Opinion ID: 326929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary of Controversy.

Text: 9 In 1947, Reserve Mining Company (Reserve), then contemplating a venture in which it would mine low-grade iron ore (taconite) present in Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range and process the ore into iron-rich pellets at facilities bordering on Lake Superior, received a permit 2 from the State of Minnesota to discharge the wastes (called tailings) from its processing operations into the lake. 3 10 Reserve commenced the processing of taconite ore in Silver Bay, Minnesota, in 1955, and that operation continues today. Taconite mined near Babbitt, Minnesota, is shipped by rail some 47 miles to the Silver Bay beneficiating plant where it is concentrated into pellets containing some 65 percent iron ore. The process involves crushing the taconite into fine granules, separating out the metallic iron with huge magnets, and flushing the residual tailings into Lake Superior. The tailings enter the lake as a slurry of approximately 1.5 percent solids. The slurry acts as a heavy density current bearing the bulk of the suspended particles to the lake bottom. In this manner, approximately 67,000 tons of tailings are discharged daily. 4 11 The states and the United States commenced efforts to procure abatement of these discharges as early as mid-1969. These efforts, however, produced only an unsuccessful series of administrative conferences and unsuccessful state court proceedings. 5 The instant litigation commenced on February 2, 1972, when the United States joined eventually by the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and by various environmental groups filed a complaint alleging that Reserve's discharge of tailings into Lake Superior violated § 407 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (1970)), 6 § 1160 of the pre-1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq. (1970)) 7 and the federal common law of public nuisance. 12 Until June 8, 1973, the case was essentially a water pollution abatement case, but on that date the focus of the controversy shifted to the public health impact of the tailings discharge and Reserve's emissions into the ambient air. Arguing the health issue in the district court, plaintiffs maintained that the taconite ore mined by Reserve contained an asbestiform variety of the amphibole mineral cummingtonite-grunerite, 8 and that the processing of the ore resulted in the discharge into the air and water of mineral fibers substantially identical and in some instances identical to amosite asbestos. 9 This contention raised an immediate health issue, since inhalation of asbestos at occupational levels of exposure is associated with an increased incidence of various forms of cancer. 13 Although it is undisputed that Reserve discharges significant amounts of waste tailings into Lake Superior and dust into the Silver Bay air, the parties vigorously contest the precise physical properties of the discharges, their biological effects, and, with respect to the water discharge, the issue of whether a significant proportion of the discharge, instead of flowing to the lake bottom with the density current, disperses throughout the lake. Plaintiffs attempted to show that a substantial amount of the fibers discharged by Reserve could be classified as amosite asbestos, and that these fibers could be traced in the ambient air of Silver Bay and surrounding communities and in the drinking water of Duluth and other communities drawing water from the lake. Reserve countered that its cummingtonite-grunerite does not have a fibrous form and is otherwise distinguishable from amosite asbestos. It further maintained that the discharges do not pose any cognizable hazard to health and that, in any event, with respect to the discharge into water, the tailings largely settle to the bottom of the lake in the great trough area as initially planned. 10 14 The evidence presented on these points was extensive and complex. Hearings on a motion for a preliminary injunction were consolidated with the trial on the merits and during the nine-month period of 139 days of trial, the trial court heard more than 100 witnesses and received over 1,600 exhibits. The parties introduced testimony comparing the mineralogy of Reserve's cummingtonite-grunerite with amosite asbestos, such testimony based on electron microscope analysis of morphology, x-ray and electron diffraction analysis of crystal structure, laboratory analysis of chemical composition, and other identification techniques. As for the possible dispersion of the tailings throughout Lake Superior, witnesses disputed whether Reserve's discharges provided the sole source of cummingtonite-grunerite in the lake and whether the presence of the mineral could thus be used as a tracer for Reserve's discharge. In an effort to assess the health hazard, the parties presented extensive expert scientific and medical testimony, and the court itself appointed certain expert witnesses, who assumed the task of assisting the court in the evaluation of scientific testimony and supervising court-sponsored studies to measure the levels of asbestos fibers in the air near Silver Bay, in Lake Superior water, and in the tissues of deceased Duluth residents. 15 On April 20, 1974, the district court entered an order closing Reserve's Silver Bay facility. In an abbreviated memorandum opinion, 11 the court held that Reserve's water discharge violated federal water pollution laws and that its air emissions violated state air pollution regulations, and that both the air and water discharges constituted common law nuisances. The court's decision, in part, rested on these core findings: 16 The discharge into the air substantially endangers the health of the people of Silver Bay and surrounding communities as far away as the eastern shore in Wisconsin. 17 The discharge into the water substantially endangers the health of people who procure their drinking water from the western arm of Lake Superior including the communities of Beaver Bay, Two Harbors, Cloquet, Duluth (Minnesota), and Superior, Wisconsin. (380 F.Supp. at 16.) 18 The district court issued an extensive supplemental memorandum on May 11, 1974, 12 expanding on its earlier findings of fact and conclusions of law. In proceedings detailed in the following section of this opinion, a panel of this court stayed the injunction 13 and subsequently requested the district court to fully dispose of the litigation and enter final judgment. This court, sitting en banc, heard the merits of several consolidated appeals at the December 1974 session. We have also taken under consideration other appeals which have been subsequently submitted to us on briefs, but without oral argument. Our disposition follows. 19