SECOND MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF LAKE SUPERIOR AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN,
RECONVENED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10
OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
VOLUME II
Great Hall
Radisson Duluth Hotel
Duluth, Minnesota
January 15, 1971
-------
11
CJONTENT^
Page
Communi cations
Houghton High School 244
Mrs. v/arren Olson 244
Barbara Jensen 244
Mrso Elois Scott 244
Mrs. Helen W. Jones 245
Sara M. Koenke 246
Liz K. Greenhagen 247
Lyn Richardson 249
RJR Foods Company 251
Edward T. Fride 256
Charles R. Skinker 291
Leon W. Weinberger 299
Bruce M. Niss 377
Executive Session
League of tfomen Voters of Minnesota
Communications
Jim Randall (Re: Village of Kinney) 401
-------
Ill
Second Session of the Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of Lake Superior and Its Tributary Basin in
L
the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, reconvened
under the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein , Assistant Commissioner for
Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office, Washington, D.C.
CONFEREES:
Raich W. Purdv, Executive Secretarv,
Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Lancing, Michigan
Francis T. Mayo, Regional Director, Great
Lakes Region, Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office, Chicago,
Illinois
Thomas G. Francos, Administrator, Division
of Environmental Protection, Department
of Natural Resources. State of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin
-------
IV
CONFEREES, Continued:
Donald J. Mackie, Executive Assistant,
Department of Nat\iral Resources, State
of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin
Robert. 0, Tuveson , Member, Minnesota
Pollution Control Arencv, Albert Lea,
Minnesota
John P. Badalich, Executive Director,
Minnesota Pollution Control Ap-encv,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dr. Howard A. Andersen. Chairman.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Aeencv,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
ALTERNATE CONFEREE:
Dale Brvson, Director, Lake Sunerior-
Upoer Misoissinni River Basin Office,
Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota
PARTICIPANTS:
Charles R. Skinker, Vice-President, Parsons-
•Jurden Corporation. New York City, New York.
Dr. Leon W. Weinberger, Consaltine; Engineer,
Pot omao, Ma rvIand.
-------
PARTICIPANTS, Continued:
Bruce M. Niss, Consultants Assistant, Northern
Environmental Council, Duluth, Minnesota,
-------
244
Communications
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
We have several telegrams I would like to put in
the record, as if read.
From Houghton High School, signed by a number of
students and Barbara Clark, Faculty Advisor:
"Houghton High School biology students and Students
for Pollution Control Club urge Reserve Mining Company stop
immediately further dumping of tailings into Lake Superior."
Without objection, these telegrams will appear in
the record as if read.
Telegram from Mrs. Warren Olson of Fridley,
Minnesota:
"Please enforce strict water quality standard."
Telegram from Barbara Jensen of Fridley,
Minnesota:
"Don't let Superior get drier."
And a letter from Mrs. Elois Scott of Hancock,
Minnesota.
Where is Hancock — Michigan or Minnesota?
MR. PURDY: Michigan.
MR. STEIN: Hancock, Michigan. I stand
corrected.
"Conferees:
-------
245
Communications
"It is of great concern to my family that Reserve
t
Mining Company be stopped immediately from dumping 60,000
tons of fine taconite particles into Lake Superior daily.
"We have a cottage in Lake Superior. We have
lived there fifteen summers. All the water we have used
comes from Lake Superior because of its purity.
"We urge you — please save this unique body of
water for future generations.
"Sincerely, Mrs. Elois Scott."
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have several letters
which I would like to introduce into the record received in
my office yesterday.
I have one here from Mrs. Helen W. Jones, which
I would like to put in the record. There is no address on
this one.
"To Whom It May Concern:
"In 1940 for the first time my husband and I
visited Beaver Bay and the North Shore of Lake Superior.
Since then our family (children and grandchildren) have
been enjoying vacations every summer in that beautiful
place.
"It has everything to commend it: exhilarating
climate; great sparkling Lake Superior; woods, falls and
streams. It is one of the beauty spots of America.
-------
Communications
"Now things have changed. The lake, formerly a
clear, sparkling blue, has become, from time to time, a
clouded green. The commercial fishing, once a flourishing
business, has declined to almost nothing. These changes
have increased this summer. Pollution is here!
"It is believed this is due to the thousands of
tons of taconite tailings dumped into the lake. These
tailings have been found on the Wisconsin shore and towards
Duluth.
"There is nothing so powerful as public opinion.
So it is imperative that concerned citizens register their
opposition to this spoilation of Lake Superior and work to
stop it.
"Lake Erie has been ruined. Let us stop the
pollution of Lake Superior."
Another one from Sara M. Koenke from West St.
Paul:
"To Whom It May Concern:
"I have been a visitor on the North Shore of
Lake Superior since my marriage in 1944 and a land owner
since 195#. I am a native of Ohio and watched the pollution
and destruction of Lake Erie. One by one beaches were
deserted because of the contamination by man for selfish
and lethargic reasons0
-------
247
Communications
"I visited Lake Superior and was delighted and
overwhelmed to discover another great body of water which
was clean and clear. My children learned to love Lake
Superior, as I, in my childhood, had loved Lake Erie. Our
dream to own land here was realized in 195$ and until 1962,
the lake was clear and a blue in color that only God could
rival. This is the year that my high school daughter began
to write letters to Congressmen and Senators to protest
the green color in the water. I am proud that she is
still conservation minded and does 'her thing1 in Seattle,
Washington, now that she is married.
"Our taxes have been raised along the shore at
an alarming rate to subsidize the iron ore plant which is
pouring tons of tailings a day into the lake. This does
cause a green color which was never seen before. Taxes
above the highway 6l have been reduced to help the iron
ore area0 I am paying more taxes to have my lake change
color. I liked it the way it was."
Another one from Liz K. Greenhagen of Seattle,
Washington:
"To Whom It May Concern:
"I am writing in reference to the changes in
water color and pollution of Lake Superior by the Taconite
Mining Company of Silver Bay, Minnesota. My parents have
-------
Communications
owned a cabin on Lake Superior below Silver Bay since
Since 195$ and a few years before, we have been coming up
to the lake. From 1955 to 1959> the lake was crystal clear
with no evidence of the 'green water current' which carries
the taconite tailing wastes from the Silver Bay plant. The
tailings became visible a few years later and in 1961-1962
the sludge was visible along the shore as well as in the
deeper water. The fine tailings were visible in the drink-
ing water which was obtained from the lake on many occasions
and not just on stormy days. During the time after 1962 and
up to 1963, there was a marked difference in the water color
and the 'green water current' became wider and more pro-
nounced. It was visible on all visits to the Iake0 Even
when the lake was stormy and gray, the definite 'green
water1 was still visible and distinguished. The trail was
usually in the same position, about a couple of miles from
the shore. The difference in water color was noticeable
from Duluth all the way to Silver Bay and was seen emitting
from that particular plant. This 'green water' to which I
have referred is not just a temporary color change due to
light, but the presence of a foreign body or contaminate
can also be seen. The difference is visible to anyone
watching the lake.
"Lake Superior used to be a source of beauty and
-------
249
Communications
^enjoyment for those who visited it, but for more than & years
the beauty has been marred by pollution. The State of
Minnesota cannot afford to let such a natural beauty and
asset become a source of pollution and contamination.
Minnesota is supposed to be 'the land of 10,000 lakes.
How can one identify with a State when the largest fresh-
water lake has become a hugh body of polluted water?"
And another one from — it looks like Lyn
Richardson from Bloomington, Minnesota.
"To Whom It May Concern:
"I am writing you in regard to the change in the
environment and appearance of Lake Superior on the North
Shore, from the time of our first trip in 1929 to the present
date, and in the area approximately from Little Marais to
Two Harbors.
"We made the area of Beaver Bay our summer head-
quarters, and explored and fished up and down the lake.
tfe were fortunate enough to be privileged to go out to the
nets with a commercial fisherman, besides trolling during
this period.
"When we first came, the lake was a clear blue
color and the water was so clear, clean, and unpolluted,
we took it up by a water wheel and bucket, and never had
we had such good drinking water.
-------
250
Communications
"After the coming in of the taconite processing
plant at Silver Bay, we have gradually, but surely, seen
the tailings floating farther and farther down shore.
This last September we noticed the green water as far as
the Two Harbors area.
"We believe if this is allowed to continue, thi^
great lake will be destroyed for all time, when it is so
unnecessary."
And then also a statement from the RJR Foods
Company of Duluth regarding their discharge in respect to
this conference.
I would like to have this also placed in the
record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, all those will
be placed in the record, as if read.
(The statement from RJR Foods follows in its
entirety.)
-------
P.'?, Hooc.';, inc. 251
5020 uoosevoliSfc''!
Duluth, Minn. 55001
Telsohona 213 G2o-102i
JANUARY 1^, 197!
MR. JOHN BADALICH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OF MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
717 DELAWARE STREET S.E.
MINN-E-APOL is, MINNESOTA
DEAR MR. BADALiCH:
ATTACHED is AN ANALYSIS OF OUR COOLING WATER BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE
SWAMP AREA OUTSIDE OF OUR PLANT AS SUBMITTED BY EARL RUBLE AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS.
THE REPORT CONFIRMS THE FINDINGS OF THE PREVIOUS REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE
CONFERENCE AND READ INTO THE RECORD ON AUGUST 12, 1970 ('2 COPIES SUBMITTED)
THE ANALYSIS"REPORT INDICATES THAT THE WATER WE ARE DISCHARGING INTO THE
SWAMP AREA IS GOOD CLEAN WATER.
WE ALSO ENCLOSE A COPY OF OUR AUGUST 12, 197° REPORTS.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
RJR FOODS, INC.
..... -2 /
<—-
JlM BlNGHAM
EXECUTIVE PLANT MANAGER
JB:EL
ENC,
CC: R. D. MILLER, ACTING CHIEF,SECT ion OF ENFORCEMENT, MPLS.
GEORGE" KOOHCF.
DULUTH CITY Cci.>i\cn.
HOWARD V/OLU, CITY CLERK
HON. BEN Bcb, MAYOR
-------
252
EARL RUBLE ond ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS
217 LAKE AVENUE S. OULUTH, MINNESOTA 55802 T«l. 218/722 3953
January 13, 1971
Mr. Jim Bingham, Plant Manager
R. J. Reynolds Foods, Inc.
200 North 50th Avenue West
Duluth, Minnesota 55807
Dear Mr. Bingham:
We have instituted a weekly sampling and recording program for
R. J. Reynolds Foods, Inc. plant effluent as required by the
Pollution Control Agency.
A twenty-four hour composite sample was taken from the basement
discharge trough 2:00 P.M., January 6, through 2:00 P.M., January
7, 1971. Flow was recorded over this same period. The results of
this sampling and a grab sample taken December 16, 1970, are as follows:
December 16, 1970 Grab January 7, 1971 Composite
B.O.D. (1 (1
Total Suspended Solids 2.k mg/1 5-1* mg/1
Coliform 0 0
pH 7.3 7.5
Phosphorus — .07 mg/1
Temperature 7^° C. 60°C.
The flow for twenty-four hours January 6 - January 7 was 120,000
gallons made up of retort cooling water. Any solids finding their way
into the effluent would be food products washed from cans during the
cooling process and a matter of housekeeping.
There is no addition of chemicals to this water.
Very truly yours,
EARL RUBLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
"I
Earl H. Ruble, P. E.
>/
Gary^/Baker
LaboVatory Division
GB:jw
ENGINEERING-ARCHITECTURE-COMPUTER SERVICES-CHEMISTRY-BIOLOGY'GEOLOGY- ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
-------
5C2u
Duluui, Minn. 55801
Teiephor.G 218 623-1C21
253
AUGUST
1970
MR. JOHN BADALICH
EXECUTIVE: DIRECTOR
STATE or MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
717 DELAWARE STREET S.E.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
DEAR MR. BADALiCH:
ATTACHED ARE TWO REPORTS ON PLANT EFFLUENT CONCERNING RJR FOODS,
WEST DULUTH PLANT FACILITIES.
I NC.
I. A REPORT FROM OUR PLANT ENGINEER DESCRIBING THE DISCHARGE
WATER, SWAMP AREA, AND ALSO FINDING A PROBLEM AND MAKING
THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS.
2. A REPORT FROM RUBLE AND KAPLE, lNCtJ CONSULTING ENGINEERS
OF DULUTH, MINNESOTA SHOWING THE ANALYSIS OF OUR WASTE
WATER TAKEN AT OUR FINAL DISCHARGE PIPE FLOWING INTO THE
SWAMP AREA WHICH CONCLUDES THAT THE WATER WE ARE DISCHARGING
INTO THE SWAMP AREA IS CLEAN WATER.
WE HAVE SET UP A TWICE DAILY VISUAL INSPECTION OF OUR DISCHARGE FACILITIES
SO WE MAY BE IMMEDIATELY AWARE SHOULD ANY CHANGE IN THE WATER DISCHARGE
TAKE PLACE. THIS IS A VERY REMOTE POSSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THE CORRECTIVE
ACT ION WE HAVE TAKEN .
VERY TRULY YOURS,
RJR FOODS, INC.
JIM BINCHAM
EXECUTIVE PLANT MANAGER
JB-.EL
ENC.
-------
254
1V.TK:
TO:
FROM!
SUBJECT:
" ••]
>'••' < I :3,.j. KICYrTGL/DS J^'OODS, INC.
FOODS
IMTER-OFi'lCE CC:U;C3
August 11, 1970 *
,
i r/tw rvejcre-! by ma or iv,£er my direct
eyV«rvh;«ft" flnrl lhat I r.:n a ilu'y Rc^bt^rcti
jprii*ssr.5«sn! Entfascr under the laws of the
Jim Bingham
Stfttc-,oj( Mij-uicsota. _
Art Christensen ; i .•' ,//.r,;,•/.••.>..••__
Water Problems
Our plant effluent is separated into two discharges. One
discharge is piped to the city sanitary sewer, and the
second discharge is piped to a swamp immediately north and
west of our property. Point of discharge into this swamp
is 1,200 ft. from St. Louis Bay.
.The first discharge piped;-to the sanitary sewer, collects
all floor drains, wash stations, sinks, lavatories and
toilet facilities. The second discharge, discharging to
the swamp, collects only retort cooling water and conden-
sate from heat exchangers.
Results of tests conducted last October on discharged
retort cooling water showed a BOD of 25 mg/L, which is
within limits established by the State of Minnesota Pollu-
tion Authority.
Results of tests conducted in May of this year disclosed
a BOD of discharged retort cooling water of 30 mg/L, which
is 5 mg/L above the upper limit established by the State of
Minnesota Pollution Control Authority.
We investigated to determine the cause of the increase. We
found two breaks in our sanitary sewer line in the piping
tannel under our cannery floor. These breaks were leaking
solids to the piping tunnel floor and into the retort cool-
ing water trench. We resolved to repair those leaks at our
earliest opportunity.
During our plant shut down for overhaul in July, we made
repairs to the sanitary sewer lines to stop all leakage.
Results of test, copy attached, show a BOD of less than 1 mg/L
which is less than can be measured by standard BOD test.
Art Christensen
-------
255
V'-^.JL'-";"
RUHLE AM) KAl'LE INC. PROFESSIONAL CONSLLTANTS
217 S. LAKE AVENUE o DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55802 MINN. 218/722-3%3
WISC. 715/392-2912
August 11, 1970
Mr. Ar'a Cnr i ct u n son
?,. J. Reynolds "oocis
2CO north 50th Av.nua Vest
Duluth, Kiniicsot''. 55^'-'7
Dci,r i!r. Chr-i etienson:
The rasuMts of the tests run on the vater srrnple collectac!
by our laboratory personnel on nonc!?y, August 3rc!j rre as follov.'s;
Plant effluent: 3.0.0. (5 cl.ys ? 2C° C.) <1 r.g/1
Coliform org;.nis;ns 0 per K'O cc.
Total Suspsnrlod Solids 1 r.;g/l
Tu r b i c' i t y 11 J. T. U.
Phosphate zz ? .Ci}
Ujeldehl Ultrogsn < .1 r.^/1
pi-I 7-2
Tcr.ipercturtj 75° F.
Very truly yours,
. ^Z&f* &'£
Gery Izxar
G"D:epni Lebaratory Division
ARCHITECTURE 0 CHEMISTRY 6 ENGINEERING O GEOPHYSICS
-------
256
£. Fride
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: That is all I have.
MR. STEIN: But will you continue with the
Minnesota presentation?
MR. BADALICH: All right. I believe at the time
we recessed yesterday, Mr. Fride, representing Reserve
Mining Company, was handling the presentation. We heard
from Mr. Furness, the President, and I believe I would like
to call upon Mr. Fride this morning to continue the presen-
tation for Reserve Mining Company.
MR. FRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Badalich.
Mr. Chairman, members of the conference, ladies
and gentlemen.
The engineering plan to be presented today is
now in the hands of the conferees,through the Minnesota
Agency, as well as the text of the statements which will
be made presenting the plan.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would move that
they be made a part of the record.
MR. STEIN: The engineering plans will be made a
part of the record.
I am looking at the document. I think in view
of the importance of this plan, we will try to reproduce it
as presented. We may have a problem —
-------
257
So Pride
MR. FRIDE: We have a number of copies, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. STEIN: I am just talking of the evidence.
We may have a problem of getting this reproduced in color.
MR. FRIDE: I see.
MR. STEIN: But I am going to try. Now, I do know
from looking at your pictures in this document that they
are not going to reproduce.
Mr. Fride, do you think you can get us better
copies of the photographs that are contained in this report?
MR. FRIDE: I am sure we can, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: If you can, we will try to get them —
MR. FRIDE: Very good,
MR. STEIN: — reproduced, and this will be made
a part of the record as if read.
Thank you.
MR. FRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we
will do that.
(The above-mentioned document follows in its
entirety.)
-------
Plan to Modify
Tailings Discharge System
RESERVE MINING COMPANY
Babbitt and Silver Bay, Minnesota
-------
259
WHAT IS RESERVE MINING COMPANY?
Reserve Mining Company is a Minnesota
corporation and all its officers and employ-
ees are Minnesota residents. Reserve pro-
duces merchantable iron ore in the form of
pellets from Babbitt taconite, a hard, gray
rock in which are imbedded fine particles
of magnetite, a black magnetic oxide of
iron.
Mining is done at Babbitt, Minnesota.
After primary and secondary crushing
the crude taconite is transported on Re-
serve's 47-mile intraplant railroad to the
processing plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota,
on the north shore of Lake Superior.
Since beginning operations in the 1950's,
Reserve provides 15% of the U.S. iron ore
used in America's blast furnaces. Reserve
pioneered the process which successfully
frees iron-bearing particles from the lean,
dense taconite. Reserve was the first com-
pany to demonstrate on a commercial basis
—at an investment of $350 million—that
iron ore from taconite could become a
high grade feed for the nation's basic steel
industry.
Twenty years ago much of the easy-to-
work natural ore had been mined out or
approached depletion due to the demands
of World War II and a growing American
industrial economy. The nation's steel-
makers began to look elsewhere for ore:
South America, Africa and Canada.
However, a virtually unlimited supply
of taconite remains on the Mesabi and
Reserve's pioneering work pointed the way
for converting it to usable iron ore. To-
day, six companies in Minnesota produce
pellets in taconite operations similar to
Reserve's. Yet, Minnesota has no monopoly
on this business. Taconite of similar or
substantially better quality is found in
large areas of eastern Canada as well as
on some of the iron ranges in Michigan and
Wisconsin. Competition from these sources
cannot be ignored in any consideration of
Reserve's operations.
1ST
BABBITT
Minnesota
SILVER
DULUTH
Wisconsin ~'
Michigan
1
-------
260
Reserve also is people—3,200 employees
whose lives and fortunes are tied to the
company. More than 9,000 people also
are employed by the five other companies
who now mine and process taconite in
Minnesota. Thousands more work for the
businesses which furnish the $110 million
worth of materials, supplies and equipment
used by these taconite producers. One in-
dustry observer estimates that four to six
persons are supported in non-mining jobs
for every employee in the mining industry.
In 1969, Reserve's payroll was $31,700,-
000 and the company's state and local
taxes paid totalled $4,250,000. Materials
and supplies purchased that year totalled
$27,400,000. During the most recent three
years of operations, the company realized
an average annual net profit per ton of ore
produced of $1.58 and a 4.41 per cent re-
turn on investment. Present outstanding in-
debtedness is approximately $144,000,000.
Reserve also is Silver Bay and Babbitt,
Minnesota—two new cities carved out of
the wilderness to become model commu-
nities. Both boast superb schools, modern
homes, a variety of recreational facilities.
Teachers, independent businessmen, bank-
ers, merchants and professional men pros-
per with the growth and development of
the taconite process.
Reserve recognizes the need for main-
taining a proper balance between its in-
dustrial responsibilities and a respect for
natural resources. While the company be-
lieves that much of the public criticism of
its operations with respect to Lake Superior
is unfounded, it is anxious to relieve this
concern to the maximum extent that is prac-
tical and feasible.
Part of Silver Bay, home of about half
of Reserve's 3,200 employees. Annual
payroll, including fringe benefits is over
$30,000,000.
*TH% •-*«. r jST*" <{_- -*- --~ »**jfc.^k»^*!*' - * * * v>«
feo*! -srSsjfrfr-i d^**£i^&'-' «. - *"*
V**J »•-" — -,., A*^: - .n£8KMf * 3 , j«.
- /i^fr-'fJhRjfc* »iiAf*^SaB'.«• k_ *S.'«^»_: _.'
Fz'ew o/ Babbitt. Like Silver Bay it is a
well-planned, self-governing model com-
munity with -modern schools, churches,
water and sewage plants, recreation areas,
and shopping centers.
Reserve built two modern cities to provide
pleasant homes for employees. Babbitt and
Silver Bay have a combined population of
9,000. Virtually all homes are privately
owned.
2
-------
261
WHAT IS TACONITE?
With the decline of the natural ores, the
once-great Mesabi felt the pinch. As the
region's economy faltered, unemployment
soared and people began to leave the area.
Duluth and other cities serving the Range
also were hard-hit. There were widespread
fears that the region might become another
Appalachia.
Despite efforts by a few far-sighted in-
dividuals who labored to find a practical
way to use taconite as a source of iron ore,
the future looked grim. A plant, built at
Babbitt in the 1920's to process taconite,
failed and that community became a ghost
town.
Nevertheless, this abrasive rock—hard
enough to scratch glass—continued to tanta-
lize a few dedicated engineers and scien-
tists. It contains 1 8 to 25 per cent iron but
that iron is finely disseminated throughout
the stubborn rock.
OPEN PIT
MINING
GRINDING
CONCENTRATE
TAILINGS
After taconite is crushed and ground, iron-
bearing particles are captured by magnets.
Iron-bearing particles are catted "concen-
trate". Particles not attracted to magnets
are called "tailings".
The taconite process is complex and ex-
pensive. Huge complicated machines are
needed. Plants costing hundreds of millions
of dollars are necessary.
Reserve crushes and grinds taconite and
separates the iron ore from the resulting
sand by powerful magnets. The iron ore
is then rolled into marble-size balls which
are fired to make them hard enough for
shipment down the Great Lakes to the steel
mills. The non-magnetic crushed rock or
sand that is rejected in this process is call-
ed "tailings". In Reserve's case, the process-
ing plant could not be located near the
mine at Babbitt (the common practice in
mineral dressing) because there is not
enough water nearby to supply the huge
quantities needed in the process. Also,
there is not sufficient low-lying land avail-
able near Babbitt for disposal of the large
amount of tailings created in the process:
three tons of taconite must be mined to
produce one ton of iron ore concentrate.
Reserve produces about 60,000 tons of
tailings daily and about 30,000 tons of
pellets.
Reserve's taconite is crushed to about
3-inch pieces and loaded into rail cars at
Babbitt. Complex of buildings in fore-
ground is maintenance shops for mine
equipment.
I
After being delivered by rail to Silver
Bay, taconite is crushed to smaller pieces,
3/4" or less. Crushed ore is then conveyed
beneath U. S. Highway 61 to concentrator
building.
3
-------
262
RESERVE'S PERMITS
Before Reserve built its plant at Silver
Bay, the company sought state and federal
approval to deposit its tailings into Lake
Superior. Thorough investigation showed
the inert sand—virtually insoluble in Lake
Superior water—would in no way harm the
lake, its fish or aquatic life. Permits were
issued to Reserve by the Minnesota Water
Pollution Control Commission (now known
as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
and the Minnesota Department of Conser-
vation on December 18, 1947. Subsequent-
ly, amendments were added following
more hearings on July 6, 1956 and Sep-
tember 29, 1960. Among other provisions
the following is included in both permits:
"(d) Such tailings shall not be discharged
so as to result in any material clouding
or discoloration of the water at the sur-
face outside of said zone except during
such time as turbidity from natural con-
ditions in the adjacent portions of the
lake outside of said zone may be caused
by storms, nor shall such tailings be dis-
charged so as to result in any material
adverse effects on fish life or public
water supplies or in any other material
unlawful pollution of the waters of the
lake or in any material interference with
navigation or in any public nuisance out-
side of said zone."***
"(i) The permit shall be for a term ex-
tending without limitation until the per-
mittee shall surrender the same, or until
revocation as hereinafter provided."
"(k) The permittee shall allow the com-
missioner of conservation or his agents
(or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
or successors in authority access to and
inspection of the permittee's plants,
premises, and operations under the per-
mit at all reasonable times for the pur-
poses of investigations and studies of the
effects thereof on the interests of the
public, and shall cooperate in such in-
vestigations and studies."
"(I) The permit shall be subject to revoca-
tion only for violation of the conditions
hereinbefore set forth. Before any such
revocation the commissioner of conserva-
tion (or the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) or his successor in authority
shall hold a public hearing upon charges
specifying the alleged violation, of which
at least thirty days' notice in writing shall
be given to the permittee, and if such
violation can be corrected the permittee
shall be given a reasonable opportunity
to correct the same."
Representatives of the Corps of Engi-
neers of the United States Army attended
all of the comprehensive State Permit hear-
ings and thereafter gave extensive consid-
eration to Reserve's Permit application. The
Corps issued a Permit to Reserve on April
22, 1948. This was subsequently amend-
ed on April 14, 1950, July 23, 1952, Aug-
ust 12, 1960 and on October 11, 1960 to
"permit deposition of tailings into Lake
Superior for an indefinite period," i.e.,
for the life of the plant. The Federal per-
mits have never specified any limitations on
the quantity of tailings to be deposited in
the lake or included any other provision
with respect to effects on the lake except to
state that there should not be "unreason-
able obstruction to the free navigation of
said water." The permits do not contain
reference to or any authorization for any
"revalidation" proceedings.
In reviewing the extensive hearings held
before the State permits were issued, the
then chairman of the Minnesota Water Pol-
lution Control Commission and Commis-
sioner of Conservation stated:
***"Our answer is that on the basis of
all the evidence in the case, not only all
the members of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission and the staff of the con-
4
-------
263
j>ervation department but a great many
other sincere and impartial conservation-
ists are convinced that the project is in
accordance with a sound, long-range pro-
gram for conservation of both iron ore
and water resources, that it will do no
material harm to public interests in the
lake, and that on the whole it will be in
furtherance of the best interests of the
state."
***"We also gave the officials of the Wis-
consin Conservation Department and the
Wisconsin Water Pollution Control Com-
mission ample opportunity to study the
case, and offered to bring in at our
expense any additional witnesses they
might suggest and to make any addition-
al investigations they considered desir-
able. They concluded that no further
evidence was necessary, and issued
statements to the effect that they had no
objections to the project.
"The project was also passed as unob-
jectionable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the state Executive Committee
of the Izaak Walton League, the Gov-
ernor's Conservation Advisory Commit-
tee (by a substantial majority), and the
Minnesota Emergency Conservation
Committee."
***"ln fact, in order to be prepared to
enforce the very strict conditions which
we have imposed in the permits grant-
ed to the company to protect the lake
against pollution, injury to fish life, or
other harm to the public interests, the
conservation department and the Water
Pollution Control Commission already
have under consideration the setting up
of systematic and continuous investiga-
tions of conditions, both before and after
the project gets under way, and we will
do this whether investigations are made
by anyone else or not."
Granting of the permits was influenced
by a natural phenomenon known to scien-
tists and hydrologists as a "heavy density
current" which forms when enough solid
material is suspended in water to make it
heavier than the surrounding or receiving
water. This current flows directly to the
bottom carrying the suspended particles
with it. Then, always seeking the lowest
level, the heavy density current flows like
an underwater river along the lakebed to a
deep trough. About half of the tailings—the
Heavy density current carries tailings to
lake bottom because tailings-laden water
is heavier than lake water.
coarser fraction—settles out promptly and
has formed a sand beach called the delta
in front of the plant. The finer portions flow
off this beach into the lake forming a heavy
density current. Tailings settle from this
density current as it flows along the bot-
tom. The finest tailings reach and settle in
a 600-to-900-foot deep trough which paral-
lels the north shore. This trough is so large
that all the tailings from the entire orebody
Reserve intends to mine could be deposited
there; the bottom of the trough would be
raised only an average of two feet.
Taconite is fed to grinding mills. Water
is added. Tumbling steel rods or balls
grind the rock in order to free iron-bearing
particles from tailings (sand).
5
-------
264
EXPLANATION OF
CONCENTRATING PROCESS
Reserve's tailings result when iron ore
particles rich in iron oxide are separated
from those that are very lean or barren.
The lean or barren portions are the tailings.
Under the present system this separation
or mineral beneficiation is performed in
three stages of grinding and five steps of
separation. The taconite is prepared for
grinding by crushing to 100% minus %-
inch in size which is then fed into rod mills.
The first separating—magnetic separation-
is then performed. Separation is made at
a very coarse size, some particles being as
large as % of an inch. This first separation
step produces approximately 63% of the
total tailings.
Next, the iron rich product is fed into
ball mills which grind the material to an
intermediate size. Following the ball mill
grinding, the second step of magnetic sep-
aration is performed. At this intermediate
size, some tailings particles are as large
as %2 °f an inch. This second separation
step is the source of approximately 27%
of the total tailings.
Following this magnetic separation, the
iron rich portion of the material is sepa-
rated according to its particle size. The
particles too large for further processing
are returned to the ball milling operation.
The proper size material is fed into the
third and fourth stages of separation. The
third step is a hydraulic separation step in
which the heavier iron rich particles sink
in relatively still pools of water and the
low iron content particles are caused to
overflow as a tailing. Approximately 7%.
of the total tailings originate at this point.
CRUSHED
TACONITE
FINISHING HYDROSEPARATOR
HYDROSEPARATOR (SIPHON SIZER)
TAILINGS -
MAIN LAUNDERS
TO LAKESHORE
DISC FILTER
CONCENTRATE
TO PELIETIZING
PUMP
s in making taconite concentrate. Not shown: mining and crushing
es which precede grinding, pelletizing phase which fottoivs separation.
6
-------
265
From this hydro separation step, the iron
"rich portion of the material is fed into fin-
isher magnetic separators, the fourth sep-
arating step. Here approximately 2.5% of
the tailings originate. The iron rich material
is then pumped to another step of sepa-
ration by particle size. The large particles
are fed into the third stage of grinding,
a ball mill operation, where they are
ground to the proper size and returned to
the hydro separation step described above.
The proper size particles are fed into the
final, or fifth, stage, another hydro separa-
tion step. The heavier iron rich particles
settle to the bottom of a rather still pool
of water and are pumped out as a final
product. The lighter low iron bearing par-
ticles are caused to flow over the top of the
receptacle and are discharged as tailings.
This step only accounts for approximately
one-half of one percent of the total tailings
generated. The tailings generated in these
last three steps of separation are all approx-
imately the same size, the largest being
approximately one-hundredth of an inch.
All these grinding separation steps are
performed with solid material suspended
in water. The tailings are all joined to-
gether from each step of separation and
then are transported down a system of laun-
ders, or troughs, as a slurry approximately
3.5% solids. Reserve has twenty-two con-
centrating sections in operation feeding
tailings by gravity through two main laun-
ders to the shore. The tailings originally
discharged at the shore from each of these
launders have formed a beach or delta.
The very coarse fraction settled first to form
this beach. The fine fraction of tailings
flow across this beach and enter the lake
as a slurry approximately 1.4% solids. This
tailing slurry then forms the heavy density
current, previously described, which car-
ries this fraction of the tailings on to the
deep lake bottom.
THE CONTROVERSY
Much of the impetus for the present con-
troversy about Reserve's deposition of tail-
ings in Lake Superior resulted from wide-
spread distribution of an article by Louis
G. Williams, a former employee of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, once assigned temporarily to the
Duluth area, asserting that the tailings were
having a deleterious effect on the Lake.
The Williams article and the various letters
addressed by Williams to governmental
and other officials throughout the nation
were reviewed later by Dr. Donald Mount,
Director, Federal National Water Quality
Laboratory of the Federal Water Quality
Administration. On January 26, 1968, Dr.
Mount wrote Williams:
***"! readily admit that i called your
report irresponsible and 1 still stand by
that conclusion until I can find reason
to change it. I would like to be in a posi-
tion to evaluate your report objectively
and fairly but you have not made that
possible to date. This \c my last attempt,
I believe, to try to understand the basis
for your conclusions."***
***"But, Lou, this is a fact of life that
you cannot publish conclusions until you
can furnish the data to support them and
that is all I am asking you to do—show
me the actual data that you have collect-
ed which are strong evidence that there
is a cause and effect relationship be-
tween deterioration of Lake Superior and
pollution sources. Further, furnish the
data which are evidence that the deteri-
oration now (presumably this will be
based on algae populations, animal pop-
ulation, etc.) is due to pollution and not
to natural aging of the lake."
Further fuel was added to the contro-
versy in 1968 by the premature and un-
authorized release of a so-called "Summary
Report" by Charles Stoddard, then employ-
ed by the Department of Interior, of his
conclusions relating to Reserve's discharge.
The preliminary background information
prepared for the Stoddard study group was
essentially accurate in reporting that:
"There is a very deep trough in Lake Su-
perior 10 to 15 miles in width extending
7
-------
266
from about Two Harbors beyond Grand
Marais. This deep trough is very close to
the north shore of Lake Superior in the
vicinity of Silver Bay. At the site of the
plant the depth of the water immediately
along the line of the breakwater of the
harbor runs to between 130 to 150 feet.
It continues to slope down rapidly so
that a half-mile to a mile it reaches
depths of 500 feet and more, and at ap-
proximately five miles from shore the
depth will be approximately 900 feet.
"The studies conducted for Reserve Min-
ing Company demonstrated that a cur-
rent would be established by their dis-
charge that would tend to follow the
slope of the bottom of the lake and
would carry the tailings into the deep
trough. This current would be created
because of the higher.density created by
the failings held in suspension. The tail-
ings would then spread out along the
deep trough which has the capacity to
absorb many times the total amount
which wil! be deposited from the opera-
tion. The coarser portion of the tailings
Concentrated taconite is rolled into pellets,
which are fired to make them hard enough
to withstand shipping. Shown is one of
eight furnaces.
wil! be deposited on shore of the inlet
into which they are discharged and the
finer material will be carried into the
trough and settle on the bottom. The
company pointed out a minute fraction
(about two-tenths of 1%) would remain
in suspension for a longer period of time.
This material, however, would eventual-
ly settle out."***
"There have been a great number of
studies and reports relating to the es-
tablishment of the Reserve Mining Op-
eration at Silver Bay. These studies have
dealt with preoperational surveys of the
plant devoted to gathering background
information on the lake, the effects of
the density currents and post-operational
surveys of the taconite plant measuring
its effect upon the lake."
"Most of the investigations have been
conducted by the Minnesota Department
of Health for the Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission, the Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control Agency, (formerly the Water
Pollution Control Commission), the De-
partment of Conservation, and the Uni-
versity of Minnesota School of Public
Health. In summary, the reports con-
cluded that no evidence of pollution or
serious harmful effects of any kind have
resulted from the discharge by the
Reserve Mining Company's Silver Bay
operation."
However, the Summary of conclusions pub-
licly released by Stoddard in December,
1968—to the effect that Reserve's discharge
had an adverse effect on Lake Superior-
have been the subject of vigorous disclaim-
ers by responsible officials.
in a Memorandum prepared by John
Badalich, Executive Director, Minnesota Pol-
lution Control Agency, dated January 20,
1969 he stated:
"The next meeting of the Department of
Interior Taconite Study Group was held
on September 5-6, 1968, at which time
draft copies of various Interior Agency
reports were presented to our staff and
several comments were made that these
reports, particularly the one on water
quality were very biased and would be
subject to much legitimate criticisms if
presented or shown. Of particular con-
cern were the sampling methods and the
8
-------
267
weight put on questionable samples, the
combining of surface, mid-depth and bot-
tom sampling data in the discussion of
findings and the manipulation of num-
bers to demonstrate a preconceived no-
tion of the situation."
"It became apparent at the September
and October meetings of the Department
of Interior Taconite Study Group that the
findings of these studies by the Interior
presented very little information of any
consequence not already available from
previous State studies. It also became
apparent that what this group could not
demonstrate by measurement, analysis
and observation was being handled by
speculation and conjectures designed to
arouse public concern.
"It is very difficult for a state agency
responsible for water quality and pollu-
tion control to take a stand in opposition
to a Federal agency with the same re-
sponsibilities because it has the inevi-
table effect of placing this agency at
least in the public's eye on the side of
the discharger. There appears to be no
defense against this anomalous situation
except to point out that enforcement ac-
tion must be supported by the hard facts
of the situation and not by speculation
and conjecture. The facts regarding dam-
age to the lake or its uses are not sup-
ported by the evidence and it is very
unfortunate that this preliminary draft
of the Interior report was prematurely
released. The public statements of the
inaccuracies in the report which were
made by high ranking officials of the
Department of the Interior following
its release probably will accomplish little
in the public's eye toward withdrawing
the report's initial impact even though
it was admittedly in error."
In a letter dated November 25, 1969
from Federal Water Pollution Control Com-
missioner Dominick to an interested U. S.
Congressman, the Commissioner said:
***"This report was never distributed,
so we have reproduced a copy from our
files. I would like to stress, however,
that this summary (the so-called 'Stoddard
report') was not released as an official
Department of the Interior publication
because of technical questions and be-
cause the report was superseded by the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
which made a more authoritative review
of the matter. We have, of course, been
reluctant to distribute a preliminary re-
port that we could not fully defend tech-
nically."***
"Prior to full evalution by the agencies
involved, Mr. Charles Stoddard, then In-
terior Regional Coordinator in the area,
sent a copy of the summary report to the
Corps of Engineers. At the same time,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration was following up on its
earlier studies in preparing for a com-
prehensive conference on the water
quality problems of Lake Superior that
would cover Reserve Mining Company,
among other dischargers."
"Thus, the Stoddard report was sent to
the Corps without having first been eval-
uated technically by Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration scientists
in Washington. When the summary was
reviewed by the technical staff of this
agency, there was concern that certain
findings and recommendations might not
be fully supported in all respects by a
critical scrutiny of the data accumulated
by our field personnel."***
GOVERNMENT LAKE STUDIES
While their studies have not received the
widespread publicity generated by the
Williams and Stoddard statements, respon-
sible authorities of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, the Minnesota Department
of Health, the Minnesota Department of
Conservation and the University of Minn-
esota for many years have carefully scruti-
nized possible present and future effects of
Reserve's discharge.
9
-------
In 1959 the Minnesota Department of
Health reported:
"There is some indication from the re-
sults of analysis of the bottom samples
that the deposit of taconite tailings is
slowly expanding both out into the lake
and down the shore from Silver Bay.
The presence of the tailings in the bot-
tom sediments does not in itself appear
to be related to any detrimental effect on
the lake and its uses."
***"The 'green-water' condition does not
appear to be any more extensive or se-
vere than in other years, despite the con-
tinued discharge of tailings into the lake.
This indicates that the very fine particles
are being continually removed from sus-
pension either by sedimentation alone,
or in combination with other natural fac-
tors, and do eventually settle on the lake
bottom."
In 1967 the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency stated:
"The presence of suspended solids in the
sub-micron range may explain the color
change of water in certain areas, even
though the quantity of material present
was not great enough to change the tur-
bidity. This effect is produced by scat-
tering of the shorter light waves which
on reflection yields a slightly different
color. The same kind of effect has been
noted in many other areas at times, and
can be produced in very clear waters in
a state of nature by natural run-off."
In 1968 the Director of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency reported to the
Minnesota Governor:
"The hearing dealt primarily with Re-
serve Mining Company's taconite opera-
tion at Beaver Bay, and the deposition of
taconite tailings into Lake Superior. To
date there is no conclusive evidence that
these tailings are impairing the water
quality of the lake other than speculation
on the part of some that any unnatural
deposit into a body of water creates pol-
Taconite is concentrated and formed into
pellets at E. W. Davis Works at Silver
Bay. This is the world's first, and largest
taconite plant. It ships one-third of Minn-
esota's total taconite pellet production.
lution, even though the material is of the
same general character as surrounds the
lake."
Pursuant to an order by then Interior
Secretary Udall on January 16, 1969 a Con-
ference was convened under Section 10 (d)
(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. This Conference has considered the
possible effect of Reserve's discharge.
In 1969 the Director of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency advised the Con-
ferees of the Lake Superior Enforcement
Conference that:
"Minnesota has done a considerable
amount of water quality sampling, mon-
itoring and studying of Lake Superior.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
has conducted many studies prior to and
subsequent to Reserve Mining's opera-
tion and have found the waters of Lake
Superior to be of excellent quality."
The Minnesota Commissioner of Conser-
vation reported to the same Conference:
"The Conservation Department has been
involved in many of the studies made of
the plant and any effects it may have on
Lake Superior and has cooperated with
State and Federal agencies and Reserve
Mining Company in evaluating and an-
alyzing results of the many studies
made."***
10
-------
269
"Our studies of the record and of the
4ake indicate that present taconite opera-
tions do not currently have an appreci-
able effect on fish production in the
lake."
On December 5, 1969 Dr. Mount, Direc-
tor, National Water Quality Laboratory, Du-
luth, reported to the Assistant Secretary of
the Interior in a document entitled "Sum-
mary of the Essential Factors regarding
Reserve Mining Company":***
"A minor, but unknown, percentage of
the tailings is carried by some mechanism
to more distant points in the lake. Taco-
nite does occur in Wisconsin waters as a
very thin, discontinuous layer on the
bottom and is mixed with natural
sediments."
"There is no data to suggest damage to
water quality or aquatic life in Wisconsin
water."
"There is very doubtful evidence of ma-
terial damage to aquatic life in Minne-
sota waters.
"The solution rate of the tailings is ex-
tremely slow, the actual rate has not
been measured.
"The effect of natural flocculants on the
flocculation of tailings has been ignored.
***"THE BASIC PROBLEM. Some percen-
tage of the fine materials less than a few
microns in diameter does not settle in
front of the plant but is transported for
considerable distances in the lake before
being deposited on the bottom (or dis-
solving?).
***"Especially at certain seasons of the
year, bands or patches of green water ap-
pear near or contiguous to, the discharge
point at times when green water is not
visible from natural sediment discharged
by tributaries.
"There have been drastic changes in the
fish populations of the lake due to fac-
tors unrelated to taconite. This has sensi-
tized the public and made them search
for a cause."
***"There is weak evidence to sup-
port a very minimal effect on the lake
itself in the near vicinity of the dis-
charge."
In a report released in May, 1970, deal-
ing with the "Investigation of Water Qual-
ity of Lake Superior in the Vicinity of
Silver Bay" the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency concluded:
"The investigation was for the purpose
of determining if the water quality in
and around the Reserve Mining Com-
pany permit area was being affected by
the discharge of taconite tailings, and to
provide current information for compari-
son with the results of similar surveys
done in 1948, 1953, 1955, 1958 and
1966."
"CONCLUSIONS 1. The overall water
quality of Lake Superior at the time of
the survey in the vicinity of Silver Bay
was found to be excellent at all sam-
pling stations.
"2. No significant difference was found
in the quality of the water outside of the
Reserve Mining Company permit area
and that inside the area at the time of
the survey, except for the 5-day bio-
chemical oxygen demand which was
significantly higher outside the area.
These higher values are probably attribu-
table to the rivers flowing into the lake
south of the permit area."
Research and Development Center at Sil-
ver Bay, where scientists and engineers
seek ivays to improve pellet quality, mon-
itor Reserve's use of water and tailings
disposal.
11
-------
270
The staff of the National Water Quality
Laboratory has conducted many studies of
Reserve's taconite tailings and Lake Supe-
rior commencing in 1968. In reviewing and
summarizing those studies Dr. Donald
Mount, Director of the National Water Qual-
ity Laboratory, stated to the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference on April 30, 1970:
"In my judgment the effect of Reserve's
discharge should be assessed in terms of
altering the Lake's appearance rather than
the toxic effect on fish and fish food or-
ganisms, or endangering water supplies."
Subsequent to several sessions of the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference,
the Conference Chairman, who is also the
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement of
the FWQA, stated one of his recommenda-
tions for a resolution of the controversy:
"One of the additional recommendations
would ask Reserve Mining to engage in-
dividual consultant engineers to prepare
a report to be submitted to the confer-
ees in six months which would develop
and propose a method of either remov-
ing that portion of the taconite fines
which tend to drift across the lake or so
treat the fines that they will remain in
the immediate area of discharge."
The Lake Superior Conference, consisting
of Conferees from Minnesota, Michigan,
Wisconsin and the Federal Government has
met on May 13-15, 1969, September 30,
October 1, 1969, April 29-30, 1970, and
August 12-13, 1970.
At the most recent session the Con-
ferees requested Reserve Mining Company
to provide a plan for a specific alternative
method for handling tailings to the Con-
ferees through the Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency. The Conferees would then
again convene to see if the alternative was
acceptable. The Conferees also recommend-
ed that Reserve provide to the Conferees
through the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency detailed plans and specifications
for accomplishing the remedial program by
September I, 1971.
Responsive to that request, Reserve will
formally present to the next session of the
Conference, scheduled to convene on Jan-
uary 14, 1971, its Plan to modify the dis-
charge which is included herein.
COURT TRIAL
In other proceedings, Reserve Mining
Company and the Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency engaged in a Minnesota State
District Court trial conducted by Judge C.
Luther Eckman from June 22 through Aug-
ust 5, 1970 involving the question of
whether certain interstate water quality
standards adopted by Minnesota were rea-
sonable as applied to Reserve and also
whether Reserve was in violation of such
standards or was violating the stringent
requirements of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Statutes. Some 29 witnesses testi-
fied during that trial including Dr. Robert
Barr, chief executive officer of the Minne-
sota Board of Health, who stated:
"Dr. Barr: Well, my opinion is that the
discharge has had no effect whatsoever
on the lake. For consumption of water in
any of the places where we find commu-
nities that are taking water from Lake Su-
perior we found no evidence there that
tailings had any effect whatsoever."
***"Mr. Fride: Would you state, Doctor,
whether you have an opinion—and per-
haps this is the same area—as to whether
or not Reserve's tailings have an adverse
effect upon the health of Minnesota cit-
izens based on your best judgment?
"Dr. Barr: Based on my best judgment I
would say they do not."
Dr. Mount testified:
***"Mr. Truhn: In 1967, you indicated
that you first became aware of Reserve's
discharge, what was your initial reaction
to the description of that discharge?
"Dr. Mount: Well, I felt that any dis-
charge that large and that big couldn't
help but have a very bad effect on the
Lake. This was my first reaction without
having seen it or even knowing very
much about it.
***"Mr. Truhn: Did your opinion then
12
-------
271
change as you began to investigate it?
"Dr. Mount: Yes, it did. The first and
very crude preliminary bioassay that we
-did in which we put fish in 100% efflu-
ent and they seemed to be happy for
several weeks was quite an eye opener
to me and made me realize that this dis-
charge did not have the same toxicity
as the discharges that we normally
use or work with and so as we were un-
able to show direct toxic effects from
the two different organisms that we
studied and particularly when we were
not able to find toxicity from some of the
concentrations of metals that should
have been toxic. My position changed
considerably and I began to wonder if
there were any effects at all."
After reviewing all of the evidence and
arguments, Judge Eckman on December
15, 1970, issued his decision. He concluded,
among other things:
* * *
"This Court feels that the time has
come to brush aside all legal technical-
ities and procedures that may impede a
resolution of these questions without fur-
ther delay by taking the problem out
of the public and political arena into
the court for a full and comprehensive
judicial review, where the interests of
both the public and industry can be fully
explored and protected."
* * *
"Probably no other trial in the history
of this State has produced a more im-
pressive array of scientists and experts
expounding on their particular fields of
expertise. With few exceptions, each
had degrees showing years of educa-
tion, series of publications and member-
ships on national and international com-
mittees and government commissions,
together with years of experience in
their respective fields of ecology and
limnology (including chemistry, bacteri-
ology, biology, etc.), sociology, econom-
ics, and cost accounting."
* * *
"The immediate application or enforce-
ment of WPC 15, Subd. (c)(6) against
Appellant (Reserve) would be unrea-
sonable arbitrary, and capricious, and
requires the granting of a Variance excus-
ing Appellant from conformity thereto
until the further Order of the Court, pur-
suant to subsequent modifications in the
discharge process hereinafter referred
to."
"After 15 years of operations and dis-
charge of tailings into Lake Superior by
the Appellant, the evidence before the
Court establishes that said discharge has
had no measurable adverse or deleteri-
ous effects upon the water quality or
use of Lake Superior insofar as its drink-
ing water quality, any conditions affect-
ing public health, affecting fish life or
the reproduction thereof, or any inter-
ference with navigation."
* * *
"M.S. 115.01, Subd. 5, defines pollu-
tion as follows: 'Pollution means the
contamination of any waters of the State
so as to create a nuisance or render such
waters unclean, or noxious, or impure so
as to be actually or potentially harmful
or detrimental or injurious to public
health, safety or welfare, to domestic,
commercial, industrial or recreationa!
use, or to livestock, wild animals, birds,
fish or other aquatic life.' In applying
this statutory definition to the volumi-
nous evidence, both oral and documen-
tary, the Court concludes that there was
lacking the required substantial evidence
by Respondent to convince this Court
that the discharge of tailings by Appel-
lant, after 15 years of operation, had
"rendered the waters unclean or nox-
ious or impure thereby." The only ex-
ception of convincing quality was the
increased display of the "green water
phenomenon" and the disappearance of
a proportion of the scud, a small shell
creature which serves as a food for smelt
and small trout. Although measurable,
these conditions were of minimal sig-
nificance or materiality."
13
-------
"Lake Superior is now an oligatrophic
body of water and enjoys the distinction
of being one of the lakes with the high-
est quality of water in this hemisphere.
This fact was conceded by the testimony
of both parties. Neither is there any dis-
pute of the fact that any material deteri-
oration or depreciation of the present
water quality cannot be tolerated. And so,
even though there has been no substan-
tial or convincing evidence of deteriora-
tion to date, the Court cannot disregard
the numerous scientific opinions express-
ed to the effect that the present method
of discharge constitutes a possible or po-
tential source of pollution which, if con-
tinued over a long period of time, might
result in the material deterioration of the
water quality of Lake Superior."
* * *
"the present method of discharge of
tailings from its plant at Silver Bay,
Minnesota shall be altered and modified
by Appellant Reserve Mining Company
to the extent that the disposition of fine
tailings into Lake Superior and the dis-
tribution thereof into areas outside of
the so-called "great trough" is discon-
tinued."
* * *
"Reserve Mining Company shall sub-
mit to Minnesota Pollution Control Agen-
cy on or before May 15, 1971, for its
approval, such plans for modification as
are necessary to accomplish the result set
forth above. After such approval by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Re-
serve shall have two additional years in
which to build, install, and put into op-
eration such approved modified method
of tailings discharge."
* * *
"In the judgment of this Court, any
modification must insure the floccula-
tion 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 elimi-
nation of complaints ot aesthetic loss,
net or shore slime, drinking water"
contamination, or eutrophication by in-
creased 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 rela-
tively quiescent condition would sub-
stantially remove their apprehensions as
to their effect upon the Lake's ecology,
aesthetics, or navigation."
OTHER PROCEEDINGS
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and the Minnesota Commissioner of Con-
servation have scheduled hearings to de-
termine whether Reserve is in violation
of its permits. However, these hearings
were temporarily enjoined until determina-
tion of the district court suit. In addition,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is pres-
ently conducting "revalidation" proceed-
ings relating to Reserve's permits.
TOWARD A NEW PLAN
Occasionally, Lake Superior's waters (nor-
mally about 39° F. on the average) may
have a thermocline—that is, a layer of
warm water above the colder water of the
lake. This condition can be caused by
periods of unusually warm weather, sur-
face currents which carry warm water from
the shallows, or heavy summer rains or
spring runoff from the shores.
Occasionally, "thermoclines" occur in Lake
Superior . . . layers of warm water above
the cold. Waters of different temperatures
have different density. Thermoclines are
known to hold sediments in temporary
suspension.
14
-------
273
Because of the difference in temperature,
these layers have different densities. Some
of the fine tailings—as well as tiny par-
ticles of natural sediments—can be entrap-
ped at the point where the two layers meet.
The particles are held in suspension tem-
porarily. Also, when the heavy density
current encounters a thermocline some of
the finer tailings may "peel off" or detach
from the plunging current and remain tem-
porarily in suspension before settling. In
such cases, these particles can be carried
some distance from the zone of discharge
by surface currents.
Light reflection from water containing
such particles—or merely light refraction
caused by the different density tempera-
ture layers—can produce what appears to
be "green water" temporarily for a few
hours or few days. It is not a true color.
Subjected to prescribed color tests, the so-
called "green water" is colorless just as is
the surrounding "blue water" of the lake.
The "green water" phenomenon is common
in many lakes and in the oceans. Some
people, however, consider this occasional
appearance in Lake Superior objectionable
to look at.
Others are concerned that tailings might
be carried over a wide area of the lake
rather than remaining in the deep trough
or in the vicinity of the discharge. Still
others fear that tailings particles provide a
"platform" on which certain bacteria will
grow or be transported, or that somehow
the sand will contribute to the growth of
algae thereby hastening the natural aging
—eutrophication—of Lake Superior. Also,
some observers believe tailings are harm-
ful to certain species of bottom fauna, the
tiny marine organisms on which fish feed.
Judge Eckman's decision should be reas-
suring to those who have expressed such
concern since it was only in his courtroom
that all of the pros and cons were aired by
numerous witnesses including many of out-
standing scientific reputation and integrity
under appropriate rules where full exam-
ination and cross examination was permit-
ted as well as a review of the files of the
Interior Department, MPCA, Minnesota
Conservation and Health Departments, and
Reserve.
Reserve organized an engineering task
force of experts—five engineering consult-
ing firms skilled in this field—to investigate
and evaluate proposals for the modification
or alteration of the present disposal meth-
ods. Some 19 proposals were described and
studied. These studies produced two prog-
ress reports in which each proposal was
carefully evaluated from the following
standpoints: workability, economic feasibil-
ity, and sound conservation.
The Company submits the following Plan
in compliance with the Court's decision and
in accordance with the recommendations of
the Lake Superior Conference. It is submit-
ted for approval by the appropriate regula-
tory agencies. It should answer the needs,
hopes and desires of others who share
Reserve's concern for the preservation of
nature and yet enjoy the benefits of indus-
trial progress.
ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRMS:
Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, California
Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, California
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
Parsons-Jurden Corp., New York
Trygve-Hoff & Assoc., Cleveland, Ohio
15
-------
275
EVENTUAL REEF AREA
150'BELOW SURFACE
Green is present delta. Dark shading shows
lake-bottom which will be built up to reef
150 feet below surface, 1.2 square miles in
area. Reef formation will take 40 years to
complete.
Cut-away drawing of underwater reef,
showing pipes which will carry tailings to
depths below influence of surface-affecting
currents and thermoclines.
NEW PLAN FOR TAILINGS PROCESSING
This plan reflects many months of engineering and
environmental consideration. In the interests of ef-
fective communication so that the concepts reflected
in this engineering plan may be better understood,
descriptions of equipment are provided. Detailed
engineering before construction will involve analysis,
under actual Lake Superior conditions, of the per-
formance of such equipment and may result in some
changes to achieve the objective, subject to agreement
of the respective technical staffs as authorized by the
regulatory agencies.
Under this plan, Reserve's waste sand (tailings)
will be pumped far below the surface of Lake
Superior where it will form an underwater sand reef
150 feet below the surface of the lake. The accom-
panying sketch shows the area of the lake bottom
which will be raised to this depth during the balance
of Reserve's planned mine life. It represents 1.2
square miles of the nine-square-mile zone of dis-
charge specified in Reserve's permits.
Mammoth thickeners and hydroseparators and a
settling agent will be used to create a thick slurry—
as contrasted with the present discharge which is
98.6% water. Then the discharge will be pumped
through 14 eight-inch pipes submerged far below
any surface-affecting thermoclines, surface currents or
wave action and form the underwater reef. The clari-
fied water will be returned to Reserve's harbor at a
point near the plant's existing process water intake.
The estimated construction cost of the project is
$14,000,000. Operating and maintenance costs, in-
terest and principal payments on borrowed funds
bring the annual average cash expenditure in excess
of $2,400,000. There is no anticipation of any return
on this large capital investment nor any improvement
to the company's pellet quality by adoption of this
plan. In total, over the next 20 years, the plan rep-
resents capital and operating expenditure commit-
ments of $48,960,000 by Reserve for this additional
tailings processing. In the light of the very substantial
expenditures contemplated by this plan, cooperation
of the appropriate agencies is solicited to assist in
securing whatever assistance in the form of any fund-
ing or tax consideration that may be available.
The general arrangement equipment design is
shown on drawings RM-202, RM-203 and RM-204
attached hereto. When approval is forthcoming fur-
ther detailed engineering can begin immediately.
-------
276
Before being pumped to reef for-
mation area, most of water will be
removed from tailings in giant
thickener/darifiers. One-half of
proposed system is illustrated.
CLARIFIED WATER
OVERFLOW
As shown on the diagrammatic flow sheet there
will be two identical installations of thickening equip-
ment, one for each of the existing launders (discharge
troughs or flumes). Tailings will be carried by water
to a 50-foot diameter scalping hydro-separator. This
vat-like tank is the first stage of separation of the
solids and liquid. Because the material is retained
for only a comparatively short time in the scalping
hydroseparators, only the larger-size particles will
settle—pieces 14 mesh or larger, roughly the size
particles that would not pass through the openings
in an ordinary window screen. These particles settle
to the bottom of the tank where circulating rakes
move the material into a center drain. The finer
material overflows the tank and into a second stage
of separation: a 125-foot diameter hydroseparator
which, operating like the first, will separate particles
up to 150 mesh and pass the finer overflow on to
two 310-foot diameter thickeners. Suitable coagu-
EXISTING
TAILINGS LAUNDER
SCALPER
HYDROSEPARATOR
THICKENER (CLARIFIER)
THICKENER, (CLARIFIER)
THICKENED
TAILINGS
UNDERFLOW
CLARIFIED WATER
OVERFLOW
b
-------
277
DRIVE
WATERBORNE
TAILINGS
ROTATING RAKES
CLARIFIED
WATER
OVERFLOW
THICKENED TAILINGS
UNDERFLOW
Showing how a thickener/darifier works.
Particles settle to bottom, are raked to
center, clarified water spills over rim.
lants—settling agents—will be added to hasten par-
ticle settling and aid the water clarification process
at each stage. The overflow from these four thicken-
ers (two for each system) will be discharged as clari-
fied water into Reserve's harbor at a point near the
plant water intake.
The tailings underflow from the two scalping hy-
droseparators, two hydroseparators and from the four
thickeners will be pumped to a pipeline pumping
station. The material will be then pumped through
14 eight-inch diameter pipelines well below the sur-
face of Lake Superior. Originally, two pumps will
be installed in series for each pipeline. The number
of pumps in series will be increased for each pipeline
as the lines are extended to a maximum of five
pumps per pipeline.
Each pipeline will be anchored at the edge of the
present delta. A length of flexible wear-resistant
rubber pipe in each line at the edge of fhe delta will
permit a change of slope and direction necessary for
proper entry. The pipes will follow the slope of the
beach underwater to approach the 140-foot depth.
There, another length of flexible pipe will again
change the angle to the horizontal.
The pipelines are designed with buoyancy collars
of polyurethane on the horizontal portion to make
them 98 per cent buoyant when filled with water.
For turning the pipes to distribute the wear by the
coarse tailings, for replacement and for extension,
the pipes must be cleared of slurry and a mixture of
water and air pumped into them to bring them to
the surface.
Fourteen pipes
will carry thickened
tailings to 140-foot
depth. As reef
grows, pipes are
extended.
-------
20 YEAR COST FOR MODIFICATION
OF TAILINGS DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Total
Labor, Material & Supplies
to Operate and Maintain
Interest
Principal .. .
TOTAL ...
Expenditure
$22,460,000
. 12,500,000
14,000,000
$48,960,000
Tailings will build up on the lake bottom below
the pipes to a depth of 150 feet below the lake's sur-
face (see accompanying sketch). When this depth is
reached in front of a pipe, water with sufficient air
will be pumped into the line causing the pipe to rise
to the surface. A work boat crew will then add an
extension and the pipe will be re-submerged to the
140-foot depth by pumping water back into it.
The end of each submerged pipe will be supported
by a buoy which in addition to being a navigation
aid will serve as a visual marker for maintenance
boat crews. These buoys will be anchored to prevent
the pipe from shifting position.
Since pipe wear is expected to be rapid, the pipes
will need turning every six months and complete re-
placement every two years. The pipe extension,
turning and replacement will be about one-third of
the direct operating costs.
The coagulants or settling agents used will be those
accepted by the U. S. Public Health Service and com-
monly used to clarify water by municipal treatment
plants. The coagulant causes the fine particles of
tailings to flocculate, or gather together in floes
which take on the settling characteristics of much
larger particles thereby settling them much more
rapidly in the thickeners. The coagulant will be con-
centrated on the solid tailings which are pumpsd
from the bottom of the thickeners, causing these par-
ticles to settle more rapidly on the bottom of the lake
when discharged from the pipes at the 140-foot
depth.
Heavy density current
will continue to deliver
portion of material to
Great Trough.
d
-------
279
View from southeast following con-
struction of new tailings handling
system. Delta area will be site of
thickening/clarifying equipment.
Landscaping will stabilize surface,
enhance appearance.
Solid barrier will secure present
beach, and prevent beach tailings
from being washed away by wave
action.
As is well known, a heavy density current forms
when sufficient solid material is suspended in water
to make the water-solids combination denser—heavier
—than the receiving or surrounding water. At Silver
Bay, the discharge water which is heavily laden with
failings flows by gravity from the plant to the lake
across the delta which formed when coarser tailings
settled out promptly. The fine tailings slurry (which
is about 1.4% solids) forms a heavy density current
which flows down the sloping lake bottom into the
Great Trough.
Under this new plan, tailings will enter the lake
forming a much more compact and stronger heavy
density current than is now the case under the present
discharge system. Larger particles will settle almost
immediately. The finer particles will be flocculated
and will settle more rapidly than the fine tailings from
Reserve's present discharge system. The balance of
the tailings will continue to flow as a heavy density
current along the bottom and into the 600-to-900-foot
deep trough.
ADVANTAGES OF NEW PLAN
There will be a vast improvement in the appear-
ance of the present delta. Most of the beach now has
a shifting, varying flow of water-borne fine tailings
flowing across it which is somewhat unattractive.
Under the new plan all of the delta will be land-
scaped with native trees, grasses and shrubs as
quickly as construction is completed (see accompany-
ing sketch).
Further, the new system will stabilize the existing
delta and make it a permanently useful area. Tail-
ings handling equipment and a number of small
-------
230
Construction timetable. Preliminary en-
gineering has been completed.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
PARSONS-JURDEN CORP.
SUMMARY
Major Equipment $2,210,000
Installation . 620,000
Total, Major Equipment $ 2,830,000
Other Materials $ 1,415,000
Subcontracts 2,650,000
Labor 1,548,000
Total, Other Materials $5,613,000
Other Construction Field Costs $ 1,650,000
(Supervision, field engineering,
temporary buildings, rental
equipment, consumable supplies,
warehousing, freight, etc.)
Soil Mechanics and
Equipment Tests $ 110,000
Design engineering, pro-
curement, construction
support, etc. 700,000
Contingencies 2,547,000
Contractors' Fees . 550,000
TOTAL $14,000,000
buildings to be located on the delta will be enhanced
in appearance by the tree and shrub plantings. The
14 eight-inch diameter pipes which carry the thick
tailings-and-water mixture will enter the lake below
the water's surface.
Today, the edge of the beach is subject to wave
action which grinds the coarser tailings together creat-
ing very fine particles. Some of these fines, and
others entrapped by coarse particles settling out, are
sometimes washed out of the beach and carried
away temporarily by surface currents. The new sys-
tem calls for the exposed, outer edge of the delta to
be protected from waves and currents by a stabilizing
facing.
No hazard to navigation will result since the dis-
charge pipes will enter the lake at a safe depth and
their ends will be marked with anchoring buoys. Nor
can the pipes accidentally rise to the surface in the
event of a power failure or freeze-up because their
special construction gives them a buoyancy rating
slightly below that required for flotation. The 150-
foot below-surface sand reef, of course, will be far
below recommended limits for large loaded lake
vessels which draw only 30 feet of water. Even when
Reserve's mineral body is exhausted in about 40
years at current operating rates, the reef 150 feet
below the surface will cover an area of only 1.2
square miles.
The proposed tailings discharge will be thickened
by using the same kind of settling agents now widely
used in municipal water treatment plants to clarify
drinking water. The very fine tailings which do not
settle fast enough to form the underwater reef will
be carried more quickly and surely along the lake-
bed to very deep water by a heavy density current
because the tailings have been flocculated and the
suspended solids load will be greater.
No tailings should be carried away by surface
currents because there should be no tailings in sur-
face waters. The fines will be pumped down to
the deep water to settle closer to the discharge point
—well below any surface-affecting thermoclines or
currents or wave action.
The State Permits describe a zone of discharge
which defines the area in which the tailings enter
the Lake. More than 90% of Reserve's total tailings
will settle out on the bottom within the zone of dis-
charge with the remainder settling in the nearby
f
-------
Pumping material to 150-
foot depth will solve prob-
lem of thermocline behavior
which at times can catch
and hold particles in tempo-
rary suspension.
281
Great Trough. The turbidity attributed to tailings at
the perimeter of the zone of discharge at all depths
will be within the most severe limits for the finest
drinking water, 5 JTU, or less, as established by the
State of Minnesota.
Thus, tailings should no longer be a cause of the
"green water" phenomenon which occasionally and
temporarily exists in the vicinity of Silver Bay. In
other areas of the lake where natural sediments tem-
porarily in suspension cause "green water", the phe-
nomenon will continue. In such cases, however, tail-
ings will not be present.
The new plan will eliminate the occasions when
tailings from the discharge can be carried away from
the zone of discharge by surface or near-surface cur-
rents. This, in turn, should eliminate the concern some
people have that tailings in surface waters presently
have the potential to: (a) contribute to the growth of
algae; (b) furnish a platform for the growth and dis-
WATER SURFACE
WARM WATER
THERMttLINE==ft====—
COLD WATER
tribution of bacteria; (c) reduce sunlight penetration
needed for the growth of periphyton,- (d) increase the
lake's turbidity; or, (e) spread tailings all along the
North and South shores.
Bottom fauna populations in the vicinity of the
discharge will increase since the reef created will
be at a depth most agreeable to them—about 100 to
150 feet below the surface. Presently, the depth
adjacent to the discharge is 300 to 500 feet and not
conducive to the growth of fish food organisms.
The implementation of this plan to modify Reserve's
tailings discharge is, of course, contingent on a reso-
lution of the pending litigation, claims and scheduled
hearings as well as necessary permit amendment and
extension.
-------
286
E. Fride
MR. FRIDE: I might say that, as you note in the
engineering plan, it is in two basic parts. A blue divider
separates the plan. The part subsequent to the blue divider
is the actual engineering plan which has appended to it
engineering drawings; while before the blue divider there
is introductory material.
The plan includes artist's sketches and the
various drawings which will be also shown as part of Mr.
Skinker's presentation in the form of slides, so that the
audience will be able to see them. But I do mention to the
conferees that all of the slides that will be shown are
already reproduced in the plan.
One note of caution. While this plan is specific,
it, of course, is not detailed engineering as the conferees
are well aware, and there are some questions which
necessarily await resolution until detailed engineering
will be completed.
Yesterday there was some comment from the podium
and from the conferees about a Bureau of Mines report.
The Bureau of Mines report was appended to the, I believe,
April 1969 appraisal report of the Federal Water Quality
Administration.
There was some inference yesterday by one of the
speakers that the Bureau was recommending onland disposal
-------
E. Fride
in the course of the reports.
This is not accurate, and I think the record
should reflect that what the report actually showed on
this subject was, and I ouote: "The second, suggestion to
deposit the tailings in a pond on the high ground above
the plant, creates many problems. Objectionable effects
of a tailings pood would have to be carefully weighed
against the effects of depositing the tailings in Lake
Superior. The area nearest Reserve is valued as a resort
and recreation area; most of the area farther removed is
in the Superior National Forest. A tailings pond could
create a serious air pollution problem due to dust unless
properly designed and operated..."
"The Bureau of Mines is not recommending this
site for tailings disposal, nor can it make recommendations
of this or any other site until the quantity and nature of
the detrimental material, if any, that Reserve is
contributing to Lake Superior is established..."
"When considering alternates to tailings deposi-
tion in Lake Superior, benefits gained should be compared
to possible losses; i.e., would a tailings pond and a
possible air pollution problem in a particular area be
less objectionable than depositing tailings in Lake Superiof?"
There was also the inference yesterday that the
-------
288
E. Fride
.particular report to which I have just referred indicated
that onland tailings deposition system could be constructed
for the cost of $7.5 million. Again, the report really
just does not say that. The only reference to $7.5 million
in that report is that a preliminary small dike plan, which
would be good for only 3 years production would require
$7.5 million capital investment; that for the entire dam
facilities, which woiild be necessary, the capital investment
would be $70 million, ftnd then they went on to be very care-
ful to say that the coe-t estimates were prepared without the
benefit of any field workj that they assumed that there
would be no unusual dike or foundation conditions', the power
for operating was available; made no provision for emergency
discharge in the case of power failure; and a number of other
items.
So I just wanted to have the record indicate that
the suggestion that the Bureau of Mines either recommended
onland tailings deposition or suggested that such facilities
could be constructed for the amount mentioned is simply just
inaccurate.
This conference last April was presented with
various alternate proposals. Behind each of those alternate
proposals were engineering studies which were also presented
to the conferees. Reserve Mining Company has continued
-------
239
E. Fride
diligently working, examining and analyzing, in consultation
with their engineering consultants, since the presentation
was made last April. Obviously many of the facets of the
various plans had to be carefully analyzed in terms of
pilot plant work, in terms of perhaps the use of floccu-
10:its, in terms of the investigation of many of the aspects.
Many refinements have been made in the plan which is now
presented to you.
vtfhile many answers have been reached, there
still remain, of course, some technical questions. If
this conference and the appropriate regulatory agencies
approve this plan, Reserve Mining Company would, of course,
welcome participation by technically qualified people from
the Federal and State level to work with Reserve to ensure
that consideration of all proper ecological factors be made.
As Mr. Furness mentioned yesterday, and as the
conferees are well aware, Reserve has retained outstanding
consultants from an engineering and environmental stand-
point. Parsons-Jurden organization is one of such con-
sultants. That organization includes some 15,000
employees representing many different kinds of engineering
specialties. They have major design offices located
throughout the world. They have designed and constructed
air and water pollution control facilities for private and
-------
290
E. Fride
governmental units throughout the Nation and throughout
the world.
Specifically, in the field of tailings systems,
their design and construction work includes plants in Chile,
Arizona, Mexico, Montana, Ontario and others. They designed
and constructed the system at Erie Mining Company at Hoyt
Lakes, Minnesota. There are a number of other facts of
the background of this organization which time does not
permit, Mr. Chairman, me to go into.
I would, however, like to make a part of the
record this booklet which does speak to their qualifica-
tions in the tailings dispositional area.
MR. STEIN: We will accept that as an exhibit.*
Thank you.
Charles R. Skinker, Jr. is Vice-President and
Manager of Metallurgical Production Division of the
Parsons-Jurden organization. He is a Yale engineering
graduate, and for some 34 years has had experience in
this field.
At this time, with pleasure I call on Mr.
Skinker.
*(This document may be reviewed at the Regional Office
of EPA or the Washington, B.C. Office.)
-------
291
C. Skinker
STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. SKINKER,
VICE PRESIDENT, PARSON-JURDEN
CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
MR. SKINKER: Mr. Chairman, distinguished
conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
Parsons-Jurden Corporation was commissioned by
Reserve Mining Company in 19&9 to study the present
tailings disposal system at their plant in Silver Bay,
Minnesota, and to recommend an alternate method of dis-
posing of this tailings material.
This plan for disposal of the Reserve tailings
has endeavored to weigh thoroughly the following major
governing considerations and their combined effects on
the entire matter:
1. Ecological
2. Practical
3. Technical
4. Economic
In so doing, at least 19 other methods
and plans have been considered and evaluated, all of which
the conferees were made aware of in April 1970.
The Reserve Mining Company is currently
-------
292
C. Skinker
processing approximately 95,000 tons of taconite ore per
day; 65,000 tons of material are discharged as tailings
which is essentially silica or common sand. The present
ore dressing process utilizes tremendous quantities of
water within the plant. Additional quantities of water
are added to the tailings to effect its transport through
launders for ultimate disposal in the lake.
To dispose of these tailings by any other method,
it seems essential that the volume of water in the tailings
slurry first be drastically decreased. Thickening the
tailings slurry is the obvious answer. Ordinary thickeners
cannot handle some of the materials as coarse as that which
is presently being discharged. It is therefore necessary
to classify or separate and thicken the material in steps.
Since the Reserve Mining Company concentrator consists
of two plants operating side by side, it has been
recommended that the thickening plant be built in two
companion sections, each serving one of the concentrator
plants.
Normally, standard commercial equipment is not
called upon to handle such large quantities of coarse
material as are produced at Silver Bay. However, our
studies and investigations with manufacturers indicate
that a specially designed 50-foot diameter tangentially
-------
293
C. Skinker
fed scalping hydroseparator will remove the plus 14 mesh
(,046 inches, 1190 microns) material satisfactorily. This
would be followed by a 125-foot diameter conventional hydro-
separator to remove the minus 14 mesh plus 150 mesh (.0041
inches, 105 microns) material.
I hope you can see the slides over there because
this will indicate to you the schematic — this is kind of
an artistfs conception or schematic arrangement of how this
material is handled. Can you see that?
The overflow from this second hydroseparator can
then be thickened in two 310—foot conventional thickeners.
Those are the large ones.
Four products would then be separated as follows:
1. An essentially plus 14 mesh underflow from
the scalping hydroseparator<> That is a cut-away section
to give you an idea of the operating principle of a hydro-
separator. A scalping hydroseparator is one that takes off
the coarsest fraction of the underflow first.
2. A minus 14 mesh plus 150 mesh underflow from
the main hydroseparator.
3. The remainder of the material as thickener
underflow of minus 150 mesh.
4. Thickener overflow, clarified for return to
the harbor area where it will mix with freshwater as it is
-------
294
G. Skinker
drawn into the pumping plant intake.
The products of 1, 2, and 3 above together with
required sluicing water will be pumped as a slurry to a
collecting sump in the main tailings pumping station. This
thickened tailings slurry will next be pumped through pipe-
lines fanning out across the existing delta and then down
the slope of the lake bottom to a point approximately 140
feet beneath the surface. From there the pipelines will
extend further horizontally into the lake to their dis-
charge points while the lake bottom continues its downward
slope.
By removing these solid products in an approximately
40 percent solids slurry, the volume of the slurry or pulp
to be disposed of will be reduced from 302,000 g.p.m. to
22,100 g.p.m.
Based upon pilot plant tests, the thickener sizes
in this system have been determined to achieve effective
settling of the fine material with the use of fiocculents
or coagulants. It is expected that further engineering
refinements will be undertaken prior to the final design
of the thickening plant in order to determine the optimum
equipment sizes.
The scalper hydroseparator, main hydroseparator,
and thickener underflows are combined at the main tailings
-------
295
C. Skinker
pumping station sump. This sump feeds 14 discharge
pump line assemblies. The pump line assemblies each
consist initially of one variable speed and one constant
speed pump, with provisions for adding in the future the
required additional pumps as the length of the discharge
lines increase.
In order to provide for continuous operation
within the wide range of flows to be expected in an
operation of this nature, we have provided both variable
and constant speed pumps, fully automated together with
a complete system of operating indicators and alarms for
all equipment together with provision for central control
to coordinate this system with that of the operation of
the concentrator.
In addition, we have provided a complete standby
system for each hydroseparator and thickener, underflow
pumping installation to assure continuity of operation
and availability for maintenance.
The 14 discharge lines — 13 of which
are operating and one standby — will run along the delta
to the lake, fanning out to create a maximum area for
distribution of the tailings. The lines will run through
retaining structures and slope downward, following the
underwater beach line and resting on the underwater beach
-------
296
C. Skinker
surface. The lines will be run this way until they reach
the design depth of 140 feet below the lake surface. The
lines will then level off to their discharge position.
From this position the thickened tailings slurry will be
discharged, forming a heavy density current. A suitable
assembly will be provided at the discharge to direct the
stream and to minimize turbulence.
No hazard to navigation will result from this
system since the discharge pipes enter the lake at a safe
depth, are anchored to the lake bottom, and their ends will
be marked with buoys.
This system utilizes the heavy density current
for the continuous transport of the finer fraction of the
tailings from the discharge of each pipeline toward the
Great Trough.
The effectiveness of the heavy density current
phenomenon is proportional to the relative densities of
the flowing stream to that of the receiving body. In this
instance, our proposed method will produce a far stronger
current than in the existing system.
The proposed system will offer the added benefit
of stabilizing the present delta area.
Lastly, operation and regulation of the proposed
system will be satisfactorily maintained due to the type
-------
297
G. Skinker
of equipment and safeguards employed and the physical method
and location of deposition of the tailings underflow and
clarified overflow.
The installed cost of the project is estimated to
be approximately $14 million. As you see on the slide, it
is detailed here for you so that you can see how this cost
is reached. After receipt of required approval, the project
could be constructed in 2 years, as is shown in the slide by
the bar chart. Over a 20-year period, operation and main-
tenance costs are estimated to be $22,460,000. With interest
and amortization, the total 20-year cost will amount to
$4S,960,000, as shown in the slide.
We have examined other approaches but, based on
our best engineering judgment, this is the method most
suitable for the satisfactory resolution of the problem
from ecological, practical, technical, and economical
feasibility standpoint.
As shown here — a panoramic view of the proposed
installation, once completed. In this panoramic view, you
can see that the delta has been landscaped, and has been
made to look very pleasing to the eye so that you don't
have any esthetic impact on the landscape that is harmful
in any way.
Thank you very much.
-------
29$
E. Fride
MR. FRIDE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just inject
one thought here, and I would just ask, however, how the
conferees would best like to proceed. Mr. Skinker, of course,
is available for questions right now.
Also,.if you prefer to hear Dr. Weinberger discuss
some of the ecological kinds of concerns involved in the
plan, then they would both be available for questioning.
So, however, the conferees wish to proceed —
MR. STEIN: Well, I was going to ask the same
question myself. It might be best to get the whole picture
first.
MR. FRIDE: Very well.
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable?
Why don't you proceed with Dr. Weinberger, and
if Mr. Skinker can remain available —
MR. SKINKER: I will be here.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. FRIDE: The second presentation that completes
the plan is to be presented by Dr. Leon Weinberger. I know
he needs no introduction to most of the conferees. He is
a man who has devoted a lifetime to scientific engineering
and environmental concerns. He is a former Assistant
Commissioner for Research and Development with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Agency. He is presently an
-------
299
L. Weinberger
independent consultant. Dr. Weinberger has been very close
to Reserve Mining Company since the beginning of the con-
sideration of possible modifications of the tailings dis-
charge system. We have relied on his advice and judgment
in many areas, and he has been the one who has been analyz-
ing it from an impact to environment — the kinds of concerns
that all of us have today on today's ecology.
Dr. Weinberger.
MR. STEIN: Very well. When Dr. Weinberger comes
up let me go off the record for a moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Dr. Weinberger.
STATEMENT OF DR. LEON W. WEINBERGER,
CONSULTING ENGINEER, POTOMAC, MARYLAND
DR. WEINBERGER: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen.
I am Dr. Leon W. Weinberger, a sanitary engineer
with 25 years' experience and training in the scientific
and technical aspects of water pollution control and water
quality management. This experience has included research
and development, engineering, management, and as an
educator. As former Assistant Commissioner - Research and
-------
300
L. Weinberger
Development, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
U. S. Department of the Interior, I had occasion to work with
many of you in an effort to maintain and enhance the quality
of our environment,
I have been retained by Reserve Mining Company to
review all of the scientific and technical information which
has been developed and presented by all participants at the
various sessions of this enforcement conference as well as
all of the engineering studies carried out by Reserve
Mining personnel and consultants.
As you would expect, I advised Reserve Mining
Company, at the start, that I would make an objective
evaluation of all of the information and not simply to
attempt to discredit scientific and technical findings
which were critical of Reserve. My analyses, conclusions,
and recommendations were to be made on the basis of what
was necessary to protect and preserve the quality of Lake
Superior and not necessarily to come up with a zero or
minimum cost solution. Reserve indicated that not only
would they accept my conditions but that they were seeking
precisely that type of advice. My role was to place
particular emphasis on the environmental impact of past,
current, and future discharges from the operations at
Silver Bay, All of my questions and comments were given
-------
301
L. Weinberger
serious consideration and resolution made to my satisfaction*
Reserve has carried out many engineering studies
and designs on alternative means for modifying their dis-
charge into the lake,, These have been presented to the
conferees in the past. I would add that Reserve has been
willing to investigate the applicability of any idea or
concept. As a result of a careful analysis of all altern-
atives, a plan to modify the tailings discharge was
developed. The preliminary engineering design has been
presented to the conferees. This modification should
result in a very significant reduction in those water quality
parameters attributable to Reserve about which objections
have been raised.
I do not intend to here review the scientific
opinions and findings presented by Reserve, government,
and other witnesses. In spite of what has appeared to be
divergent scientific views, the various participants are,
in fact, very close to scientific and technical agreement.
It has been recognized that most of the solids,
the tailings, being discharged by Reserve would descend
quite rapidly to the depths of the lake and cause no prob-
lems. The deposition of solids on the bottom of the deep
portions of the lake need not be of any concern in terms
of changing the quality of the water or any of the uses of
-------
302
L. Weinberger
the lake. However, because of the large volumes of water
recirculated, the amount of the material being discharged,
and the natural dynamic lake forces, a small amount of the
solids occasionally appears at the surface of the lake near
the shore under existing discharge conditions.
There has been no measurable adverse effect on
water quality for domestic consumption, fisheries, and
recreation, industrial consumption, agricultural and wildlifje
or any other known use. A slight decrease in a fish food,
Pontoporeia, in the vicinity of the discharge has been
attributed to the tailings but the effects are minimal or
of no significance on the fish population. The appearance
of the lake at the site of the current Reserve discharge
is objectionable to some. The only water quality change
beyond the immediate vicinity of the Reserve discharge
which may be attributed to the discharge of tailings is that,
the tailings may add to the "green water1* phenomenon.
Although extremely small quantities of tailings
have been found on the bottom of the lake at considerable
distances from the discharge point, they have no measurable
effect on water quality including aquatic life.
The effects on Lake Superior have been summarized
by Dr. Donald I. Mount, Director, National Water Quality
Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota, at the Lake Superior
-------
303
L. Weinberger
Conference April 29 and 30, 1970. He pointed out that:
1. "Green water" occurs without tailings being
present. Tailings are indeed found in "green water" near
discharge point,, It is not the finding that the presence
of tailings has an adverse effect on water supplies.
2. Tailings are being deposited primarily in
the deep trough of the Minnesota shore.
3. Bioassay data clearly suggest that direct
adverse effects of the tailings on fishes and fish food
organisms will not occur at the concentrations expected
in the lake,
4. There may be a slight growth promotion effect
of the effluent but the data do not suggest there will be
an algal bloom near point of discharge.
Dr. Mount stated, "In my judgment the effect of
Reserve's discharge should be assessed in terms of altering
the lake's appearance rather than the toxic effects on
fish and fish food organisms, or endangering water
supplies."
I have been very impressed with that statement
of Dr. Mount, and I am generally in agreement with his
conclusions and opinions.
In short, one would say that the major concern
with regard to the tailings discharge from Reserve relates
-------
304
L. Weinberger
to the appearance — the esthetic considerations — and
the limited migration of fine materials which are present
in the Reserve discharge. The physical filling or deposition
of solids is not a significant factor and indeed the rapid
settling and deposition of the fine materials in the depths
of the lake would be preferable to the current method of
discharge, and, in my opinion, based on all information
currently available is the best alternative of any which
has been proposed.
The proposed plan to modify the tailings discharge
system will overcome the esthetic objections and greatly
reduce the migration of the fine particles. The design
provides for the agglomeration and settling of fine
particles in treatment facilities with the subsequent dis-
charge of the solids removed through a closed conduit to
a considerable depth below the surface of the water. As
a result of the treatment provided an even more effective
density current will be created which will accelerate the
deposition of solids to the deep portions of the lake where
they will have no adverse effects on the water quality or
appearance of the lake. The delta type of discharge will
be eliminated, and the delta area will be stabilized, land-
scaped and its appearance enhanced. The fines entering at
the surface of the lake will be eliminated, thereby mini-
-------
305
L. Weinberger
mizing the migration of the solids and contribution that
these fines would make to the green water phenomenon.
There is no question but that the plan proposed
by Reserve will result in a significant improvement in the
appearance of the lake around their point of discharge.
In addition, since most of the apprehension concerning
potential harmful effects relate to the migration of the
fine materials, and their presence at or near the surface,
by removing and depositing the fines, added steps are being
taken to protect the high quality of Lake Superior.
Reserve has asked me and I have agreed to
continue to review their program at Silver Bay and to work
with all other groups who are interested in preserving and
protecting the quality of the lake.
I thank you.
-------
306
E. Fride
MR. STEINt Does that conclude Reserve's
presentation, Mr. Fride?
MR. FRIDE: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if it meets
with your approval and to the extent that this seems
appropriate, I can ask Mr. Skinker to come up, and Dr.
Weinberger can be on the podium so you can ask them
questions.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any questions? Let me start it. I
will break the ice and get this going.
I think this relates — perhaps it should be
directed to Dr. Weinberger. You largely related your
comments to moderate damape to fish food, esthetic problems^
etc.
But the conferees did find at the last session
of the conference that Reserve, as well as other industries
in the lake, were contributing to interstate pollution.
The recommendation was approved and sent forward by
Mr. Ruckelshaus, the Environmental Protection Administratorf
As I recall the testimony — and I think the
record of the last conference would bring this out —
Dr. Mount presented information indicating that nutrients
were present in the tailings which got into the lake
-------
307
L. Weinberger
and were contributing- to the accelerated eutrophication.
l) This is not mentioned in your paper; 2)if it is men-
tioned, if this is the case, and YOU may want to ?et
into collocmy with Dr. Mount on this — will the plan
or will your plan that you have presented here by containing
the tailings alleviate that condition?
DR. WEINBERGER: Mr. Stein, there are a couple
of facets of your ouestion, I would be happy to comment
on all of them, of course.
One aspect of the interstate pollution which
you refer to I think had to do with the presence of the
fines, and, of course, I would not contest the fact that
those fines indeed were migrating- and ending up in the
waters of other States and in interstate waters.
The proposed solution deals with that in terms
of getting the fine material — indeed all of the material
— down to a considerated depth below the surface, which
would result in — more or less interfered with settlings
— the solids would reach the bottom of the lake closer
to the discharge point. Too, they would be free from some Of
the surface currents which would be involved. Because
of the density current they would tend to fro to the bottom
more rapidly.
The Question concerning the eutrophication, which
-------
303
L. Weinberger
has been presented, relates to the studies — the laboratory
studies that were made—which indicate that the materials
found in the tailings or indeed almost any material could
have nutrient value to the growth of algae.
My understanding of the findings was that this
was a measurable — based on the work the laboratory did —
was something that was measurable but was not something
that was of concern in terms of creating excessive or sig-
nificant contribution to the algal problem.
If you are asking a question whether this par-
ticular solution results in a reduction of dissolved
material going into the lake, the answer to that is yes,
in view of the fact that there is an effort to recirculate
the amounts of water so that these would be recirculated
within the plant and thereby reduce, if you will, any
dissolved material going in.
I don't know whether this is responsive —
MR. STEIN: Well, this is responsive;
As far as I can see, this may be a key point and I would
like Dr. Mount, if he can, when he thinks it is appropriate,
to comment on this, because I believe one of the key
elements you talked about in addition to the usual
nutrients — the phosphates and nitrates — was manganese.
They talked aoout that last time.
-------
309
L. Weinberger
Now, if this in fact is reduced significantly
in solution, and this is prevented to get in the lake in
your plan, I think we have one set of factors. If it is
not, I think we have to look at it in a different way,
and I don't know what Dr. Mount and some of the other
people may think of that aspect.
DR. WEINBERGER: Before Dr. Mount — there were
some other points which were raised, Mr. Stein And as I
indicated in my prior testimony, I did not intend to be
selective in terms of my review or comment.
Since you have raised that question, there was
another point which was raised in the earlier studies
which I would be real happy to respond to.
This was the question that was raised concerning
the fact that bacteria would be more apt to survive longer
in the tailings than if the tailings were not there.
Putting this thing again in a scientific context,
I don't think there is any question but if you did have
bacteria and they did have the protection of the surface
of any particulate matter, there is no question but there
would be an attempt for these organisms to live longer than
they would without the particles. I cannot deny this,
I think it is important, of course, to indicate
that the discharge from Reserve does not contain any
-------
310
L. Weinberger
.pathogenic or disease-producing organisms, and furthermore
any tendency for the bacteria to survive longer would be
associated with those fine particles, and this program
does provide for the fine particles to get to the bottom
of the lake as rapidly as possible. I am aware of these
things.
MR. STEIN: I would like to get to more detailed
questions and let the scientific staff do this.
DR. WEINBERGER: I am sorry.
MR. STEIN: No. But stay there, Dr. Weinberger,
because they didn't start it. One of the key
questions that I think we have to relate ourselves to is
to the findings that the conferees made at the last session
of interstate pollution and whether this meets it.
Now, I think another key question that we should
explore here — and I hope you will have a colloquy with
the scientific staff on that, and I am not sure I heard a
direct answer from you on this yet in your paper — whether
this plan of Reserve will provide adequate protection of
Lake Superior from an ecological standpoint, or whether it
will contribute to the lake. And we haven't heard, except
in a broad reference, how this solution would compare
to other alternatives to protect the lake.
In other words — and let me turn the coin
-------
311
L. Weinberger
around to what I said yesterday — while I make no judgment
before we hear all of the factors for water disposal or
use disposal or land disposal that we heard of yesterday,
I have no bias in favor of each. I think if you are going
in terms of water disposal, we should have some kind of
indication of why you don't think land disposal is satis-
factory. Because, again, I think perhaps — let me put
it to you this way: On the proper conditions, as far as
we are concerned in water pollution control, land disposal
would be a satisfactory method of handling the waste,
wouldn't it?
DR. WEINBERGER: Yes.
Again, let me lead into that, and — I suspect
the first question that I asked of Reserve Mining, when
they asked me to review their plans, was what I think is
obvious to not only the conferees but the people in the
audience: Well, why not keep the tailings out of the
lake? Why not come up with a land disposal system?
(Applause)
And I don't think — and, again, this was an
obvious question, and from an absolute sense, if one can
come up with an alternative that provided for that which
would not create problems which were greater than those
which were being contributed or could be contributed, why
-------
312
L. Weinberger
•not go that way?
A number of alternatives were studied, and I
would say that, based on what I have seen, any number of
combinations considering as to how you would actually go
about putting all of the tailings on the land — these
were presented to the conferees with all of these altern-
atives.. And .lust very briefly the alternatives cover
situations of everything ranging from taking everything
out of the lake to taking the fines out of the lake, the
coarse out of the lake, and all combinations.
Now, on the basis of the studies which were
made and the analyses carried out — again, I think, Mr*
Stein and others here, I would like for them to comment
in terms of some of the problems associated with the land
disposal.
I wanted to make it very clear that this, of
course, was the first alternative that I suggested that
they look at. They had already started this, and these
were presented,.
Now, I think the question, Mr. Stein, very
properly so, is: What are the many reasons for not going
to a land disposal system?
Mr. Skinker has looked at this thing from the
point of his own experience in terms of land disposal. I
-------
313
C. Skinker
think he might want to comment on some of the problems
here and I will remain here, of course.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. SKINKER: Mr. Chairman, land disposal
immediately is a question of the local problem. It is
never the same for any two, the way the tailings disposal
situation is. In every instance that I know about with
respect to land disposal, you create additional ecological
problems in the area where the disposition of the material
is. You create esthetic problems; you create practicable
operating problems in areas like Minnesota where you have
severe winter conditions, as an example, which are not
always foolproof. And by so becoming dependent on land
disposal, and yet not being able to make it 100 percent
foolproof, situations could arise — emergency type
situations could arise — and actually continuing
situations would exist where the potential pollution to
a larger area of watersheds and ultimately to the lake
itself would be the product. And this is why we have
taken the position, after looking at these various methods,
that if you can suppress this material, agglomerate the
fines to a large extent, and introduce it into the lake
at a depth so that it is not subject to any surface
disturbance of any kind by wave action, winds, or otherwise,
-------
314
C. Skinker
"that this is going to be in the long run — in fact, right
from the start — a preferable method.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Skinker, again, the only reason
I started the questions is because I wanted to give the
technical people a chance to get their thoughts in order
before they really went into detail.
But, in listening to your reply, I know this is
a general reply. As far as I can see, though, you can say
that to any water system. Any water disposal system, how-
ever good it is, disturbs the ecology as far as I know,
I have said this many times at other meetings—that if you
want to know where the biggest source of water pollution
is in the country and where it is coming from, look at the
outfall lines from the waste treatment plant, both indus-
trial and municipal. This is where the wastes are coming
from.
I know by sad experience, as this panel knows,
that we don't have foolproof systems in water disposal
either, and one of the big problems we have is they just
don't run 2k hours a day 365 days a year under optimum
conditions.
I think the question that we would like to have
answered is why, in this specific case, did you consider —
if you did consider — the risk to be greater to the ecology
-------
315
D. Skinker
in land disposal than in the plan you have come up with?
Can you address yourself to that?
MB. SKINKER: Well, first of all, if you use on-
land disposal, you have to have some form of impounding
structures. These impounding structures by their very
nature create problems and can be potential hazards.
Further, any kind of an impounding structure plus the
tailings themselves are going to be subject to erosion,
and these are two very important reasons why we do not
recommend onland, onshore disposal.
Now, in addition to that, once you do create an
onland disposal system of solids, of which a portion are
quite fine, you have definite problems with dusting, wind-
borne particles, and I have seen a number of — a great
many tailings disposal areas, and some of these, if you
drive by them in a windstorm, would take the paint right
off your car. Now, this is a pretty severe condition, but
«•
it can happen.
MR. STEIN: Do any of you have any questions?
MR. MAYO: Mr. Chairman, the Reserve proposal
invites a substantial amount of inquiry. We would like to
go at it at least in some measure of orderliness so that
we don't find ourselves leaving bits and pieces out of
our inquiry.
-------
316
D. Mount
We thought we might begin by pursuing three
principal subject matter areas: 1) the soluble materials
and the nutrients issue; 2) fines or suspended sediment;
and, 3) some of the questions related to physical fillings,
and then proceed from there in terms of other principal
issues.
I think we want to start with those three areas
of inquiry, and invite the other conferees to interject
their comments as we go along.
At this point, I will ask Dr. Mount to lead
off for us in terms of the pursuit of these three principal
areas of concern.
DR0 MOUNT: I would prefer to begin with the
soluble considerations, and I would like to clarify, again,
what I attempted to clarify in the August session of the
conference which related to my comments, I believe, from
the April session about the concern being one of the
appearance of the lake. And in August I said, again,
that by that statement, by saying the concern was with
regard to the appearance of the lake, that you included
not only the problem of "green water," which we are convinc-
ed is caused by suspended material, particulate matter,
but also I referred to the general aging of the lake, and
for those who know Lake Erie and have seen it, they will
-------
317
D. Mount
know that a great part of the problem there is one of
appearance of the lake.
If you have a cabin on a lake in Minnesota that has had
organic matter going into it, many of you have commented
to me that the water now looks green, not from tailings,
but from algae. As a lake ages, and is more productive
in terms of biological material and particularly the
plankton, it will change in appearance. So there is a
concern in regard to the soluble matter as it relates to
the appearance of the lake as well as the participates.
It is my understanding, if my memory serves me
right, that one finds in looking at the data which the
company reports to the State in regard to their solubles
in the intake and discharge water, that there is something
in the order of 30,000 or 40,000 tons a day of soluble
material being added to the lake as a result of solution
of the particulates into the processed water stream.
Other studies done by various people put this
range up as high as $0 or 100 tons — excuse me — pounds
— I said tons — 30,000 pounds per day, up to £0,000 to
100,000 pounds per day.
This is the reason why I feel that the clarified
overflow must be recirculated with assurances, and while
I would agree that discharging the clarified overflow
-------
318
D. Mount
'to the harbor will ensure some recirculation, I don't
think it is adequate, and in my judgment I think there
should be some physical barrier provided, such as a dike
perhaps across the corner of the harbor to ensure that this
water is recycled. This would be the primary criticism
that I would have of this proposal in regard to the soluble
materials.
MR. STEIN: Let me try to rephrase this for at
least the purpose of the poor lawyers and others.
Do you believe that the plan as presented by
Reserve will not provide adequate interception and
recirculation of soluble materials and that additional
interception, such as by a barrier across the bay and
recirculation of the materials, would prevent less of the
soluble materials getting out into the lake and thus pre-
serve the quality of the lake water? Is that correct?
DR. MOUNT: Yes. I think there are actually
two considerations here. One, of course, is the fact
that there would be less lake water used in this system,
since you would be reusing what has already been taken
into the plant. In talking with my staff members, it
is our judgment that if this water is recirculated,
there will be an increase in the inplant water of dissolved
solids which will in turn result in less solution taking
-------
319
L. Weinberger
place. This is comparable to putting sugar in a glass of
iced tea and as you put more in, it dissolves slower.
DR. WEINBERGER: I would be happy to respond,
Mr. Chairman. I don't know how one would proceed.
I think Mr, Fride indicated that the plan as
presented, although it does represent preliminary engineer-
ing plans, the point raised by Dr. Mount — and, again, not
to try and upstage him — this was a question which I, too,
raised with Reserve in terms of trying to make sure or
maximize the degree of recirculation.
If this is something which is desirable and can
be accomplished — and I think it can be to a considerable
extent — I would say that — I am saying this off the
cuff because I haven't even checked it — I am sure that
Reserve would be quite anxious to work on this, and I think
it is a technical problem as to how the recirculation is
brought about.
I would say that the recirculation should be
maximized. The only thing I am saying, Mr, Chairman, is
whether it be in the form of a curtain or what form that
should take, I would rather that would be —
MR. STEIN: That is a technical question.
DR. WEINBERGER: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Let me get to this, and let me check
-------
320
L. Weinberger
with Dr. Mount because I heard him say that this was his
principal objection. And, of course, we haven't called
signals in advance, and I don't think this just happened
this wa-v..But I raised this as the first quest ion,, because
I think we came to the conclusion about Reserve contributing
to interstate pollution at the last conference on this
question of the introduction of the soluble materials and
nutrients to the lake, which contributed to the aging or
the eutrophication of the lake.
Now, if Dr. Mount is concerned with a
plan to protect the lake, I think that naturally he is
concerned about protecting the lake from these materials
getting in there and affecting the rest of the lake.
Now, whatever the technical solution is,
I think the answer to this is directed at the gravamen
of the finding that the conferees made in relation to
discharges from Reserve and eutrophication. And I would
suggest that this question be resolved between you,.tbe
State and Federal technical people,possibly before we
can really go ahead with the plan,, if this is going to
be a major issue.
DR. WEINBERGER: I am sure that, again, I
personally, and I am sure Reserve would be very happy
to go over this.
-------
321
L. Weinberger
Again, I think Mr. Skinker did indicate the
engineering design which they came up with has been
deliberately laid out so that the discharge — and over-
flow discharge would be involved in a recirculation.
Now, if this is not adequate from the point of view of the
engineering, and whether one needs a more positive way of
doing this, this is certainly something — I think it is
an engineering problem for technical people.
MR. STEIN: Anytime any of the other conferees
want to get in on this, just let us know.
Dr. Mount, do you have any more?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
one question as long as we are talking about the overflow
from the clarifier.
Dr. Weinberger, what is the relative characteris-
tics of this overflow — the turbidity, the suspended
solids of this material? I am concerned about possibly
the discoloration of that harbor not only when you are
talking about the soluble material, but wouldn't there be
a tendency for this material to drift out into the lake,
or something on that basis?
DR. WEINBERGER: Mr. Badalich, the final charac-
ter of the material, the concentrations involved right
now will be based on the pilot studies at the laboratory
-------
322
L. Weinberger
and pilot studies which are being conducted. Now, in the
proposal, there is the suggestion that the need for polymers
or some other coagulants to remove the fines would be
necessary.
The final concentration, I cannot say at this
point whether it is going to be, you know, the magnitude
of — it would depend on the operating conditions and the
amount of coagulant you have to add.
But, based on the studies thus far, this would
not result in a discoloration or any color impact.
Again, I think as part of the engineering refine-
ment involved in detailed design when it is submitted to
the State, it would have to deal specifically with the
concentration you are talking about.
MR. BADALICH: Does this mean that the clarifier
overflow would be in turbidity less than 25 or less than
5 so you don't have discoloration of the water, or would
that be less than 1, which is now the turbidity value of
Lake Superior water. Anything over and above that would
involve discoloration.
Are you saying you are going to clarify the
supernatant down below or equal to the water quality of
the lake?
DR. WEINBERGER: I think I misunderstood when
-------
323
L. Weinberger
you used the word "discoloration." I was using this as
color rather than turbidity.
What the turbidity levels will be at this point,
certainly we are going to try to reduce these to the
lowest value that can be achieved. The purpose of the
recirculation is again to make sure that any of the
fine particles which might be present, as well as the
dissolved fraction,,would in fact be recirculated.
These in turn would be built up and be settled out upon
recycling. This would have to be designed so it does not
create this kind of a turbidity problem.
MR. BADALICH: So you are saying at this point
there is reasonable assurance that there will be no problem
of this overflow material drifting out into the lake; there
would be some preventive measures to avoid this?
DR. WEINBERGER: I am saying this is the way
this thing has to be designed, and in the preparation of
detailed plans and specifications submitted to your people,
all of you are going to have to be assured that this will
not take place.
MR. BADALICH: Now, going to the flocculent
being used, will this have any biological impact on the
waters in the immediate area? Will there be any stimula-
tion of algal growth or anything like this; or aren't you
-------
324
L. Weinberger
'sure yet on the type of floccui;ent to be used?
DR. WEINBERGER: Again, I appreciate you are
getting involved with me on technical questions0 I can
respond to this in part, and when I don't know I am going
to tell you.
Again, one of the great concerns which I had
was any addition of anything to that lake water. And,
again, frankly this is one of those things that in weighing
the alternatives it is a question here of reducing — of
getting the fines down. And it was apparent that by plain
settling one could not remove as much of the fines as would
be desirable.
Looking at any coagulants, the first question,
of course, again that I raised was: Are these coagulants
safe, and hovr do we know they are safe?
The Reserve consultants had been working with
these things in terms of getting those polymers, if you
will, that have been approved as polymeric additions to
drinking water or water treatment plants. I want to assure
the panel that this was not adequate or is not adequate
as far as I am concerned. And I would urge that before
they use any of these they make sure that these are subject-
ed to appropriate biological testing so that not only will
they be safe from the point of view of human consumption,
-------
325
L. Weinberger
which we already are ay/are of, but that also appropriate
tests — and I am hoping that Dr. Mount would participate
in this thing — so that one can develop appropriate aquatic
biological testing to be sure that these would not
contribute to it.
At this particular point, we have assurances
that they are safe from a drinking water, health point of
view. And I might say something else on this, because
these are again questions that I think we would all ask.
We do have some preliminary information from some of the
users of these chemicals or these polymers and coagulants,
that they have been used in drinking water supplies and
in treatment supplies being discharged into very high quality
streams where there has been no measured effects on fish
and aquatic life.
We would, however, still insist that appropriate
tests be conducted.
MR. BADALICH: However, the point being right
now that the present discharge of Reserve does not use the
polymers or the floccul,0nts. This is going to be another
added area that we are going to have to be very concerned
about if this method of disposal is going to be used. We
are not confronted with that problem at the present time,
but we are adding another constituent to the discharge
-------
326
L. Weinberger
and this is of great concern — especially the biological
effect.
MR0 WEINBERGER: Mr0 Badalich, I agree with you
completely, and I would say that one is initiated and is
going to carry out every possible test. As I say, we have
a good body of information concerning the health effects,
but, as some of us know, sometimes the effects to fish and
aquatic life would be more subtle,,
MR. STEIN: I wonder if I could call and ask if
Dr. Mount might have a comment at this point, because he
is our national expert right in this field, and it is just
fortuitous that he is located in Duluth. But if I were
going to ask about the question of effect of a flocculent
on the fish food chain or the biota in any freshwater I
would get in touch with Dr. Mount.
DR. WEINBERGER: I agree.
MR, STEIN: So I wondered, can you comment on
this?
DR. MOUNT: Well, I think there are a number of
considerations even beyond the — well, I guess John
covered it when he said ecology, that it is in about every-
thing.
There are several areas of concern within the
problems of ecological effects. Certainly the direct
-------
327
D. Mount
toxicity of these materials to the organisms in the lake
is one which I believe is not available on most of these
materials.
I might mention, Mr. Chairman, that I spent a
day at Reserve last week with their technical people
asking a lot of these questions so that I could do some
homework on this thing, and I do have information on these
flocculetits from the makers or the companies.
Now, I have a whole pile of them here because
there has not been any choice made, and for the most part
there is inadequate aquatic toxicity information on
these, and this would require I think some rather
extended testing, particularly on organisms — specifically
the lake trout which has not been looked at. If there
is one thing I have learned in this business, that is you
don't extrapolate a lot or estimate the toxicity of a
chemical to a species because you have tested a goldfish
or a guppie. It doesn't work this way.
There are other questions which I cannot answer
in my own mind right now,, and that is in regard to whether
or not the floccuient that might be chosen should be
degradable or not degradable. I can see pros and cons
either way on this one.
If you want me to go into that a little bit
-------
D. Mount
I can. I am not sure you do.
MR. STEIN: I am not sure we don't. Here is the
situation. I agree with Mr. Badaiich completely. I think
you are going to have to give us the amount of time that it
is going to take to get answers to this whether we can
reasonably expect a positive answer, because I think that
Mr. Badalich's point is a very poignant one.
In dealing with a body of water like Lake
Superior, we are not going to put in any extra material
without knowing what effect it is going to have on the
biota of the lake or the ecology.
Now, this is a key point. In fact, there are
possibly two key points in the nroposal as they relate
to the ecology. One is this recirculation question and
how you are going to keep the material in solution from
getting out into the lake, which is the same thins:. The
second thing is any possible deleterious effects of anv
additives that we are going to put in by a flocculent.
Unless you can sign off and tell us that it is benign
and that it is not going to hurt the biota, I think we
have a very serious question on the plan.
This is one thing we must get over, so I wish
-------
329
D. Mount
you would keep on and give us an indication of how long
it is going to take you to check this out and test it.
DR. MOUNT: Well, since you have given me an
open ticket, I am going to start out with a little sermon
to begin with, and that is that I am not an ecologist
and I don't suspect there are very many in this room who
are ecologists. Everybody calls themselves this, but
there aren't very many around really.
I have had a full year of ecology in formal
training, and one of the principles that one learns early
in ecology courses is that every organism, whether it is
a bacterium or a man, changes the environment in which
he lives. And so I think that this is a principle which
has been long established and we must accept that anything
we do is going to have some kind of a change somewhere.
I think our concern, therefore, in this field is
vi/hich changes are going to be undesirable or detrimental
or significant enough to be concerned about?
The purpose of the National Water Quality Lab-
oratory really is essentially this: to find out what the
effects on the ecology are. And so I would be betraying
my own organization if I said that I didn't think we
could do a decent job of finding out what these effects
will be. This is not to say we don't make mistakes, but
-------
330
D. Mount
I think for the most part we are able to pretty clearly
measure these effects.
This would involve, as I have indicated before,
testing with the organisms that are important in the lake.
I would like to discuss this degradability,
nondegradability for a moment. As I understand the
process, there would be some small percentage of water
associated with these thickened tailings that go down to
the bottom of the lake. It is also my understanding, from
the company's technical people as well as my own staff's
knowledge of these flocculetits, that the vast bulk of
this flocculent would be incorporated into the tailings,
the solid material, on the bottom. If these are truly
thickened and flocculated, they will pile up in a thick
layer very close to the plant, as Reserve's drawings have
shown.
This means, therefore, that we will be burying
the electrolytes — polyelectrolytes or the floccule'nt in
the tailings and covering over repeatedly so that they
will get a thick layer of a mixture of tailings and these
floccul ents.
Now, in regard to the degradability: If the
material is degradable, it is our thinking that this
material would degrade by bacterial action most probably,
-------
331
D, Mount
and that this would use the oxygen, and that there is a
good probability that the sediments would be anaerobic.
This means depleted of oxygen.
If that happens, we can envision some undesirable
chemical solutions taking place that might not take place
if the conditions are aerobic or with oxygen.
On the other hand, if the materials are not
degradable, there will be a small amount of this perhaps
going into the water, and the question then is what will
become of that? I don't pose these as questions which
cannot be reasonably answered, but I am saying that we
don't have the answer right now to this. At least I
don't feel that I do.
Those are the kinds of questions, I think, we
must look at. We need to have an analytical method, for
example, to measure these floccule.nts, so that we can find
out where they are going.
Now, I did talk with a maker of one of these
potential flocnulents, and he assured me that there was
available Carbon 14 labeled material that we could use
to raise this material both in the lake as well as in the
experimental work* This is a big plus0 That same one
has been used, according to the representatives in the
public marina area in Florida — several of them are
-------
332
D. Mount
listed — in which they have used these flocculents at
approximately the 3 p.p.m. concentration range — the range
that probably would be used up here — in recirculated
systems where we essentially have a good bioassay test
performed for us on a rather long-term basis. So we are
not without any information*but all these things would
have to be looked into, and we are talking some months of
work to do this.
MR. STEIN: Could you put a figure on that?
Would it be 4 months?
DR0 MOUNT: We would be well into having a good
feeling for it I think, depending on the particular time
of year we begin this. But assuming we began now, it would
take in the range of 9 months to test this. But we would
be getting some indications as we go along and we might
be able to rule some out well before this. But I think
we would have to look at this, of course, in the lake even
after it is done, so that stage of testing would never be
completed until the full installation is in place, but
we are talking 9 to 12 months I think.
This is not a consideration of how many people
that are put on to work, but rather these organisms don't
seem to listen to us when we tell them it is time to
reproduce; they wait on the annual cycles.
-------
333
D. Mount
MR. STEIN: Well, I understand that.
I was going to address myself to the legal
complications or implications of this.
If what you are saying is true, you give us two
choices: 1) waiting perhaos 9 months until your work
is completed before we come to a determination on the
method; or 2) if we P;O ahead with this method, that the
industry is ready to p;o ahead with its plans and spend
its money with the notion that they are not going to use
a flocculent that you are not going to approve. This
may be a hard choice for the industry, and I don't know
how the industry would feel if your proposal, Dr. Mount,
is a prerequisite. I don't know what the industry would
consider in chat light.
By the way, I have one general question to ask.
You don't have to answer it here. But onland disposal —
would we have this water that we have to take care of
anyway get to the lake? What would we do with the water?
In other words, what I am asking you, Dr. Mount,
is: Do we have the same kind of problem if we have land
disposal as well as water disposal, or don't we have to
use a flocculent to get the material out and put it on
the land?
DR. MOUNT: I don't believe I can answer the
-------
334
L. Weinberger
question whether they need a flocculernt or not. I 511033
that is a company problem.
DR. WEINBERGER: I think Mr. Frangos answered
that partially from experience yesterday.
One of the considerations, Mr. Stein, in terras
of the problems of land disposal and the diking area is,
of course, the question of the drainage area involved and
the impoundment of water and the overflow from these. And,
again, I think Mr. Frangos, before we even made the
presentation in response to questions of the fines, pointed
out that the overflow or the bypassing of this would have
fines in them . And much of the area around this par-
ticular installation would drain into Lake Superior. So
that if one were going to go to onland disposal, chances
are quite good that one would have to have, if you will,
similar type of treatment for the removal of fines.
Again, I just would say that if one could remove
these fines by gravimetric means or without the use of
things this would be delightful because — and I don't
say this thing tongue in cheek — but in response to Dr0
Mount with whom generally I agree — neither Reserve nor
myself has any preconception in terms of a kind of polymer,
and I certainly assure this again, and the technical
people realize the variability of cost, and we are talking
-------
335
L. Weinberger
about very significant cost differences. One is not looking
at polymers from the point of view of cost, and if it
requires a polymer that costs 60 cents a pound as compared
with one that is 30 cents, that is pennies. So what
I am saying then is I think the question here is: 1)
we probably have to have some coagulant to deal with the
overflow water, and 2) that in terms of Dr. Mount's
questions, the coagulant that would be used, as he indicated
in his preamble, would be the one which is most preferable.
Again, if I may make an aside, just going along
with his initial comments — and I see eye-to-eye — I
for one would be happy if we didn't have a problem, and
then we wouldn't have to be concerning ourselves with
alternative?. And I would say what we are weighing all
through this thing, Mr. Stein, relating to the land dis-
posal or the present disposal the use of coagulants or
not the use of coagulants, the use of high degradables
or nondegradables —
MR. STEIN: Let's assume the program is going to
require the use of a floccule'nt, and let's assume that Dr.
Mount is going to need the 9 months to give you the propo-
sition for the action program that the State and Federal
program are going to have to face. I think we have had
this case so long it doesn't seem to me likely that I
-------
336
L, Weinberger
would recommend that we wait for another period of testing
to be completed before we decide what kind of remedial
measures to embark on. We have been here for years.
Which leads us to the proposition that if we
embark on a method, we certainly would not want a
flocculent utilized which was not approved by State and
Federal authorities. Thus, it seems to me that we have
this problem here on a program which might gc.— and I "-M
not talking in terms of land or water disposal*, I am just
talking in terms that if you are going to use a flocculent
and we need these 9 months that we presumably are going to
have to have to sign off, or if we are going to make somethi
on a program that we can start now—with the understanding
that an adequate flocculent will be found and that the
company will pledge itself to use only that kind of
flocculent in that manner which is approved by the State
and Federal authorities. Because otherwise I think we
are caught in a time bind here and I think time has run
out on us.
So you have to make a judgment on how the company
would go on that.
MR. WEINBERGER: Well, I think it might be a
legal question, and I would like to make a comment after
that. You know I am not ashamed to talk, but, Mr. Fride,
-------
337
E. Fride
I don't know whether this involves some legal question
concerning that.
MR. FRIDE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The
purpose for my departure from the stand was to go to ask
Mr. Furness, the President of the company, and he cer-
tainly authorizes me to pledge to the conferees and to
the State agencies and to the Corps of Engineers that
if approval is forthcoming for the adoption of this
engineering plan, that the flocculetits or coagulants which
would be utilized would be utilized only with the reason-
able approval of whoever the Federal and State agencies
would designate to do that.
Certainly we would expect and welcome the
judgment of Dr. Mount in this area because, as you have
pointed out, he is equipped to handle this kind of a
situation, and certainly we want the State of Minnesota
obviously to approve the floccuie-nt. So I can say,
without really any reservation, that we would recognize
that the implementation of the plan would be contingent
upon approval of the floccule'nto
MR. STEIN: Approval of the floccule.nt by both
the Federal and State agencies.
MR. FRIDE: By the Federal and State agencies.
MR. STEIN: Right. Thank you.
-------
L. Weinberger
DR. WEINBERGER: Mr. Stein, may I add something?
I was going to add this even before Mr. Fride came up.
Dr. Mount said something else in terms of his
being concerned with an effective continuing monitoring
program.
Again, I would say this personally, regardless
of my relationship to Reserve, that I would certainly urge
that even if approval is given—and let's say based on the
evidence that we have that what we are talking about seems
to be an appropriate solution—the monitoring be carried
out, and in the event that at any time in the future one
finds that there are some adverse effects developing or
appearing to develop one insists that a modification takes
place.
MRa STEIN: I can assure you, Dr. Weinberger,
that is precisely what we are going to do whether you
suggested it or not0
DR. WEINBERGER: With regard to the polymers or
coagulants if it were —
MR, STEIN: That is our business.
Let me make this clear: We are not just doing
this with polymers or anything else; our job is to have
continuous monitoring of these waters, and if we find that
a treatment system doesn't work or a discharge system is
-------
339
E. Fride
deleterious, we are going to seek its correction.
DR. WEINBERGER: I apologize. I for the moment
slipped over to the other side of the table,
MR. FRIDE: If I could just add one other note
to what I am sure is the concern of all of us, and that is
the time question.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FRIDE: The plan, as you have it before you,
contains I think a very significant departure from that
which might ordinarily be found in plans of this kind, and
that is that the engineering plan contemplates not only
the final design plan and construction but what it con-
templates is that the things be carried on simultaneously.
In other words, that we don't wait until every detail is
in the final engineering before we go forward with pur-
chases, construction — these kinds of concerns. So that
the overlap time for final design and construction then
can be so put together that once approval is reached, you
would have two years to construct and make operable the
facility. And I think that is a very significant kind of
thing because ordinarily were it not thus we would be
talking in terms of a much longer time frame before the
system could become operable/.. 4nd I would say this, too:
Dr. Mount raises the possibility of a 9-month program, and
-------
340
E. Fride
a continuing one to ensure that we are having no adverse
ecological effects from the utilization of polymers in
the clarified water, or whatever it might be, and we cer-
tainly subscribe to this.
I would say, however, that with the kinds of
reasonable cooperation that I think both the State of
Minnesota and the National Water Quality Laboratory and
the entire Environmental Protection Agency, as well as
with the cooperation of the representatives of Michigan
and Wisconsin, that we can all work together to put the
time frame to the smallest part, i.e., to go ahead with
the design, with tentative construction, subject, of
course, to approval contemporaneously with the testing
of the flocculeht and the assurance that whatever floccu-
lent is ultimately selected is one that has no adverse
aquatic reaction.
So I think that we don't have to wait the 9
months to go forward, assuming, as I have said, that we
can get the requisite kind of approval.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: We seem to be sort of hung; up
on this floccule.nt.
Mr. Fride, or someone from the Reserve Mining
-------
341
E. Fride
staff, was there any consideration given of taking the
total volume of material and conduiting it directly down
to the bottom of the lake?
MR. FRIDE: I can give you the answer that I have,
Obviously this is not a technical one. We can call on
these gentlemen — if these gentlemen want to comment on
that.
Yes, there has been consideration to that. I
think among other things that one is concerned with
trying to get as thick a slurry as is possible,so that
you would tend then to have it settle as promptly as
possible.To the extent that you add all the volumes of
water, as I understand it at least, it inhibits the
formation of as thick a slurry as perhaps you might
otherwise have.
Perhaps one of you gentlemen would like to
comment on it with more particularity.
MR, SKINKER: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks
describing the plan, I indicated that one of the first
things to do was to cut down on the volume of water as
much as possible, in order to take advantage of having
as dense a slurry or pulp as possible for transport and
for deposition purposes0
The minute that you begin to increase the volume
-------
342
C. Skinker
of water to dilute it, you tend to create problems of
turbulence which results in further turbidity. To my
understanding this is one of the things that you want to
overcome or avoid. Consequently, I would not recommend
that you attempt to take 302,000 gallons a minute of water
plus solids to the bottom of the lake. I would a whole
lot — I do recommend that you attempt to take about 7 to
$ percent of that, which is 22,100 gallons per minute,
to the bottom of the lake.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Skinker, you feel, then, that
if you did deposit the total amount of material now to a
depth of 900 feet, which is the depth of the trough, that
there would be an upheaval and this material would go to
the surface? Is that what you are saying?
MR, SKINKER: No, I did not say that. I said
that the rate of deposition and the resultant compaction
of the material is going to be much more positive if you
have less water introduced with it than if you dilute it,
and that is the reason we are making a separation.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have another
question —
MR. STEIN: Go on»
MR. BADALICH: — regarding the volume of dis-
charge at the present time, Mr. Skinker. I understand it
-------
343
C. Skinker
is about 400,000 gallons per minute, and in your report
you indicated 302,000. Where is the 100,000 that has been
lost here someplace?
MR. SKINKER: We have had these figures checked,
and wherever you got the 400,000 gallons, we would consider
this an erroneous figure; 302 is what we have.
MR. BADALICH: That is the present discharge?
MR. SKINKER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments?
MR. MAYO: Mr. Skinker, it appears that the use
of coagulants is pretty specific to the kind of solution
that you are suggesting —
MR. SKINKER: That is right.
MR. MAYO: — for the thickening and placement
of the material in the lake.
Would there be any prospective use of coagulants
if another plan or departure from this system were con-
sidered?
MR. SKINKER: If the presence of fines in the
overflow water is a problem, in all probability you would
have to use some form of coagulant or agglomerate or
flocculefit; to pull them together and depress them.
MR. MAYO: To pursue a little further the point
that Mr. Badalich raised about taking all of the material
-------
344
C. Skinker
out into the lake via pipeline, on the basis of the 302,000
gallons per minute versus the 22,000 gallons per minute.
Taking all of the material out, with the 302,000
gallons per minute, of course, would not reduce the soluble
materials at all. We would be faced essentially with the
same load of the soluble materials going into the lake.
MR. SKINKER: This is true. However, these
soluble materials are a very minor concentration,
MR. MAYO: Dropping that to the 22,000 gallons
per minute, would you venture any estimate of the extent
to which the amount of soluble material will be reduced,
or would be reduced?
MR. SKINKER: Well, I think it is pretty well
understood that with respect to solubility that the lesser
volume and the more of the soluble material,,or even the
same amount of soluble material in the lesser volume,
you will reach equilibrium of solubility sooner with the
smaller volumes of liquid. That may be an odd way to state
it, but I am trying to put it in practical terms.
MR. MAYO: Anticipating the recirculation of the
clarifier overflow and the discharge into the lake of just
the 22,000 gallons per minute, what range of reduction
in the solubles might be expected — 90 percent reduction,
95 percent reduction?
-------
345
C. Skinker
MR. SKINKER: I would think it would be on the
order of 90 to 95 percent, bjcause you would, in effect, be
endeavoring; to pull back at least 92 percent of that fluid.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
Again, if Dr. Mount's statement is correct that
the more you recirculate it the less soluble materials are
going to get out, I don't know, maybe this should be
figured out. But it should go closer in the higher
nineties than you talk about if his theory is correct,
as I understand him —
MR. SKINKER; Well —
MR. STEIN: — because you computed this on a
straight volumetric mechanical operation —
MR. SKINKER: That is right.
MR. STEIN: — whereas Dr. Mount indicates it to
be a quantitative reduction in solubility as you thicken.
You increase the .solids of the recirculated material.
MR. SKINKER: I would subscribe to that too,
but I can't just give you the answer off the top of
my head.
MR. STEIN: Dr. Mount.
DR. MOUNT: I would just want to reiterate again
-------
346
D, Mount
that I think that kind of reasoning is contingent on some
sort of a physical barrier in this harbor,
MR. STEIN: Yes.
Now,, again —
MR. SKINKER: Well, may I say this: Although it
is an engineering detail, it is one that we have well in
mind ,A.nd,,\n effect, any overflow water introduced into the
harbor for recirculation through the plant would be
introduced in a well, which would tend to fence it off from
the rest of the harbor, and it would not get into the
harbor until it reached quite a depth if any got into the
harbor.
It is necessary to have approximately $ percent
of the water as fresh makeup, and that would be coming
through the intake from the harbor plus what has been
recirculated. Now, that is mechanical.
MR. STEIN: Dr. Mount, do you have any other
areas you want to pursue on this?
DR. MOUNT: Well, we really haven't talked about
the fences yet themselves, and that is a tough one I think,
To begin with, I think I would agree with
Reserve's statement 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
-------
347
D. Mount
orranisms and that sort of thing, so that I don't really
feel that if one looks at the possible total amount that
might be put in, this is of importance. I would dispense
with this consideration.
MR. STEIN: Well, I would like to flag; that for
the conferees. As far as I can see, this is a very
important consideration for the conferees if you accept
this — that the physical filling is just an inert
material and something that isn't goinp to cause a
problem and is of very little importance to the ecology
in the lake. Is that what you are saying?
DR. MOUNT: That is what I am saying.
MR.PURDY: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: I don't disagree with Dr. Mount's
technical appraisal here. But again, in say my consider-
ation of this particular problem, I also agree with
Governor Lucey's statement yesterday — that when we look
at new situations I believe that no repetition of this
disposal technique should be considered say from a stand-
point of the present method or the alternate that I have
heard here today.
Now, this may be appropriate to solve the prob-
lems that exist at this plant, so I hope in all future
-------
D. Mount
Operations that we can solve them in a different fashion,
because it bothers me to put this much material in the
lake. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Purdy, I am glad you gave me
an opportunity. I couldn't agree with you more.
In dealing with this situation, whatever the
disposal system — whether it is the lake or onland or
whatever — I think we are dealing with accepting the
lesser of the evils probable, which is bad from any kind
of environmental operation. Now, in a philosophic sense,
we also had a somewhat analaeous problem when we were
dealing with the uranium milling plants out west during the
fifties and early sixties. We had to get remedial measures
which prevented them from putting radioactive materials
in the water courses. The real solution to the problem
was that we 'would permit no more slants to get down there.
Once we put them over the Divide on the drv land that
solved our problem.
Now, I would agree that I think probably the
most important lesson we learned from this was that if
you want to protect the environment, the first consider-
ation and the best line of defense is intelligent site
selection. If you are going to put a plant down at a
-------
349
C. Skinker
water course here that has a lot of material that they are
dumping into a public water, you have given us a problem.
And I think, Mr. Purdy, you have presented this,and, as
far a? I can see, Reserve has presented us with a mammoth
problem. That is why we are here.
Just the basic fact of anyone^at any time^making
a decision to put 67,000 tons a day of any kind of material
in a pure body of water like Lake Superior,.has got to
present U3 with a problem. I hope there won't be a
repetition of that.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question
at this point? If an onland disposal system were
used* can anybody give us a comparison of cost compared to
the --reposal we are hearing here today?
MR. SKINKER: Preliminary estimates indicate that
for an onland disposal system that there would probably have
to be spert in excess of $70 million to install it, and then
its operation throughout the year would be substantially
more costly than that which we ascribed to.
MR. STEIN: Is that for all locations you con-
sidered?
MR. SKINKER: This is for a plant that we would
consider the further you get from the existing concentrator
the more costly it would be.
-------
350
G. Skinker
MR. STEIN: Yes, but what did the .1570 million
apply to?
MR. SKINKER: This applied to an area — what
do you call it? — somewhere near Lax Lake; somewhat south
of there. It would not involve the lake itself.
MR. STEIN: Have you figured what it would cost
for the land disposal to go to the low land above the plant
and put a dike in, onland disposal? I have heard that
mentioned as one of the possible sites0 That may be a
little closer.
MR. SKINKER: I don't quite follow you as to where
you mean, Mr0 Chairman.
MR. STEIN: I understood there was a place other
than Lax Lake where you could build a dike barrier possibly
— at least this is a theoretical possibility — along the
shore of the lake, and out the tailings behind that dikc<>
MR. SKINKER: Well, I think you would have to
build some form of impounding dam anywhere you put them,
if you put them onshore, and you would still be faced with
these problems of erosion, of overflow, of fines in the
discharge.
MR. STEIN: I recognize that. I think the ques-
tion that Mr. Badalich raised was the cost factor0 Now,
is this the cheapest possible cost factor? Would this
-------
351
E. Fride
relate to a particular site that you were going to put
it on?
MR. SKINKER: For an onland disposal system that
would have a reasonable degree of operability, let's call
it. This is probably as cheap as you could do it.
MR. STEIN: For any of the sites that you are
aware of?
MR. SKINKER: Well, as sites get farther and
farther inland it gets more expensive.
MR. STEIN: But this is the cheapest price you
can come up with?
MR. FRIDE: May I address myself to that?
Ml. STEIN: Okay.
MR. FRIDE: Because obviously Mr. Skinker's
organization is one of five that has been considering this
problem.
<>.. Cries of "Can't hear you"...
MR. FRIDE: Mr. Skinker's organization is one
of five, as the conferees know, which has been addressing
themselves to this problem. And I would just point out
that in the files of the conferees are contained specific
engineering cost estimates of various other kinds of
proposals, particularly in one that was presented to the
conferees in April of 1970, which related to a total dis-
-------
352
E. Fride
posal in the Lax Lake area. The Trygve Hoff and Asso-
ciates organization in Cleveland estimated the partial
capital cost at $195>l33,000 which does not include such
items as land acquisition, preparation of basin area,
financing interest, distribution, pumping equipment,
transmitting power, permanent dams, and that sort of
thing.
There are numbers that are available to the
conferees of these various concepts, but the point that I
really wanted to suggest was that the engineering plan
that has been selected here is by far not the cheapest
method of all of those that have been studied. It is
significantly higher than many of them, but because of
the engineering and ecological concerns, this was the one
that was selected.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FRIDE: It was not selected on the basis of
price.
MR. STEIN: I wonder if you would bear with me.
I don't want to be mean about this,but in item — Proposal
13, the last time, there was something called the laKeshore
tailing pond, and the engineering study was done by
Parsons-Jurden Corporation. That is the same one presum-
ably that did this.
-------
353
E. Fride
MR. FRIDE: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Now, this is the one I was talking
abouto I didn't find this. But it talked about total
estimated partial capital costs, $31 million; or the
estimated partial capital cost of the proposal, $37
million; and operating cost for about $3 million.
Now, this seems to — and I am just raising the
question — in other words, figures like this, if we are
talking in terms of a lakeshore tailing pond, would be a
little below the $70 million.
MR. FRIDE: That is certainly correct, Mr.
Chairman.
I might just say, from the company's
standpoint, with reference to this particular proposal 13»
as you will note in the material, it does point out that
that proposal, while it was certainly one that was consider-
ed, does include some quite undesirable features. Too,
after 30 years of operation, the basin would be 230 feet
above the lake level, virtually eliminating the present
site or the village of Silver Bay.
The kinds of problems that would flow from that
kind of a plan were considered to be so significant that
it was decided that it would not be the engineering plan
of choice. About half of the fine tailings and the ponds
-------
354
E. Fride
would be covered with water at one time or another. When
they are dry you would have a. substantial dust problem.
So it was on the basis of these kinds of considerations
that, while that plan was engineered and was considered,
like everything else that was proposed, it was for that
reason decided not to be the one of choice,
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Fride, I noticed that in your
plan you indicate that there are some six other companies
in Minnesota who are producing pellets by similar
processes. How do they dispose of their tailings?
MR. FRIDE: Well, the tailings, in general
terms — perhaps Mr. Skinker would speak more to this
because he has designed and constructed at least one of
the major ones — in general terms, are in a settling kind
of a basin.
I might just suggest this consideration: that
all of us — I am certain all of the conferees — are
dealing with practical and real siuations0 Now, the
decision to construct the plant where it was constructed
was premised on two important and critical features. If
it were possible to so construct this plant that all of
the facilities would have been located at the mine site,
as most of Reserve's competitors are able and were able
-------
355
E. Fride
to do, then obviously the site of choice would be at the
mine. Certainly nobody with any kind of an economic sense
transports material 47 miles by railroad when you transport
two or three times more than you need. Obviously the site
of choice would have been by the mine if there were avail-
able there the two prerequisite things— normally the
supply of water, and an area in which a settling basin
could have been constructed.
It so happens that at the mine site, the
property that Reserve Mining Company owned and was going
to develop, the Continental Divide runs just about through
it. You would have no low-lying area in the vicinity, as
the other companies closer to the West do have, for the
proper and appropriate deposition of tailings0
Secondly, all of the companies must use
necessarily in this process substantial quantities of water,
and, again, there was not water available at that mine
site. So that is the reason, of course, why the plant was
built where it was built. But — and perhaps just to
repeat something that has been said before — but I think
sometimes we may lose some of the significance of it.
Almost all of the kinds of considerations that are now
being given to this operation were, in fact, along those
considered before the necessary authorizations were
-------
356
C. Skinker
granted by the State and Federal agencies to construct
this plant. To be sure, today's situation may be a little
different, but I wo ill d just suggest that in bold terms,
all of the kinds of considerations were given before the
plant was built, but that is the primary reason, as I am
sure the conferees are well aware of why the plant was
built where it was built.
Perhaps Mr. Skinker, you would like to comment
more particularly in response to the question as to how
other operations in Minnesota, or perhaps in other States,
do handle their tailings.
MR. SKINKER: Fundamentally, I think Mr. Fride
has covered it quite thoroughly.
In Minnesota, the other iron mining and
pelletizing companies do have the benefit of natural
water supplies where they are located, adjoining their
mining operations , And they have been able to secure land
— and lots of it — where they would have room to dispose
of the tailings materials, but I believe the majority of
them are faced with this problem of building rather large
impounding structures or dams or dikes — whatever you want
to call it — in order to contain these materials.
Elsewhere in the United States, where there are
concentrating operations created daily, such as in
-------
357
C. Skinker
Arizona, in Montana, In Utah, in Nevada, in New Mexico,
tremendous amount of tailings are generated by the copper
raining industry. Their tailings are not quite similar to
these tailings, and they pose some similar problems and
some other problems for their disposition.
But, again, in most every instance, they have
to build some form of dam or holding structure in order
that they can dispose of these tailings. A,nd they, again,
have similar problems with the overflow waters, with the
dusting problem, with the erosion, with dike failures at
times, as well as the normal operating problems that they
have.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
Mo STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Could I ask Mr. Fride a question?
Mr. Fride, I assume by your remarks just a few
minutes ago that you are stating now and it is your best
belief that any onshore disposal system that can be
developed to alleviate this problem would not be
practical.
MR. FRIDE: I think — it is my understanding
from the many consultants, the many people that have been
talked to who have considered the problem, that from the
point of view of sound conservation, technical and
-------
353
E. Fride
economic feasibility, that the plan that Parson-Jurden
has presented to this conference is the one of choice and
is the best suited to accomplish those aims.
MR. BADALICH: So, then, from that answer I can
assume that .any other method is not practical other than
the one you are proposing today.
MR. FRIDE: I think in general terms that is
correct.
MR. BADALIGH: The reason I am stating that is
our interstate Water Quality Standards, which are also the
Federal standards, very clearly indicate that to meet
these standards that the highest and best practical degree
of treatment must be found for any solution of any
discharge.
So, in this case, the plan being proposed today
is the highest and the best practical solution for this
problem?
MR. FRIDE: That is the best judgment that we
have, Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you0
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to kind
of follow up on that question, and you did present us a
number of alternatives with some evaluation and assessment
back in April, and then in August.
-------
359
E. Fride
I guess my question is, Mr. Fride: Do you have
a number two selection?
MR. FRIDE: No, sir.
MR, STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
Did you have any, Dr. Mount?
I would like to make one thing clear that
possibly is not clear because as a statement — and I
heard this from some of the other panel members — in
your proposal, it is proposed to take the fines and dispose
of them at the bottom of the lake, amalgamated and
coagulated possibly, but that is where they would rest,
is that correct?
MR. FRIDE: Yes, sir.
MR, STEIN: Right
Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, this is not a question;
more observation I guess.
From the standpoint of an interstate matter, it
seems to me that whether we are discussing onland disposal
with tailings or the system that we are considering now,
that we have to deal with the problem of dissolved solids
and the floccuients and that if those matters can be
resolved in either caset,why this takes it out of the inter-
state problem.
-------
360
R. Purdy
Again, in view of Dr. Mount's comments from the
standpoint of the inert solids deposition, this does not
cause a problem in the lake; this takes it out of the inter-
state problem,, However, for it to get out of the interstate
problem something has to move forward. Mr. Fride indicated
yesterday that if there is approval of this project that
there would be no further litigation on the part of
Reserve. So it seems as though this represents a real
critical decision at this point in time not only on behalf
of the conferees but the State of Minnesota and the Corps,
from the standpoint of the Refuse Act.
In addition, for my benefit, I still would like
to see something like an environmental impact statement
presented to my technical people for their review, which
would deal with the, say, specifics now of the choice to
dispose the tailings in the lake as compared to some onland
disposal site. It still seems a rather unusual approach
of where you put in a treatment facility and separate two
streams and put tnem back in the same spot, more or less.
And so I would like to see an environmental impact
statement that would consider those two choices in further
detail so that I would have more information available to
me.
MR. StKIN: I know of one major city waste treat-
-------
361
F. Mayo
ment plant that provides secondary and primary treatment
for part of the wastes and puts both effluents in one pipe
and sends them out.
MR. PURDY: That is the type of strange thing
that it seems like.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions';
MR. MAYO: I would like to just exchange a
comment or two with Mr. Purdy at this point, in terras of
the preparation of an environmental statement or an
environmental appraisal.
Reserve laid out 19 alternative proposals
for disposal and essentially all of them — most of them
— onland.
If there is going to be any thought of an
environmental appraisal, I think we have to be in agreement
on its scope. So to try to start out and evaluate all
19 of the Reserve alternatives, plus the recommenda-
tion that is before us at the present time, would be an
extremely drawn out task that is not at all in keeping
with the kind of time frame that we are all faced with here.
MR. PURDY: Right.
MR. MAYO: So, if you would, I would like you to
make some comment on what you think the scope of an environ-*
-------
362
D. Mount
mental appraisal in your mind might take.
MR. PURDY: Certainly their Proposal number 13
that the Chairman .just referred to, and then the other
proposal discussed by Mr. Skinker that included the Lax
Lake area.
MR. STEIN: I have seen this, I have heard
here and outside, and there may be others. We wouldn't
limit these, but there are three proposals that I have
heard most frequently mentioned as onland disposal sites.
One is the lakeshore site; second is the Lax Lake site;
and third is over the hill to the mine site, which will
include A and B, 1)putting it back in the pit, and
2) using other abandoned mines or depressions in the
area which might be able to accommodate them.
Now, I think these are the three ma.jor ones that
I have been hearing through the years. Is this correct?
Are there any more?
DR. MOUNT: I am not sure I am going to respond
exactly to that question. But I guess at the risk of being
repetitious, 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 that did disturb me
yesterday was the apparent feeling that just putting these
-------
363
D. Mount
things on the land is enough. It isn't possible to
evaluate right now an onland disposal system because we
don't have any of the details of it. But the principles
are there I think, and some of these have been mentioned
and I think some of them have not been mentioned.
But the dust problem has been mentioned, which
I guess really is a part of a larger problem, the whole
esthetic — probably the appearance of this thing is cer-
tainly one that does have to be evaluated. 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. To me it is the most important one and
the one which I think is the reason we have to have a
detailed onland plan to evaluate and compare, if we are
going to make a comparison that there is no assurance
that just pumping it on the land is going to keep the water
out of the lake.
There is going to be seepage through the ground
if it is on an area that is a bog or if it is on a fill
of some kind. This water is going to go somewhere. It
is either going to go into the lake or it is going to go
into a river, and I do not subscribe that we should take
it out of Lake Superior and send it to another river. I
-------
364
D. Mount
think this is burying your head in the sancU So I think
we have to be concerned about this water wherever it goes.
Also I have heard comments about pumping this
stuff into a bog somewhere, and this is going to displace
bog water which is clearly not desirable water either to
put in the lake. So those are some of the considerations
of onland disposal* By the same token, if we put it on
the lake bottom we have got to be sure that it isn't
dissolving, that it is staying in place, and that it is
not affecting water quality.
So it is tough to make a comparison with one
plan against a lack of plan on the other side.
MR. STEIN: Dr. Mount, I have read some inter-
views with you that people have published in the paper; and
I guess we are going to have to come up with that age-old
problem of how you scientists deal with lawyers. Now, the
difficulty is I recognize all your problems, and this is
what I said after the meeting yesterday. The difficulty
with coming up with a concept of land disposal as a
concept is like someone coming up with an idea for a
Broadway show. Everyone has the idea, but unless you have
the book and the music,,you don't know if you have the show.
And when you talk in terms of land disposal or a disposal
conceptually you don't have very much. We have to check
-------
365
D. Mount
this to be meaningful in relation to any individual plan.
Now, the difficulty we have with coming up with
any specific plan is you have to charge the person
responsible for creating the waste with a remedial program,
As I pointed out yesterday, we heard the President
of the Company Mr. Furness come forward with a plan.
Now, the notion is who is going to come up or
finance a specific plan of land disposal? More importantly
when we get to the legal point, which Dr. Mount alwavs
raises, somehow we don't have a millennium to come up
with a decision to answer all of the scientific questions.
The job we face is to come UP with an answer now that is
going to protect the lake.
As I see the problem there must come a time
when you are going to stop evaluating a study, make a
decision and go into action. This is particularly true
in an environmental field where we are getting these
pollutants and the,se vast amounts of material dumped into
our waters every day. If we delay perhaps for months
or even one day, while we are delaying, Reserve is still
going: to keep putting out 67,000 tons of that waste
material into the lake a day.
-------
366
D. Mount
As I mentioned several times before, the reason
we can't delay on the lakes is that we have this great
freshwater body. If we have a delay say in a river
or a tidal estuary and we get a cleanup, given some
sweeps of the tide or given a spring freshet or two, we
may be back as good as new. Every day we continue pollution
of the lakes may be water quality lost forever. I
recognize Dr. Mount's point of view. But taking all
of these things into consideration, we are at the stage
where we have to use our best .judgement and come up with
a solution.
Now, as you know, some of the alternatives we
have are very drastic. But we can't any more just let
the situation continue while taking a prolonged time
for evaluation. I think .the time is now that we must
come up with this determination. The question is how
we are going to get these considerations in one
package.
Are there any more comments or Questions?
MR. FRANCOS: I have a question of Mr. Skinker,
In going through the 19 alternatives or perhaps
three or four that you might consider as perhaps within
the realm of reason, do you see any of the details
-------
367
C. Skinker
of this particular plan that you have put forward that
would be also incorporated into any of the other plans
or into a land disposal system?
MR. SKINKER: Yes, indeed.
MR. FRANCOS: Well, can you comment perhaps a
little beyond that? Let's assume we bought this particular
plan and 3 years from now it became apparent it just wasn't
going. Are you going to start from scratch, or is there
some adaptability or some flexibility here that permits you
to state to us that you know once you are committed to
this, that it is kind of irrevocable because of the amount
of money you are spending?
MR. SKINKER: I think any onshore or inland
disposal plan would definitely have to consider thickening
of these materials; that is the number one thingo In
other words, you have got to get the watert© the greatest
possible extent out of it so that we can nanaie it by one
means or another for inland disposal. Where you have a
similarity you would use a thickening plant of some
sort probably very similar to the one that we have
described here.
MR. FRANCOS: This would include, too, I suppose,
some of the appurtenant facilities. For example, you are
talking about water pumps that you would be using now for
-------
36$
C. Skinker
intake disposal, that perhaps these facilities might be
adaptable to go onland or up over the ridge, if you will.
MR. SKINKER: Well, the pumps to which I referred
are pumps that are required for handling chiefly the
underflows from-the various hydroseparators or thickeners.
Depending on what kind of a plan we selected for inland
disposal, it might require many more pumps and pipelines.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: les.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, you spoke earlier
that we have to do something about the 6?,000 tons of
taconite tailings going into Lake Superior daily.
Now, -the proposal we are studying here today
will continue this practice of 67»000 tons of taconite
tailings going into the lake. Instead of smaller accum-
ulations we have larger accumulations.
MR. STEIN: This is right.
MR. BADALICH: So I think it is almost incumbent
on the company to come up with some alternative plan on
onshore disposal. I think that this should be a detail-
ed study so that then we can make an ecological choice
or an ecological balance on whether the method being
-------
369
M. Stein
proposed this morning is the proper method or possibly some
alternative or some substitute method, or make an addition
to this method, (Applause) So I think this should be
required.
MR. STEIN: Let's examine the proposal. I
said the fines were going into the bottom of the lake.
The issue, as I understand Dr. Mount, is that in a sense,
he dofisn 't think much damage will be done to the lake
if all of the material stays in that trough on the
bottom. But with the 67,000 tons it is not happening.
Now, if we are goin?? to p-et someone to come
up with an alternate method of land disposal in a detail
method the question is who is going to pick that method?
Are you going to leave it to the company?
MR. BADALICH: Mavbe that should be discussed
here. Shall we try to offer some of our engineering
expertise or shall we leave it to the company?
MR. STEIN: No, let me put it this wav, how many
alternate methods are you goin,01 to look at? I suggested
four that come readilv to mind.
The point is that if you leave it to the company,
then you are going to be faced with the question that
sure, they picked the alternate that obviously wasn't going to
-------
370
J. Badalich
-stand up to their preferred method and they made this
choice. How are we going to get to the kind of alternate
land disposal method which the conferees consider the
most feasible or the most reasonable of the alternatives
for comparison? Who is going to make that judgment?
MR. BADALICH: I think here, Mr. Stein, as any
other discharger, we set down the rules of the ballgame.
V/e set down certain standards, and I believe it is up to
the discharger to meet these standards.
In this case, the proposal today certainly doesn't
meet Minnesota's Water Quality Standards ..But, as you know,
our standards have been heard in court and they, at the
present time, do not apply to Reserve Mining Company.
Maybe this conference should set up some rules or
some minimum requirements, and from there let the company
meet that particular criteria.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I think this is the
question. But I don't know whether we are going to get go-ing
unless we select,, which as a regulatory agency we have
never done and I don't think Minnesota or any of the
other States have, V/e never select the alternate
method for the company to go ahead0
Now, I think you have raised a very good point.
Without commenting on that State litigation one way or
he other, I think it may be fair to say that the
t1-
-------
371
M. Stein
implication of the proposal made by Reserve Minin? if accented
would necessitate a modification of existing State and
Federal standards as we have them on the books.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, it would if we use this
proposal.
MR. STEIN: That is correct, and I think that
is one of the issues here that the conferees have to
face.
Now, acain, I don't know if we are ready to go
into disucssion because I want to save this for the
discussion part. We have these problems. At least this
is the way I see it. In view of the time and this proposal
and the fact that the conferees rot the details of this plan
just today, which are pretty complicated, we may be well
advised to take this plan under consideration for not more
than a month in order for the State of Minnesota and the
other States to get information, possibly prepared by
the company, through Minnesota on the comparative
environmental evaluation that Mr. Purdy talked about.
This evaluation should be prepared, in light
possiblv of the alternatives we have here or some others
you haven't thought of, within a very short time and
not necessarily going into the details. Arain, we
-------
372
M. Stein
.*
should come back with the notion that we have to get a
plan either submitted or modified which would satisfy
questions as to l) a barrier in the bay about recirculation,
2) discharge or disoersion of soluble material, and 3)
the effect of the amalgam of flocculent or material that
is going to cause the tailings to go into these large
pieces so they will theoretically settle to the bottom
of the lake.
At this ooint, in a month we should come up
with this kind of .judgment: 1) whether we accept the
plan, possibly as modified after consultation with the
people; or 2) whether we ask the industry to develop a
specific olan in detail — and I suspect this will take
some time if we are going to be realistic — for a land
disposal site; or 3) whether we proceed under the provisions
of Federal and State law to take the next step in abating
the pollution situation.
Now, this is a personal opinion on my part but
I think we should avail ourselves of this opportunity
because for the first time in the development of this
case, the company has come forward with a proposal or a
proposition which reflects an attitude on its part which
leads me to believe tha^. there may be a chance that this
case may be solved by negotiation rather than by confrontation.
-------
373
M, Stein
Whether you agree with the proDOsal or not, or
would want to switch the proposal to modify it to take
care of a flocculent or a barrier or recircnlation or
if you are thinking in terms of accenting nothing other tharn
land disposal, I think we are in the area where this
might be solved by negotiation.
I think we possibly can accept in Food faith the
company's estimate that the proposal now is goin£ to cost
$14 million. I believe if they say they are ready to
sign a commitment, in my judgment, we don't have a smoke
screen or a delaying tactic. This is a serious proposal,
although there may be differences.
So, my recommendation is that we take this plan,
get your staffs at home to evaluate it, that the other
State agencies through Minnesota ask for this environmental
evaluation package to come forward and go ahead. It
might be a proposal we can work out.
I don't think in view of all of the questions
raised here that we can probably ask the conferees for a
determination on this now, particularly when you have
just received the details of a relatively complicated
proposal that has very significant environmental impli-
cations,
MR. MAYO: Do you want to speak to that now, Mr.
-------
374
L« Weinberger
.Chairman?
MR. STEIN: No, I just put that out because I
think we can go on that now.
Now, are there any other questions of Reserve?
MR. WEINBERGER: Mr. Chairman, not related to
the specific question that you raised, but to a prior
question and answer that Mr. Skinker gave, and it seemed
we had lost 100,000 gallons a minute of water someplace
in the plan.
An explanation to the different numbers —
whether the discharge was 400,000 gallons a minute, as
was previously thought, and why the figure now was 302,000
just for purposes of accuracy, I wanted to indicate thaU
in fact, the discharge is the 400,000 gallon a minute figure
and the difference in the two numbers relates to the fact
that 100,000 gallons a minute is being used to sluice
the solids into the lake, and the reason for the 100,000
gallon a minute reduction, which again comes about because
it would no longer be necessary to sluice the solids into
the lake&
Does that answer the question? John, the
question you raised was: Was it 400,000 gallons a minute
or 300,000? You are absolutely right; it is 400,000, and
the difference is whether we talk about processed water
-------
375
L. Weinberger
with or without the addition of 100,000 gallons being used
as sluice water.
MR. BADALICH: It is my understanding the other
100,000 were required for hydraulic means to carry the
tailings off the launder, etc.
MR. WEINBERGER: This is exactly right.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions of
Reserve?
MR. FRIDE: I might say, if there aren't any
further questions on behalf of the company and the
participants here on behalf of Reserve, we certainly want
to express our appreciation to the conferees for the manner
in which they have considered this proposal, and I would
suggest that it is very much a good faith proposal.
It is one which Reserve believes has been carefully
assessed from all of the standpoints that are of concern
to the conferees as well as to the company. And to the
extent that Reserve can contribute any of its resources
to provide any other kinds of information that the
conferees might desire, we certainly pledge ourselves to
that.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, you listed more or
less the considerations to be given to this matter before
-------
376
M. Stein
»
we go into any detailed discussion.
Could you add on there also the possibility of
the company starting the preparation of some detailed plans
of some onshore or onland disposal —
MR. STEIN: We could.
MR. BADA-LICH: — as another condition to be
considered this afternoon?
MR. STEIN: Right. We will get into that.
Again, Mr. Badalich, before we get into that,
I have this question: Are we going to leave this up to
the company to select the specific site that they are
going to come up with on onland disposal?
MR. BADALICH: I think they could probably
consider two or three different alternatives for this
method and leave it up to them.
MR. STEIN: Okay0 In other words, we would ask
them — and I listed about four that came to mind to me
and let me give you these again. I don't know if the
company wants to do this: One is this onshore, lakeshore
operation, and I don't know that it has to be that close
to Silver Bay. You might be able to move up a little.
The other is Lax Lake, or something like that, which is
a depressed piece of land, which is relatively close.
And the other is getting back in the vicinity of the mine
-------
377
B. Niss
to put it in that hole, or a hole relatively close to there,
the thought being that you have trains coming down from the
mine and presumably those trains have to go up and you can
carry something in the trains.
Now, I believe there was one more man who said he
wanted to speak for 3 minutes. Do you have his name. Is
ho here?
MR. BADALICH: Yes. I believe it is somebody
representing the Northern Environmental Council. I had
his name here a minute ago.
MR. STEIN: I see a movement in the back.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE M. NISS, CONSULTANTS
ASSISTANT, NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL,
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. NISS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Badalich, for remembering me.
I just wanted to make a few points about Mr.
Stein's comments yesterday about preserving some of these
alternatives that we have to have, and I was pretty well
gratified to see that this was coming up toward the end
of the hour here.
I hold in my hand a card issued to all officers
-------
B. Niss
in the U, S. Army on decision-making. This is the logical
process to go through to reach their decisions. And I want
to read some of the steps from it.
1. You determine the situation that you have
and the different courses of action.
2. The next step: Analysis of opposing courses
of action.
3. Comparison of your own courses of action.
4. And the last step: The decision.
Well, it seems we, have gone through the first
step, which is the situation, in the courses of action,,
We have listed the number of proposals that have been
brought up, and we certainly know what the situation is.
But — I think this was coming up toward the end of the
lunch hour here — the step that I think we are missing
is the analysis of the opposing courses of action. No-
where have I seen yet a concrete — even a proposal for
something having to do with onland disposal. We have heard
Reserve's very technical and complicated report on disposal
back in the water, but the only thing that we have so far
is the Bureau of Mines study for onland disposal which
Reserve admits is not complete, that it is only kind of
a superfluous thing, but yet they seem to use this as
their basis for rejecting onland disposal. And if this
-------
379
B. Niss
study is not completed, I certainly think that we should
get a complete study and, as I said, this started to come
up again.
As I said, the Bureau of Mines study was only a
preliminary one,, and I would like to see a study of onland
disposal having something to do with recycling the water.
This question has come up about what will be done with the
water. By recycling I mean pumping the particles up to
wherever they are going to be put, either onland next to
the plant, which I think we should study — either onland
at Lax Lake, which we should study — or onland in —
MR. STEIN: How long would you give this? How
long do you think we should take to complete these studies?
MR. NISS: How long has Reserve had to come up
with these proposals?
MR. STEIN: Well, I —
MR. NISS: About 2 years?
MR. STEIN: Do you think we need another 2 years?
And what do we do then? Or a year? Is that your sugges-
tion?
MR. NISS: I think that it should take enough
time so that we ensure that the lake is protected.
MR. STEIN: But what do we do in the meantime?
Do we use your proposal to let Reserve do what
-------
3oO
B. Niss
they are doing and then take our time and really study
this out? Is that your proposal?
MR. MISS: Mr. Chairman, I mean no disrespect,
but if we let them keep pumping into the lake, as you said,
this pumping into the lake will not go on for 2 years but
for 42.
MR. STEIN: All I can do is commend people to
read the testimony that we painstakingly gathered. We
got experts, and Reserve brought in experts from all over
the country, and recorded these in these transcripts. We
have tried to repeat here the problems we were having
with the Reserve discharge in the lake, both in water
quality and with the fines fanning out and finding their
way over vast areas of the lake.
Now, if we are not going to resolve that or
get that, we have got a problem. Sir, as I understand
your proposal, what you are suggesting is we take
another year or two to complete these studies before we
come to a decision on comparative means. Is that correct?
MR. NISS: Sir, of course, I do not have the
technical knowledge to decide how lone; it would take, but
I think we should take the time to ensure that the lake is
adenuately protected.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
-------
381
B. Niss
MR. NISS: And may I make one other statement?
I don't think that this has been brought up. If we are
searching for an agency to do this, may I suggest the Corps
of Engineers that has issued the permit in the first
place?
MR. STEIN: Your suggestion is appreciated, I
have worked with the Corps of Engineers for yearso
MR. NISS: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, before we recess,
I would like to introduce for the record the letter from
Governor Wendell R. Anderson to Mr. Ruckelshaus, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
whereby the Governor does join with the State of Minnesota
at this conference.
(The above-mentioned letter follows in its
entirety.)
"Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
"On the basis of then available evidence,
Secretary of Interior Udall on January 16, 1969, called
a conference to consider the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of Lake Superior and its tributary
basin (Minnesota, V/isconsin and Michigan) under provisions
of Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq).
-------
332
M. Stein
"Under the authority vested in me, the State of
Minnesota hereby joins the Lake Superior Federal-State
enforcement conference. It is my desire that the con-
ference evaluate the interstate and intrastate effects of
all sources of pollution of Lake Superior, particularly
with regard to that issuing from the Reserve Mining Company
plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota, and to take appropriate
action.
"Sincerely, Wendell R. Anderson"
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
I guess the consensus is we recess for lunch.
Would it be possible, gentlemen, to have everyone back at
1:30? Is that agreeable? We stand recessed until 1:30.
(Noon recess.)
-------
333
Executive Session
AFTERNOON SESSION
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's reconvene. We
are reconvened.
I have a telegram here saying: "We encourage
enforcement of the standards now in effect for Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan for Lake Superior, for municipal-
ities as well as industry and all other dischargers."
Signed Mrs. 0. J. Janski, State President, League of
Women Voters.
.»
I have another telegram, and I am going to read
the signer of the telegram before I start it because I
am going to use this as the basis of the first motion
for the Executive Committee Session which we have now,
and I might announce that this is an Executive Committee
Session though we do it in the open, and just the
conferees will participate.
This telegram is from Patrick J. Lucey, Governor
of Wisconsin. It states: "Please read this message into
the record for me. I strongly urge the conferees not to
approve the Reserve Mining underwater disposal plan
presented January 14, 1971. An indepth study of land
disposal should be presented by an unbiased committee
-------
334
Executive Session
within 60 days. Under no circumstance will I support the
underwater disposal plan." (Applause)
In view of the commitments we have and the
testimony here and the request of Governor Lucey, I would
like to suggest this: that we set up a committee repre-
senting the conferees, and we can decide wfto the
conferees want to be their representatives, so we have a
committee that we want to name who will report to the
conferees within 45 day&. This Is kind of splitting
the difference between 60 days and a month.
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 recommendations.
I think in view of Governor Lucey's telegram,
he probably sent a note for this thing with these minor
modifications which he would suggest. I think we can
meet the purposes of what Governor Lucey wants to do and
accomplish the other facets of the conference as well.
Are there any comments?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, is it intended that this
technical committee would evaluate — make on-site surveys
and evaluate new onland disposal sites and go through all
the detailed engineering that would be necessary to make
an independent appraisal?
-------
335
Executive Session
*
MR. STEIN: I don't think they can do that
certainly within 45 days. I also say if we had a
committee doing this, we would do what a regulatory agency
has never done, and that is make proposals to industry,
or the cities. We have generally done this the other way
and had them — the polluter or the discharger — make a
proposal to the regulatory agency.
But I think in light of this, we can just look
at the — 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 con-
sult with them and see what recommendations they can come
up with.
Now, I think we are faced with several propo-
sitions. 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 modi-
fications. 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 haven't come up with a remedial
program, take appropriate legal action and
let the court decide what the solution should be.
Now, these are the alternatives for the
-------
Executive Session
conferees. But in view of Governor Lucey's suggestion,
I suggest we try to make that viable in the way we can
within our professional abilities and at least we can
come up with a judgment one way or the other with this
committee report.
MR. PU.RDY: I don't disagree with that, Mr.
Stein. I would have disagreed if it were intended that
this technical committee would have sufficient time within
60 days and even the capabilities of making that sort of
— of making an independent appraisal which would look at
new sites and make new engineering estimates.
MR. STEIN: I have a further question than that,
Mr. Purdy. I don't know how many days we are going to
have, whether this is the function of a regulatory agency
or an independent committee, to come up with this.
MR. PURDY: I don't feel that it is.
MR. STEIN: Neither do I. But I am trying to
make the suggestion of the Governor work-,. I think
with this kind of committee.we can come up with a report,
My suggestion also is that we do this in
45 days,in view of what the scope of the mandate of this
committee will be«
Is this concept acceptable? In other words,
they will consider the notion of on-site disposal,
-------
3 £7
Executive Session
underwater disposal, the question of the — and this, I
think encompasses the suggestion that Mr. Badalich made
;ust before we —
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, it probably does to
some extent. I was just wondering whether we couldn't put
some burden on the companv also. Wouldn't it be well for
the company to come up with an onland disposal svstem
within say 3 to k. weeks, and then in turn submit this
to the committee for evaluation and review?
MR. STEIN: We will be plad to do this if the
company would assume this.
The key word, in reading this telegram that I
pot at noon from Governor Lucev, was "unbiased," and I
don't know — I don't know how you feel in Minnesota,
but I am not sur-e that the company can be Qualified as
"unbiased."
But if I might, I would suggest that we set
up the committee and it can be established almost
immediately, and we can ask the company to volunteer,
and the committee can have its specifications of what
it 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
-------
Executive Session
•
and not set these specifics at a table like this ,
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 giver. This will require a technical
kind of discussion which we can leave to the committee.
MR. BADALICH: I think that would be satisfactory.
I just don't want to lose sight of the massive input that
the company has already made in this matter.
MR. STEIN: That is right.
MR. BADALICH: And certainly economics are going
to be taken into consideration, and I believe that the
company has brought forth plans on onshore disposal and
they are certain to be utilized by the committee.
MR. STEIN: Would the company have any objection
in participating with this committee?
MR. FRIDE: No, sir.
MR. STEIN: If this is agreeable — and I don't
want to push this too far — do you think this should be
a technical committee, or do you want the conferees
themselves to be on this committee? What is your
judgment? Do you want to name people to it?
If you do, and if this is agreeable
to you, I think in order to handle the expenses and
-------
Executive Session
provide the secretariat, I would propose that we set up
a committee representing the conferees, and that the Federal
Government assume the secretariat of the committee so we
can arrange for whatever travel, room expenses, or other
material is necessary.
Let me go down the list. Mr. Mayo — by the way,
you are not limited to one on this committee, and I suggest
this thing is so important that if you feel you have to get
one, two, three, four, or how many people you need, you just
name them to the committee.
Who would you suggest, Mr. Mayo?
MR. MAYO: Let me clarify a point that you made,
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the secretariat responsibili-
ties. Are you suggesting that we pick up the expenses of
the non—Federal committee members, or that we just provide
the secretarial facilities for the making of arrangements?
MR. STEIN: V/e will provide the secretarial facili-
ties for maintaining it. If any of the States feel they
don't have enough money to travel and they can't handle
this, I think this is so important we will make that money
available, too. But I think generally the States would
prefer to travel on their own.
Now, if they don't, or you feel you need any
extra money, just let me know, and we will make that
-------
390
Executive Session
available.
MR. MAYO: As a Federal conferee, I would go
along with the assignment of the secretarial responsi-
bilities, and we would be prepared, if necessary, today
to name our participants.
MR. STEIN: Why don't you do it?
MR. MAYO: It will be dual participation at
least: Mr. Bryson and Dr. Mount.
MR. STEIN: Whom would you want to assume the
secretarial responsibility?
MR. MAYO: Our Lake Superior Basin Office.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Bryson?
MR. MAYO: Mr. Bryson.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Bryson.
How about Michigan, Mr. Purdy, do you want to
name someone?
MR. PURDY: I anticipate it will be Mr. Joe
Ball from our Upper Peninsula Office.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman, for the time being
I will accept that assignment.
MR. STEIN: Minnesota.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, at this time, we
will certainly accept it as far as the conferees are
-------
391
Executive Session
concerned, but I couldn't name the other additional people
that mi^ht be named to sunport our study in this — or
the people that participate.
!1R. STEIN: The primary contact now for this
committee will be Mr. Badalich.
Let me run this throujrh a rain. The committee
will be composed — Mr. Dale Bryson will be in charge of
the secretariat. Dr. Mount will also serve as an advisor
for the Federal Government. Mn~. Joe Ball will probably
be the man for Michigan with -. '- alteration or possible
change to be made.
At the nresent tame for Wisconsin, the contact
will be Mr. Thomas Francos.
And for Minnesota, Mr. John Badalich.
I would recommend, Mr. Bryson, that if we do
this, and you have your chares, that vou make your
arrangements todav before they leave, set your first
meetinp, and make arrangements with representatives
of the Reserve Mininr Companv. Who have you generally
been in contact with, Mr. Pride?
MR. BRYSON: Mr. Schmidt or Mr. Fride.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Schmidt or Mr. Fride will be
the dual contacts with Reserve, and you will make your
arrangements with them. Of course, any of the other of
-------
392
Executive Session
the conservation groups °^ anvone else you want to call
into this, I would stronfclv urpre that everyone get all
his theories out on the table at least at this go-round,
so that every time I come out here I don't grab another
brass ring. Because every one we grab is another few months
delay. If the conservationists and the other people who
felt so stronglv about land disposal would have made
their views that ^ell known at the last conference, we
might have been a little ahead.
I would think that this is a technical committee,
and we are not looking for votes or anything else. If
there are different views, we are going to take all of the
views, and I think, Mr. Bryson, unless you want a chairman,
should serve as the secretariat. This is not that kind
of committee. We just want to get all of the facts out.
If we have that, that is the main point. We would ask
that you report back to the conferees in 45 days. As
soon as you get under way and give us a prognosis, we will
set a date for another session of the conference, at which
we will consider your report and evaluation and try to
come to some conclusion.
Now, we have two other matters I would like to
take up, and any others that the conferees want to. One
is this regional plan, and the other is red clay. But
let's take up the regional plan.
-------
393
Executive Session
Mr. Badalich, would you want to see if we can
get some expression from the conferees on that?
MR. BADALICH: I think, Mr, Chairman, what I did
ask is for the conferees' concurrence on the action that
the agency took in extending the intermediate dates to the
dischargers within the area — this was given a 6-months'
extension — and go along with that particular proposal
of reaffirming the action of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
MR. STEIN: But how about the approval of the
whole plan?
MR. BADALICH: Well, we very definitely would
like the conference to take some action in that regard
also.
MR. STEIN: But do we understand — as I under-
stand the plan — that the outside dates for completion
would be at the most 1975? Is that the end of 1975?
MR. BADALICH: Well, at this time, I think it is
highly speculative, but considering probably the most
adverse conditions that could arise, I would say 1975 —
the end of the construction season 1975 would be the maximum
outside date.
MR. STEIN: What is the end of your construction
season?
-------
394
Executive Session
t
MR. BADALICH: Probably October, November.
MR. STEIN: I have been outside. I think it is
a little later around here, but I guess you fellows are
used to it.
Okay, now, presumably a good portion of this
work might be done between 1973 and 1975, ahead of that.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, I am sure that a lot of the
work will be done concurrently. That is the interceptors
as well as the treatment plant.
MR. STEIN: I don't know — and you fellows can
pass — but let me have an expression from the conferees
because I think we need this.
As I understand it, Mr. Badalich will be in
Washington on Monday, and I think it will be very helpful
for us if we have an expression of the conferees of what
you think of this regional plan that Mr. Badalich proposed,
MR. MAYO: I would like to read what might be
a statement in connection with this in the form of an
action on the part of the conferees, and I offer this for
your consideration.
The conferees are on record encouraging the
development of areawide waste treatment facilities. The
proposal by the Northeastern Minnesota Development
Association for regional waste treatment facilities
-------
395
Executive Session
serving the Cloquet-Duluth-Superior area generally con-
forms with this concept. The conferees concur with
Minnesota in the granting of a moratorium on an interim
basis for the municipal and industrial discharges until
July 1, 1971) to permit the passage of enabling legisla-
tion, and development of the necessary operating entity.
If the legislation and operating entity are not developed
by this time, the currently established schedule will
remain in effect.
MR. STEIH: Do you want just the legal amendment
to that?
MR. MAYO: Fine.
MR. STEIN: I would say "to permit the opportunity
for passage."
MR. MAYO: Okay.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, we certainly accept
that.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Are there any problems?
MR. PURDY: I don't know as there is a problem,,
but I wonder what communities and industries are included
in this? Is this Minnesota industries and municipalities
along the St. Louis River or does it also include Superior,
Wisconsin, and, if so, how would this affect the action
-------
396
, Executive Session
that the State of Wisconsin has initiated against Superior
or proposed action?
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Well, I certainly think it would
include Superior. At least that was my thought on this
matter. I believe Mr. Frangos can speak to that.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes, Superior is one of the
communities that is included in the proposal, and I don't
believe that this action that would be taken by the
conference would affect our own legal proceedings at this
time.
MR. PURDY: Then, I am in agreement with them.
MR. STEIN: Okay.
Mr. Frangos, are you in agreement with this?
MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right. I guess the conferees
are unanimously in agreement with this, with just tech-
nical modification.
I have the next point, and that is on the red
clay situation. Again, in looking at this, I direct
myself to the Wisconsin people —
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman, following Mr.
-------
397
Executive Session •
Stoddard's presentation yesterday, we discussed this
matter with him, and we will be meeting with Mr. Stoddard
and some of the people involved in this later this month,
and we will be prepared to comment on this at the next
meeting of the conference.
MR. STEIN: Okay.
Now, you understand we are probably going to
meet very shortly after 45 days, and I think you will be
ready then. You should have a proposal or an evaluation
from Wisconsin at that time.
MR. MACKIE: We will have some sort of a report
on it at that time.
MR. STEIN: All right.
And I think this about does it for the conference.
Do you have any other notions? I think we have
come a long way, in the sense when you get a conclusion
like this we are moving this problem forward.
MR. BADALICH: Mr« Chairman, I have one statement
I would like to file. I just received this from the League
of Women Voters of Minnesota, and I would like to file
this statement with the conference.
MR. STEIN: Right. That will be filed as if
read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows*)
-------
39S
Leagae of Women Voters of Minnesota, 555 Wabasha St., St. Paul, Minnesota
January 1971
Testimony presented by the League of Women Voters of Minnesota
at the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
January 11 and 15, 1971
Radisson-Duluth Hotel, Duluth, Minnesota
The League of Women Voters of Minnesota commends the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for the standards for air and water quality that
have been adopted. We all recognize that the effectiveness of any stan-
dards depends upon their enforcement. We also recognize how difficult
it often may be for an industry or municipality to comply with these stan-
dards. We sympathize when a variance is requested and recognize that
occasionally a variance must be granted. We maintain, however, that no
industry or municipality should be granted a variance from the regula-
tions other than for an extension in time to allow for adequate compliance.
We expressed these same sentiments almost two years ago at the first
Lake Superior Conference. Since that time, we have seen many operations
comply - some with great difficulty and financial burden - we have seen
others continue to request variances of one kind or another, not just for
time extensions, but for variances from the regulations. As long as this
Conference continues to allow variances they will be requested.
Last August the Conference proved where pollution exists. We urge
that at this time the Conference demand the compliance with Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency standards by all industries, municipalities and
dischargers now in violation. We also urge that all dischargers in Wiscon-
sin and Michigan, also under the jurisdiction of this Conference, be cbliged
to comply with their regulations.
We believe that extensions of time for variances must end. Pollu-
tion has been proved and time tables for the clean-up of Lake Superior
must be enforced.
-------
399
Executive Session
ME. STEIN: 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.
Let me give you just my personal view on it for
what it is worth. We have been up here several years
now. I think the problem we have on Lake Superior has
received nationwide attention and nationwide attention
because it is a very, very important problem that strikes
at the conscience of every American, You are not on the
line of the big city newscasts or anything of that kind,
but you have a very special problem here and a very
unique resource. It is my view that the time is long
overdue to corne up with a solution one way or the other.
And I don't think that we have been serving any useful
purpose — perhaps we are long past that — by coming here
meeting after meeting after meeting and discussing this
problem and coming up with new notions and new approaches
and moving in fits and starts in various directions without
getting on with the job. Because while we have achieved a
measure of success and a major measure of success
in a lot of the municipal and industrial waste pollution
abatement measures 'icre^ we haven't abated one iota of
the waste load coming from Reserve Mining. We are
leaving here again to further consider this, and further
-------
400
Executive Session
go away with not one iota of that pollution abated.
~,Jhen you get up at 4:00 o'clock in the morning
and look at yourself in the mirror sometimes, think of
that, because I think of that. And unless we resolve this
pretty fast, as far as I «m concerned, we have a system
in this country whereby we can resolve it, and the judge can
give us a solution on this.
Now, I hope we come to a resolution of this and
get on with the job, because nice cozy meetings like this,
where it is warm inside and cold outside, are not in them-
selves abating pollution. Our job is to abate pollution,
and I think v/e are right on the last road and we have to
do the job.
Thank you all for coming and participating, and
we stand adjourned. (Applause)
(Whereupon, the conference adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)
(The following letter was received following
the adjournment of the conference.)
-------
401
RANDALL & MURRAY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
402 EAST HOWARD STREET
HIBBING, MINNESOTA 55746 »
JIM RANDALL TELEPHONE 263-7706
GAIL MURRAY AREA CODE - 218
January 14, 1971
Mr. Francis Mayo
Regional Director E.P0A0
33 East Congress Parkway
Chicago, Illinois
Re: Village of Kinney Sewer Disposal
Dear Mr. Mayo:
I appeared Thursday, January 14, at the conference on the matter
of pollution of Lake Superior and tributary^waters and gave the
following information to one of the aids who request I send you a
report of same to be placed on the record,,
The Village of Kinney which lies within the area in question
is proceeding with plans to up-grade the sewage disposal facilities
along the lines suggested to us by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
The preliminary report was submitted in June of 1970 by our
Village engineer for this project, Robert Wallace and Associates,
Hibbing, Minnesota, and we are presently awaiting word from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before proceeding further,,
We have entercountered difficulty in raising grants and/or
loans to aid the Village in construction of a new sewage disposal
plant as the Farmers Home turned down our application for assistance
since the Village of Kinney is scheduled for possible relocation
beginning in 1980.
We are anticipating some possible help from the Minnesota State
Legislature this session and by assumed that the Village of Kinney
will cooperate to whatever extent possible and as our limited
funds allow in combating pollution.
f—
Yours tt±y truly>v
o /V"^ -**^&J?-J'
?--"v~_^ J "-^ l~-y—* 1
RANDALL
JR:dmt
cc John Badalich
cc Rade Zakula
CC COD Wallace ^ y s QQVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : mi o - 428-630
-------
0)
ul
10
ul
a
O
CJ
I
r
cc
-------
-------
-------
------- |