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

Heading: introduction

Text: 8
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
20 In its memorandum opinions of April 20, and May 11, ordering Reserve to cease immediately its discharges into the air and water, the district court predicated its determinations on several counts. On the discharge into water, the court found a violation of several sections of the Minnesota water quality standards. These standards, promulgated pursuant to § 1160(c)(5) of the FWPCA and subsequently approved by the federal government, are denominated as Minnesota Water Pollution Control Regulation 15 (WPC 15). The district court found the following parts of WPC 15 violated: WPC 15(a)(4), providing that waters of naturally high quality shall not be degraded; WPC 15(c)(2), a broad provision prohibiting the discharge of wastes which create nuisance conditions or cause offensive or harmful effects; WPC 15(c)(6), limiting the allowable suspended solid content of effluent discharges to 30 milligrams per liter; WPC 15(d)(1), controlling the discharge of substances that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment; and WPC 26, a general effluent standard for Lake Superior incorporating the standards of WPC 15. Further, the court found that the discharge into Lake Superior endangered the health and welfare of persons in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and therefore was subject to abatement pursuant to §§ 1160(c)(5) and (g)(1) of the FWPCA. Finally, the court found that the endangerment to health also constituted both a federal common law nuisance and a nuisance under the applicable laws of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 380 F.Supp. at 55. 21 As for the air emissions, the court also found liability under both federal and state common law nuisance. Additionally, the court cited Reserve for the violation of several Minnesota air pollution control regulations: APC 1, setting primary and secondary air standards; APC 5 and 6, controlling particulate emissions; and APC 17, setting an emission standard for asbestos. 380 F.Supp. at 55-56. 22 The trial court based its closure decision on two independent determinations. First, as noted above, the court had concluded that the discharges substantially endanger the exposed populations. Second, the court had concluded that, although a method of abatement providing for an alternate means of disposal of wastes with some turn-around time represented a desirable middle course in this litigation, 14 Reserve had demonstrated such intransigence on the issue of abating its water discharge as to render any such middle course impossible. The court thus believed it had no alternative but to immediately enjoin the discharges: 23 Defendants have the economic and engineering capability to carry out an on land disposal system that satisfies the health and environmental considerations raised. For reasons unknown to this Court they have chosen not to implement such a plan. In essence they have decided to continue exposing thousands daily to a substantial health risk in order to maintain the current profitability of the present operation and delay the capital outlay (with its concomitant profit) needed to institute modifications. The Court has no other alternative but to order an immediate halt to the discharge which threatens the lives of thousands. In that defendants have no plan to make the necessary modifications, there is no reason to delay any further the issuance of the injunction. (380 F.Supp. at 20.) 24 Reserve promptly appealed the injunction order of the district court and we issued a temporary stay of that order on April 22, 1974, and scheduled a hearing on Reserve's application for a stay of injunction pending its appeal. That hearing was held on May 15, 1974, before a panel of this court consisting of Judges Bright, Ross, and Webster, and on June 4, 1974, the court issued an opinion granting Reserve a 70-day stay of the injunction. Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974). The court conditioned the stay upon Reserve taking prompt steps to abate its air and water discharges, and provided for further proceedings to review whether Reserve had proceeded with the good faith preparation and implementation of an acceptable plan. 15 25 The State of Minnesota applied to the Supreme Court to vacate this stay. The Court denied Minnesota this relief in an order entered July 9, 1974. Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 418 U.S. 911, 94 S.Ct. 3203, 41 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1974). Meanwhile, in accordance with the stay order, the district court evaluated compliance with our order that Reserve proceed in good faith to present a plan of abatement. In a memorandum opinion filed August 3, 1974, 16 the district court, taking cognizance of the opposition of the State of Minnesota to Reserve's proffered plan (the so-called Palisades Plan), rejected Reserve's proposal as unreasonable and recommended against any further stay during the pendency of this litigation. Also, pursuant to our earlier request for advice on the status of unresolved claims, the district court indicated that it had severed for later resolution the issue of the biological effect of Reserve's discharge on the Lake itself and that several other issues remained under advisement. 380 F.Supp. at 91 n. 6. 26 Judges Bright and Ross convened a prehearing conference under Fed.R.App.P. 33 to inquire into consolidation, clarification, and simplification of issues pending an appeal and to advise this court of the time necessary to submit unresolved issues pending before the district court. The cause was then remanded with a request that the district court expedite disposition of the unresolved issues, with this court retaining jurisdiction over the pending appeal of the district court injunction. 27 Additionally, this court, on its own motion, scheduled a hearing before a panel consisting of Judges Bright, Ross, and Webster to consider the recommendations of the district court against continuing the stay order pending appeal. Following hearings, this court entered an order continuing the stay, concluding that: 28 1) The representations of counsel at the hearing on August 27, 1974, satisfy us that significant progress has been achieved by the parties in seeking agreement for an on-land disposal site and method for abatement of Reserve's discharge into Lake Superior. These negotiations are continuing and will not impede the processing of the pending appeal upon the merits, (and) 29 2) No substantial reason has been advanced why the stay order should not be continued pending such appeal other than the argument of imminent health hazard, which this court, for purposes of the stay pending appeal, has already determined adversely to appellees. (Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, No. 74-1291 (8th Cir., Aug. 28, 1974).) 30 Minnesota and the United States applied to the Supreme Court for relief from this further stay order. The Court denied the applications, with Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting. Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 419 U.S. 802, 95 S.Ct. 287, 42 L.Ed.2d 33 (1974). 31 On October 18, 1974, the district court issued an unpublished memorandum resolving certain other issues in the case and, noting that there was no just reason for delay, directing the entry of final judgment on all claims decided to date. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). 32 The district court made the following additional rulings: 1) that Reserve's discharge into the water constitutes a violation of the Refuse Act, 33 U.S.C. § 407; 2) that Reserve's counterclaims, alleging that interference with its present modes of discharge as sanctioned by permits amounts to a deprivation of property and an impairment of contractual rights, should be dismissed; 3) that Reserve's air emissions violate Minnesota air pollution control regulation (APC) 3 and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1), which require that permits be obtained for the operation of certain emission facilities; 4) that Reserve's discharge of wastes into the Dunka and Partridge Rivers of Minnesota violates Minn.Stat.Ann. § 115.07(1), which requires a permit for the operation of a disposal system; 5) that Minn.Stat.Ann. § 115.07(1) is also violated by Reserve's discharge of wastes from its pilot plant into Lake Superior without a permit; 6) that the evidence is insufficient to justify liability under Minn.Stat.Ann. § 105.41, which makes unlawful the appropriation of state water without a permit; and 7) that the State of Wisconsin could not assert the state's public trust doctrine as an affirmative cause of action against Reserve's discharge into Lake Superior. Finally, the court left certain matters undecided, stating: 33 The question of fines and penalties, the question of sanctions for failure to make discovery, and the question of liability of defendants for the water filtration systems that may be installed in Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, cannot be decided at this time. (Order of Oct. 18, 1974, at 19.) 34 This final order has produced several additional appeals. We now have under submission the following: 35 No. 73-1239: Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which Reserve urges that WPC 15 is arbitrary and unreasonable and challenges the failure of the Administrator of the EPA to require its revision. 36 No. 74-1291: Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, in which Reserve seeks to vacate the April 20, 1974, order enjoining its discharges into the air and water. 37 No. 74-1466: United States v. Reserve Mining Co., in which the United States appeals from the district court's order (April 19, 1974) directing that the Corps of Engineers of the United States provide filtered water at government expense to certain Minnesota communities located on the North Shore of Lake Superior. 38 No. 74-1816: Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, in which Reserve appeals from the most recent judgment entered October 18, 1974. 39 No. 74-1977: State of Wisconsin v. Reserve Mining Co., in which appellant-Wisconsin contests the district court's determination that the Wisconsin public trust doctrine does not provide an affirmative cause of action against Reserve's discharge into Lake Superior. 17 40 No. 75-1003: Minnesota Environmental Law Institute v. United States, in which various environmental plaintiffs contest the district court's decision to sever the issue of whether Reserve's discharge constitutes biological pollution of Lake Superior. 41 No. 75-1005: State of Michigan v. Reserve Mining Co., in which appellant-Michigan contests the district court's decision to sever the issue of whether Reserve's discharge constitutes biological pollution of Lake Superior. 42 During oral arguments and by written submissions, Reserve has advised us that it no longer asks Minnesota to accept its plan to dispose taconite tailings at the Palisades location, see discussion at p. 504 supra. Reserve has now submitted a second proposal to Minnesota for an on-land disposal site in which it proposes to spend approximately $243,000,000 in order to end its discharge of tailings into Lake Superior and curtail its emission of contaminants into the air. This proposed site, which Minnesota has under consideration, is located approximately seven miles inland from the Silver Bay facility, and is referred to as Milepost 7, or Lax Lake site.