
Exhibit A-4
-------
THE NORT1 JWEST PAPEJl COMPANY
Mr. John Badalich -2- January 19, 1971
10. Minnesota should not argue with Judge Eckman's ruling re granting a
Variance on .our Turbidity Standard. It serves a purpose and
he did not void it with regard to others.
11. Economic changes are inevitable so a few years hence both Reserve and
the People of Minnesota may see things differently, but as of the
present Reserve needs the taconite production facility, Minnesota
needs the payrolls and new dollars brought into the state. They
are all taxed at least three times, you know: Business Taxes,
Income Taxes, and Sales Taxes. Also one more - Real Estate Taxes
on employees' homes for schools, but if the plant closes, they
won't be needed.
12. The above eleven items add up to "give 'em a chance."
I want to add that I think Albert Dickas1 research project on the Lake
near Duluth would evaluate colloidal drift of tailings, if any, as well as
evaluate South Shore claybank losses and be extremely valuable with regard to
determining lake currents. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan might each benefit
$6,600 worth to finance the $20,000 project.
I am sending a copy to our conferees, Howard and Bob, as well as my friend,
Donald Mount.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Mace Harris
MVH:en
P.S. I write this as my position as a member of MPCA as well as privately
with no interest in Reserve.
Mace
-------
96
Proceedings - Lake Superior Enforcement Conference - January 15,
1971 - Duluth, Minnesota
Dr. Mount; "#*** To begin with, I would agree with Reserve's state-
ment that they made earlier that the physical filling is not a problem.
As a matter of fact, this deep water is essentially barren of producing
food organisms and that sort of thing so that I donjt really feel that if
one looks at the possible total amount that might be put in that this is
of importance. I would dispense with that consideration. "
Mr. Stein: "I would like to flag that for the Conferees because I think
that this is a ... as far as I can see a very important consideration
for the Conferees. If you accept this, that the physical filling, this
inert material is something that doesn't want to cause a problem in
the trough--is of very little importance to the ecology of the lake,
would you say? "
Dr. Mount; "That's what I'm saying. **** It seems to me that we
can see now some of the considerations that are going to have to be
looked at in regard to the alternatives as they relate to the effect on
the environment and the one thing did deter me yesterday was the
apparent feeling that just putting these things on the land was enough.
It isn't possible to evaluate right now an on-land disposal system
because we don't have any of the details of it. The principles are
there, I think, and some of these have been mentioned and some of
them have not been mentioned. I think the dust problem has been
mentioned today; I guess is really a part of a larger problem. The
whole esthetic problem, the appearance of this thing, is certainly one
that does have to be evaluated and if a land disposal system is used,
somehow we are going to have to crank this into the evaluation of it.
Secondly, if it is a recreational area, this is a consideration and
certainly to me a most important one. ***# If we are going to
make a comparison, there is no assurance that just pumping it (tailings)
on the land is going to keep the water out of the lake. Now there is
going to be seepage through the ground if it is on an area that is above
or if it is on fill of some kind this water is going to go somewhere. It
is either going to go into the lake or down some other river. And I do
not subscribe to the position yesterday that we should take it out of
Lake Superior and put it down some other river. I think this is burying
your head in the sand. So I think we have to be concerned about this
water wherever it goes. And, it is, also, I have heard comments about
dumping the stuff in a bog somewhere and this is going to displace bog
water which is clearly not desirable water either to put into the lake--
so those are some of the considerations of on-land disposal. **## "
Exhibit A-5
-------
97
On January 15, 1971 the Conferees convened in Executive Session
and concluded that the Conference would establish a Technical Com-
mittee. The Chairman and representatives of Minnesota, Michigan
and Wisconsin concurred in the following:
" Chairman Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
Washington, D. cl :
committee will consider land disposal as
well as the under water disposal plan presented here and
come up with its evaluation as well as its recommendations
* * * The Committee can just look at the feasibility of this
kind of thing and hopefully get in touch with Reserve or
any of the other parties and ask them to consult with them
and see what recommendations they can come up with.
Now I think we are faced with several propositions.
We are faced with the proposition of and let's start the
other way by saying we are going to entertain the Reserve's
proposal for under water disposal as is. We are going to
entertain that and recommend it with modifications. We are
going to reject it and tell them to go to a land disposal
system, or we are going to reject it completely, that they
have not come up with the remedial program and take appro-
priate action legal action and let the Court decide what
the solution should be. * * * If we could set up a committee
the committee can be established almost immediately, and we
can ask the company to volunteer, and the committee could
have their specifications of what they would ask the company
to provide to them. In other words, I would like to give
this to the committee when they have had a little thought
and discussion with both and not set these specifics at a
table like this, because I think we know what we are driving
at, but I think this has to be the committee and the company
deciding what they want and what was within the capability
of the committee to give, and this will require a technical
kind of discussion which we can leave to the committee. * * *
Of course, any of the other conservation groups or anyone
else you want to call into here, I suggest you get I would
strongly urge that, everyone get all their theories out on
the table at least at this go-around co that every time I
come out here I don't grab another brass ring. * * * I
would think that this is a Technical Committee, and we are
not looking for votes or anything here. If there are dif-
ferent views we are going to take all of the views.* * *
We just want to get all of the facts out. * * * I think we
are very close to a solution and, as far as I am concerned,
we are very close to a decision one way or the other.* * "
-------
98
March 5, 1971 - Conversation with E. Fride
FRIDE; I attended a meeting of the Technical Committe of the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference today, Friday, March 5. The meeting was
scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m. Because the Minnesota dele-
t
gation was not present, the meeting did not commence until 11:50 a.m.
Present were Dale Bryson, Dr. Donald Mount, Ginny Snarski, Grant
Merritt, Johannes and Richie from the Minnesota delegation, Lloyd
Lueschow from Wisconsin, and Mr. Kampenan from Michigan.
Merritt said that he had a draft of a report from Minnesota, but he
did not read it nor did he distribute it. He said that he had personally
looked at the ten alternatives which the Committee had listed in their
rating sheet while he was the Task Force chairman for MECCA in a
meeting at his home and he understands that MECCA had made a
report to the Technical Committee. He asked, what has been done
with the rating sheet? Mount replied: No tabulation was made
of the rating sheet because of two problems--one, a linear tabulation
wouldn't be accurate, secondly, Minnesota and Wisconsin said they
could not use it in any event because they wanted an on-land system.
Mount said that MECCA in their presentation to the Technical Com-
mittee had recommended that of the ten alternatives, number eight
would be the only one that would be acceptable which was total tailings
on land, no discharge to a surface water course.
Merritt said it was the policy of the state that it would require total
on-land tailings deposition. He said he had looked at the possibility
of a dike in the water in a tailings pond adjacent to the plant in Lake
Superior, but that this was not acceptable. It would look bad and he
(Merritt) said he had also considered the possibility of having the
concentrator moved back to Babbitt, but that he understood that this
would mean that the men who are employed at the plant would also
move with the plant and this would lose the tax base in Lake County
and that would not be good.
Bryson said the Department of Natural Resources said they could not
accept eight, but that they would accept ten; ten being the relocation
of the beneficiation plant near the existing mine site. Merritt said,
that's all changed; that's resolved. I met with Herbst on February
18th. Herbst now will change the Department of Natural Resources'
position. He'll send you a letter and I will telephone him and tell
him to send you a letter. The state policy is that it's only land dis-
posal; that the state of Minnesota is not going to dictate at this time
what type of system because that's open to decision. We don't care if
it's a tailings basin. We don't care if they move the plant, just so
there's absolutely no discharge to the lake.
Exhibit A-8
-------
99
- 2 -
Mount said, do you mean that literally no discharge to the lake?
And Merritt said, exactly. And Mount said, it's incumbent on
Minnesota to describe what you mean by an on-land system. That's
simply a concept. What kind of a discharge would you be permitting?
Merritt said, no; discharge to the lake whatever, but we won't dictate
the method that they come up with.
Merritt said, I have studied the laws and I'm not sure that the Con-
ference can really tell the company what to do. And I'm not sure
that this committee can determine what method can be utilized.
Merritt further said, we don't know what plan the company will feel
is most acceptable, and we don't know what's acceptable to the people
in Minnesota, so we're not going to try to dictate the method. He
said, we've asked the Corps of Engineers to revoke the permit. He
(Merritt) said the company has to come up with the best plan and then
we'll review it on both the state and federal level.
Bryson said, well NEMDA knows what regulations they have to meet
in connection with their plan and historically, dischargers have to
understand what kinds of criteria they have to meet. Would you per-
mit them to put tailings in Lax Lake? Bryson referred to the fact
that Michigan had, from what he understood, systems where iron ore
companies would discharge into tailings basins but there would be
overflows into rivers and, hence, to lakes and that Michigan authorized
that. Minnesota will not, said Merritt. Bryson said, well Minnesota
lost in court. How can you say that this is exactly what you're going
to do now? Merritt said, there's lots of other actions that we're going
to take and we're not too much concerned about that court decision.
Mount said, do you mean to say that even if the discharge from Reserve
meets all the effluent standards in Minnesota's regulations, that you
still would prohibit any discharge to the lake meeting effluent require-
ments? And Merritt said, absolutely not one drop is going to that lake.
He (Merritt) went on to repeat that we won't dictate the exact plan and
you can't do it either (referring to the Technical Committee and to the
Conference). Bryson and Mount both said that, well the Minnesota
people who have been here from the PCA have previously reported to
the Technical Committee that if some plan could be devised that would
meet any effluent requirements of a discharge that this would be
satisfactory. Merritt said, no, that's not going to be the case now;
I'm changing that and there's not going to be any discharge at all to the
lake. He (Merritt) said as far as Lax Lake is concerned that Stoddard's
plan coming up soon will be reflecting that you don't have to use Lax
Lake. And Merritt referred to Lax Lake as a red herring painted by
Reserve.
Mount said, I'm familiar with what Stoddard is going to come up with
...he's told me. And he (Mount) said Stoddard's plan also has some
discharge to the lake. Merritt said, if that's true, then it's not
acceptable. Mount said, do you mean for all time. He (Mount) said
-------
- 3 -
100
there's a natural overflow in the spring. You may be looking at
50 to 100 years from now. What kind of requirements are you
going to impose for that (Mount still speaking)? Merritt said, I
don't care what they do or how they do it, but the tailings basin if
that's what the company decides to go must be maintained by the
company and must provide that for all time there will never be any
overflow to any rivers or to the lake. He (Merritt) said they can
recirculate it. . .other companies do and there's no reason why
Reserve can't do the same thing. Merritt then interjected that he
had told me (Fride) . . . oh, he'd asked me a question and I asked
Bryson whether he wanted me to answer it. This question related
to the fact that there once was a pilot plant at Babbitt which did
overflow into lakes and rivers and Merritt said that that was news
to him; that he didn't know anything about a pilot plant and he
asked me whether it was true. And I asked Bryson if he wanted me
to respond to Merritt's questions or not; that I didn't intend to
indicate any disrespect for Mr, Merritt, but that if they wanted me
to respond, I would be glad to, but I wanted to know what the wishes
were of the Committee. And Bryson said, no he didn't want me to
speak; that as far as they were concerned I was simply a post in the
corner and that they felt that the Committee's work would be better
aided if there weren't any three-cornered kinds of decisions.
Merritt then interjected, has the press been notified of this meeting;
where1 s the press? And Bryson said, well the press have been
notified that we are meeting from time to time. They know that
there was a meeting scheduled for Friday, but they're not here and
I haven't called them specifically about this meeting today.
Mount said to Merritt, would you accept any drainage to the St.
Louis River or to the Mississippi River. Merritt said, no, we're
going to use the St. Louis River for coho and we're not going to
permit any discharge or any tailings of any kind to go into the river.
Mount said, how about the Missouri or the Red River drainage? The
Babbitt plant used to go there. Merritt said he didn't know anything
about that, but they weren't going to do it any more if they ever had.
He (Merritt) asked Johannes if that was correct. Johannes said that
when there was a pilot plant, the tailings went to Birch Lake and then
went up the other way. Merritt said, Erie at Hoyt Lakes has com-
pletely closed circulation, and that this is what Reserve was going to
have to do. Mount said, when you start talking about zero discharges,
you're getting into some very difficult kinds of areas. He (Mount)
said that, for example, the Food and Drug Administration were talking
about zero tolerances some time ago and each time they get a more
sophisticated sampling technique, they find their zero tolerances
changing. Merritt said he didn't much care about that; that other
systems were closed and Reserve's was going to have to be closed and
there was going to be absolute zero discharge.
-------
- 4 - 101
Johannes then said to Merritt, are you ruling out any kind of a
discharge even if it meets the effluent standards? Merritt said,
yes. Mount said, well, number eight wouldn't meet that standard.
And Merritt said, well then if it wouldn't, then we can't use it.
Any water containing any fines of any kinds of tailings is not
going to be permitted to go into Lake Superior or into any rivers
that lead into Lake Superior (Merritt speaking). He (Merritt) said,
what's the purpose of this Committee? Is the purpose to choose
alternatives? What's the charge of the Conference? (Merritt
still speaking. ) They had some discussion about that and they finally
got out the charge that Murray Stein had given to the Conference and
read that and then Mount again said, you know the evaporation rate
is substantially lower than the rainfall rate. How are you ever going
to prevent any kind of discharge or overflow to Lake Superior (Mount
speaking)? And Merritt said, he didn't care how they did it. . . they
were just going to do it. And Mount said, well MECCA pressed for
number eight. . .that wouldn't meet your policy. And Merritt said,
well, if it wouldn't then they can't do it.
Merritt said, have you analyzed Reserve's plan? As the plan is pre-
sented, is it acceptable? Bryson then said, that he personally had a
draft of the way that he thought the Technical Committee should go;
that it was his (Bryson's) personal draft and that it was subject to
change. Then they got out and passed around to those people a five-
page draft with two attachments on it. Subsequently, I (Fride) got a
copy of it so I won't belabor it too much. But it does say as far as
conclusions, this: Quote.. ."The Plan to Modify Tailings Discharge
System as presented by Reserve Mining Company at the January 14-15
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference was reviewed in detail by the
Technical Committee. The Committee concludes that this method of
disposal is unacceptable as it does not comply with appropriate
pollution abatement regulations. The main concerns relative to this
method are: (a) the proposed method would probably cause more
green water than currently exists; (b) the proposed method would not
materially reduce dissolved solids discharged to the lake; (c) the
proposed method would not materially reduce suspended solids dis-
charge to the lake; (d) the proposed method would employ a flocculant
which would be discharged to the lake and which would have unknown
ecological impact. " Then it goes on to say, "When considering the
abatement of an existing source of pollution, the historical policy of
the state and federal regulatory agencies is to rely totally upon the
discharger to develop the appropriate acceptable method of waste
treatment. If the method proposed by the discharger is found to be
unacceptable, appropriate guidance is furnished the discharger for his
use in making the proper corrections prior to resubmission. The
Lake Superior Technical Committee feels that considerations relating
to the Reserve Mining Company method of disposal should be guided
-------
5 102
by this precedent." At this point Merritt interjected and he said to
Johannes, is that correct. . .that that's the historical policy? And
Johannes said, yes. And Mount said to Wisconsin and Michigan,
do you agree that that's the historical policy? And they both indicated
yes.
The conclusions of the Bryson draft said: Quote. . . "(1) The Plan to
Modify Tailings Discharge System as presented by Reserve is an
unacceptable method of waste disposal; (2) No other firm methods of
tailings disposal were presented to the Committee for evaluation;
(3)The Committee was unable to develop alternative disposal methods
in sufficient detail to technically evaluate them; (4) It is the responsi-
bility of a waste discharger to develop an acceptable method of waste
treatment for presentation to the appropriate regulatory agencies to
eliminate the pollution problems from that discharge; (5) It is the
responsibility of the appropriate regulatory agencies to provide
guidance to the discharger, in the case Reserve Mining Company, as
to the acceptability of a method of disposal and if unacceptable, to
provide guidance as to what modifications of the proposed process are
necessary to become acceptable. "
The recommendations in the Bryson draft were that the Committee
recommends. . . quote. . . (1) The Conferees instruct Reserve to
develop a means of taconite tailings disposal that will eliminate the
causes of concern delineated; (2) The Conferees provide Reserve
with the appropriate criteria against which a design of an alternative
method of disposal can be designed; (3) Reserve Mining Company
should present a preliminary proposal in as great detail as possible
within 90 days from the date the Conferees instruct the company.
The final detailed plans and specifications should be submitted six
months thereafter as stated in Conference Recommendation number
nine, final construction and operation of the sytem should be com-
pleted by January, 1974. "
They then embarked in a discussion of those recommendations and
Merritt said that all Minnesota needs is number one--that was that
they instruct Reserve to develop a means of taconite tailings disposal.
Bryson said, that's quite a problem. ..you're expecting a discharger
to do something blindly. You have to be fair and tell the company
what it has to do (Bryson). Merritt said, it doesn't make any
difference to have deadlines anyway. . . the company's missed two dead-
lines; they're not going to make any deadlines, there's no use giving
them any deadlines. There are many other courses that the Con-
ferees can take (Merritt). Mount said, maybe we should take out
number three and just leave number one and number two (number two
being that the Conferees would provide criteria). Mount asked
Merritt again, would you accept an overflow that meets your effluent
standards? Merritt said, absolutely not.
-------
J03
- 6 -
Johannes said, well, we're going to be taxed pretty much if we're
going to try to develop criteria and if we're going to consider
environmental effects on land. . . such as on wildlife and ground
waters and so forth. Johannes said, why don't we just leave that
sort of loose and Minnesota would have to issue a permit anyway, so
it's a Minnesota problem. The overall criteria for land, let's just
limit ourselves to water and tell Reserve to come up with a plan that
meets the policy of the state insofar as water is concerned (Johannes).
Mount said, do you agree that they cannot use Lax Lake? Merritt
said he doesn't care if they use Lax Lake or not. . . he doesn't think
they have to use Lax Lake. . . but they could pollute Lax Lake if they
have to because that's the lesser of many evils. He (Merritt)
emphasized that he did not want Reserve to shut down. Mount said,
will Minnesota present specific criteria to the Conference so that
the Conferees can evaluate the criteria? Merritt said, no. Merritt
said, let's call Stein. .. let1 s reconvene the Conference.
There was some discussion about who was going to call Stein.
Merritt said he would be calling the principals insofar as Wisconsin
and Michigan were concerned. He said (Merritt) maybe all we need
is just number two, or just number one. He (Merritt) said that as far
as I'm concerned this Committee has discharged its responsibility
... it says it can't come up with any alternative. And they can say that
because of the lack of staff and lack of time. Wisconsin said, well if
Minnesota wanted to establish criteria, that's up to Minnesota.
Wisconsin is not saying zero discharge. All Wisconsin is saying is
on-land discharge.
Johannes--we can't consider land without thinking about the effects,
so let's just restrict ourselves to water considerations.
Mount said Reserve should be provided with criteria. Merritt said,
no we don't have to provide them with criteria. . .the Conferees have
to decide this; there's no point in spelling out the criteria. Mount
again said, well even Stoddard's plan isn't acceptable by your
definitions. Merritt said, well if it isn't, then it isn't acceptable as
far as the state of Minnesota is concerned.
Merritt then said he'd have to leave (it was then 12:50--Merritt had
been there just about exactly an hour). Bryson said, this Technical
Committee must have information from Herbst by Monday. Merritt
said don't worry, you'll get it.
In the Bryson draft it is provided. . quote. . . "The Minnesota Depart-
ment of Natural Resources said they would not allow such a location
(this is Lax Lake) to be used for a tailings lagoon due to the safety
-------
104
hazard presented and the impairment to land uses in that region.
Instead, they suggested that a portion of the plant be relocated
closer to the mine. Reserve Mining Company explained that that
latter plan would not be feasible. "
The information that they came up with just before Merritt left was
that they had advised Stein that the Committee would be ready for a
report anytime after March 10th. Merritt said, I presume that
Stein will want to give three weeks' notice of the reconvening, so
that would be toward the end of March. Bryson said they didn't think
they had to give three weeks' notice but maybe Stein would want to do
so. It was left that Merritt was going to leave.
I then asked Bryson for a copy of the draft which he had and he
polled the Committee and the poll was that we would be entitled to it
so they gave me a copy of this draft. I said, write on it that it is a
draft if you like, so they wrote on it, draft subject to revision.
Subsequent to that Merritt leaving then, they were going to have
lunch and they said they would get together this afternoon and hammer
out without Merritt being there, but with Johannes and Richie being
there, hammer out some Committee report that would be acceptable
as they understood it.
-------
REPORT TO 2-
LAKE SUPERIOR TACONITE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 105
FROM
WISCONSIN
1. The committee was directed to consider land disposal of taconite tailings
as well as their disposal by means of the underwater disposal plan
presented at the January 14, 1971 enforcement conference and come up
with an evaluation and recommendations.
2. The committee selected ten suggested methods for disposal of taconite
tailings and developed sixteen criteria for evaluation of environmental
impact of each of the methods.
3. Section 29.29(3), Wisconsin Statutes, prohibits deposition of stone or
sand in waters within the jurisdiction of the State. In view of this
statute, Wisconsin cannot authorize deposition of tailings in Lake
Superior from any source in or outside of the State of Wisconsin.
4. In view of the legislation referred to in item 3., the only acceptable
methods of taconite tailings disposal are 5, 8, 9 and 10. Of these,
method 8 appears most suitable as it provides for disposal of taconite
tailings on land as well as reuse of process water, thus reducing
appropriation of water to a minimum. Potential for surface water
pollution would also be at a minimum. Concern was expressed about
the safety of the dam which would ultimately reach a height of 100
feet. In the interest of safety, the dam could over a period of time
be built up in ten 10-foot set back terraces designed with a gradient
towards the next succeeding terrace above it. These slanted terraces
would act as catchment areas for rains and reduce runoff from the
face of the dam to a minimum. On completion, the first terrace and
its face could be fertilized and planted with suitable vegetation to
prevent erosion.
Exhibit A-9
-------
- 2 -
5. Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 must be rejected as each of these would
result in discharge of tailings to Lake Superior.
6. See attached copy of Wisconsin Statutes and letter of November 16, 1967.
Theodore F. Wisniewski
February 11, 1971
------- |