Justia Federal District Court Opinions

The United States, the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and several environmental groups seek an injunction ordering Reserve Mining Company¹ to cease discharging wastes from its iron ore processing plant in Silver Bay, Minnesota, into the ambient air of Silver Bay and the waters of Lake Superior. On April 20, 1974, the district court granted the requested relief and ordered that the discharges immediately cease, thus effectively closing the plant. United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F.Supp. 11 (D.Minn.1974). Reserve Mining Company appealed that order and we stayed the injunction pending resolution of the merits of the appeal. Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974). We affirm the injunction but direct modification of its terms. As to other issues brought before us by appeals during the course of this complex litigation, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

In this lengthy opinion, we undertake a comprehensive analysis of the relevant scientific and medical testimony and evaluate the claims of the plaintiffs that Reserve's conduct violates express provisions of federal law as well as state laws and regulations and is a public nuisance.

We summarize our key rulings as follows:

1) The United States and the other plaintiffs have established that Reserve's discharges into the air and water give rise to a potential threat to the public health. The risk to public health is of sufficient gravity to be legally cognizable and calls for an abatement order on reasonable terms.

2) The United States and Minnesota have shown that Reserve's discharges violate federal and state laws and state pollution control regulations, also justifying injunctive relief on equitable terms.

3) No harm to the public health has been shown to have occurred to this date and the danger to health is not imminent. The evidence calls for preventive and precautionary steps. No reason exists which requires that Reserve terminate its operations at once.

4) Reserve, with its parent companies Armco Steel and Republic Steel, is entitled to a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable time period to convert its Minnesota taconite operations to on-land disposal of taconite tailings and to restrict air emissions at its Silver Bay plant, or to close its existing Minnesota taconite-pelletizing operations. The parties are required to expedite consideration and resolution of these alternatives.

5) The evidence suggests that the threat to public health from the air emissions is more significant than that from the water discharge. Consequently, Reserve must take reasonable immediate steps to reduce its air emissions.

A. Summary of Controversy.

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 permit² from the State of Minnesota to discharge the wastes (called "tailings") from its processing operations into the lake.³

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.)

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 injunction¹³ 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.

B. Discussion of Rulings by the District Court and Previous Proceedings in this Court.

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.

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.

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:

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.)

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

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.

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.

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:

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)

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).)

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).

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).

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:

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.)

This final order has produced several additional appeals. We now have under submission the following:

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.

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.

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.

No. 74-1816: Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, in which Reserve appeals from the most recent judgment entered October 18, 1974.

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

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.

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.

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.

The initial, crucial question for our evaluation and resolution focuses upon the alleged hazard to public health attributable to Reserve's discharges into the air and water.

We first considered this issue on Reserve's application for a stay of the district court's injunction pending a determination of the merits of its appeal. We noted the usual formulation of the applicable standards to be met by the party seeking a stay. One of those standards addresses the likelihood of success by the moving party on the merits of the appeal. In applying this standard we made a preliminary assessment of the merits of Reserve's appeal from the trial court's injunction order. We noted that the "rather drastic remedy ordered by the district court * * * was a response to the finding of a substantial danger to the public health," and that our preliminary assessment of whether such a substantial danger was presented "should control our action as to whether to grant or deny a stay." 498 F.2d at 1076-1077.

In this preliminary review, we did not view the evidence as supporting a finding of substantial danger. We noted numerous uncertainties in plaintiffs' theory of harm which controlled our assessment, particularly the uncertainty as to present levels of exposure and the difficulty in attempting to quantify those uncertain levels in terms of a demonstrable health hazard. As we stated then, " * * * it is not known what the level of fiber exposure is, other than that it is relatively low, and it is not known what level of exposure is safe or unsafe." 498 F.2d at 1082. In confirmation of our view, we noted the opinion of Dr. Arnold Brown,¹⁸ the principal court-appointed expert, that no adverse health consequences could be scientifically predicted on the basis of existing medical knowledge. Additionally, we noted the district court's conclusion that there is " ' * * * insufficient knowledge upon which to base an opinion as to the magnitude of the risks associated with this exposure.' " 498 F.2d at 1083. We thought one proposition evident:

(A)lthough Reserve's discharges represent a possible medical danger, they have not in this case been proven to amount to a health hazard. The discharges may or may not result in detrimental health effects, but, for the present, that is simply unknown. (Id.)

On the basis of the foregoing we forecast that Reserve would likely prevail on the merits of the health issue.¹⁹ We limited this forecast to the single issue before us whether Reserve's plant should be closed immediately because of a "substantial danger" to health:

While not called upon at this stage to reach any final conclusion, our review suggests that this evidence does not support a finding of substantial danger and that, indeed, the testimony indicates that such a finding should not be made. In this regard, we conclude that Reserve appears likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal on the health issue. 498 F.2d at 1077-1078. (Emphasis added).

We reached no preliminary decision on whether the facts justified a less stringent abatement order.

As will be evident from the discussion that follows, we adhere to our preliminary assessment that the evidence is insufficient to support the kind of demonstrable danger to the public health that would justify the immediate closing of Reserve's operations. We now address the basic question of whether the discharges pose any risk to public health and, if so, whether the risk is one which is legally cognizable. This inquiry demands separate attention to the discharge into the air of Silver Bay and the discharge into Lake Superior.²⁰

A. The Discharge Into Air.

As we noted in our stay opinion, much of the scientific knowledge regarding asbestos disease pathology derives from epidemiological studies of asbestos workers occupationally exposed to and inhaling high levels of asbestos dust. Studies of workers naturally exposed to asbestos dust have shown "excess" cancer deaths²¹ and a significant incidence of asbestosis.²² The principal excess cancers are cancer of the lung, the pleura (mesothelioma) and gastrointestinal tract ("gi" cancer).

Studies conducted by Dr. Irving Selikoff,²³ plaintiffs' principal medical witness, illustrated these disease effects. Dr. Selikoff investigated the disease experience of asbestos insulation workers in the New York-New Jersey area, asbestos insulation workers nationwide, and workers in a New Jersey plant manufacturing amosite asbestos. Generally, all three groups showed excess cancer deaths among the exposed populations, as well as a significant incidence of asbestosis. With respect to cancer generally, three to four times the expected number of deaths occurred; with respect to lung cancer in particular, five to eight times the expected number; and with respect to gastrointestinal cancer, two to three times that expected. Dr. Selikoff described the increase of gastrointestinal cancer as "modest." (A.10:286-287.)

Several principles of asbestos-related disease pathology emerge from these occupational studies. One principle relates to the so-called 20-year rule, meaning that there is a latent period of cancer development of at least 20 years. (A.10:284-285.) Another basic principle is the importance of initial exposure, demonstrated by significant increases in the incidence of cancer even among asbestos manufacturing workers employed for less than three months (although the incidence of disease does increase upon longer exposure). (A.10:279-280.) Finally, these studies indicate that threshold values and dose response relationships,²⁴ although probably operative with respect to asbestos-induced cancer, are not quantifiable on the basis of existing data.²⁵ (A.10:280, 317-19.)

Additionally, some studies implicate asbestos as a possible pathogenic agent in circumstances of exposure less severe than occupational levels. For example, several studies indicate that mesothelioma, a rare but particularly lethal cancer frequently associated with asbestos exposure, has been found in persons experiencing a low level of asbestos exposure.²⁶ Although Dr. Selikoff acknowledged that these studies of lower-level exposure involve certain methodological difficulties and rest "on much less firm ground" than the occupational studies,²⁷ he expressed the opinion that they should be considered in the assessment of risks posed by an asbestos discharge.

At issue in the present case is the similarity of the circumstances of Reserve's discharge into the air to those circumstances known to result in asbestos-related disease. This inquiry may be divided into two stages: first, circumstances relating to the nature of the discharge and, second, circumstances relating to the level of the discharge (and resulting level of exposure).

1. The Nature of the Discharge.

The comparability of the nature of Reserve's discharge to the nature of the discharge in known disease situations raises two principal questions. The first is whether the discharged fibers are identical or substantially identical to fibers known to cause disease; the second is whether the length of the fibers discharged is a relevant factor in assessing pathogenic effect. The district court found that Reserve's discharge includes known pathogenic fibers and that a lower risk to health could not be assigned to this discharge for reasons of fiber length.

On the first question the issue of the identity of the fibers the argument focuses on whether the ore mined by Reserve contains (and yields wastes during processing consistent with) amosite asbestos. The inquiry is critical because studies demonstrate that amosite, at least in occupational settings, may serve as a carcinogenic (cancer-producing) agent. A principal dispute concerns the precise composition of the mineral cummingtonite-grunerite found in Reserve's taconite ore: Reserve maintains that the cummingtonite-grunerite present in its Peter Mitchell Mine at Babbitt is not asbestiform and is not chemically consistent with amosite asbestos; plaintiffs argue that much of the cummingtonite-grunerite mined by Reserve is substantially identical to amosite asbestos.

As a general scientific proposition, it is clear that cummingtonite-grunerite embraces a range of chemistries, including the chemistry of amosite asbestos. The mineral also embraces a range of morphologies, from asbestiform, needle-like fibers to block-shaped, crystal aggregates. The crucial factual determination is, thus, whether the particular cummingtonite-grunerite mined by Reserve contains asbestiform fibers consistent with the properties of amosite asbestos.

The trial court heard extensive evidence as to the chemistry, crystallography and morphology of the cummingtonite-grunerite present in the mined ore. This evidence demonstrated that, at the level of the individual fiber, a portion of Reserve's cummingtonite-grunerite cannot be meaningfully distinguished from amosite asbestos. Reserve attempted to rebut this testimony by showing that the gross morphology of the two minerals differed and that characteristics of the two minerals varied when considered in crystal aggregations. Since, according to the opinions of some experts, the individual fiber probably serves as a carcinogenic agent, the district court viewed the variations in mineralogy as irrelevant and determined that Reserve discharges fibers substantially identical and in some instances identical to fibers of amosite asbestos.

The second question, that of fiber length, reflects a current dispute among scientists as to whether "short" fibers (i.e., fibers less than five microns in length) have any pathogenic effect. Most of the fibers detected in Reserve's discharges may be termed "short."²⁸ The evidence adduced at trial included conflicting scientific studies and diverse opinions on this question. Several Reserve witnesses testified concerning animal studies which seem to demonstrate that short fibers are nontumorigenic.²⁹ Plaintiffs offered opposing evidence based on contrary studies.³⁰ Dr. Brown noted his general criticism of the studies on fiber size, stating that the researchers typically did not use electron microscopy to properly "size" the fibers, and thus it cannot be said that the animals are in fact being exposed to only short or only long fibers. (A.23:338-40.)

Presented with this conflicting and uncertain evidence from animal experimentation, and the fact that there are no human epidemiological studies bearing on the issue, the district court concluded that short fibers could not be assigned a lower relative risk than long fibers.³¹ This conclusion comports with the uncertain state of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, Dr. Brown and the National Academy of Sciences reached the same conclusion.³²

2. The Level of Exposure.

The second major step in the inquiry of the health aspects of Reserve's air emissions is an assessment of the amount of the discharge and the resulting level of exposure. Two principal issues are raised: first, what in fact is the level of exposure; second, does that level present a cognizable risk to health? The district court found the level "significant" and comparable to the levels associated with disease in nonoccupational contexts. 380 F.Supp. at 48.

The first issue was addressed at length in our stay opinion. We noted there the great difficulties in attempted fiber counts and the uncertainties in measurement which necessarily resulted. 498 F.2d at 1079-1080. Commenting on these difficulties, Dr. Brown stated that the fiber counts of the air and water samples could establish only the presence of fibers and not any particular amount, i. e., such a count establishes only a qualitative, and not a quantitative, proposition. The district court recognized these difficulties in counting fibers and observed that "(t)he most that can be gained from the Court (ordered) air study is the very roughest approximation of fiber levels." 380 F.Supp. at 49.

A court-appointed witness, Dr. William F. Taylor,³³ made the most sophisticated attempt to use the fiber counts in a quantitative manner. By taking the average fiber count of five testing sites in Silver Bay, Dr. Taylor concluded that the burden of fibers in the air of Silver Bay exceeded that present in St. Paul, Minnesota, (used as a control) by a margin which could not be attributed to chance.³⁴ (A.23:117.)

The experts indicated that the counting of fibers represents a scientifically perilous undertaking, and that any particular count can only suggest the actual fiber concentration which may be present. Nevertheless, Dr. Taylor's computation indicating some excess of asbestiform fibers in the air of Silver Bay over that of the control city of St. Paul appears statistically significant and cannot be disregarded. Thus, as we indicated in the stay opinion and as the district court concluded,³⁵ while the actual level of fibers in the air of Silver Bay is essentially unknown, it may be said that fibers are present at levels significantly higher than levels found in another Minnesota community removed from this air contamination.

Given the presence of excess fibers, we must now assess the effects of this exposure on the public. We note first, as we did in the stay opinion, that the exposure here cannot be equated with the factory exposures which have been clearly linked to excess cancers and asbestosis.³⁶ Our inquiry, however, does not end there. Asbestos-related disease, as noted earlier, has been associated with exposure levels considerably less than normal occupational exposure. The studies indicating that mesothelioma is associated with the lower levels of exposure typical of residence near an asbestos mine or mill or in the household of an asbestos worker are of significance.³⁷ Although these studies do not possess the methodological strengths of the occupational studies, they must be considered in the medical evaluation of Reserve's discharge into the air.

Of course, it is still not possible to directly equate the exposure in Silver Bay with the exposure patterns in these nonoccupational studies. The studies typically do not attempt to quantify the level of exposure and, as noted above, it is not possible to assess with any precision the exposure level in Silver Bay; thus, exposure levels may be compared only on the most general basis. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Reserve's operations may be equated with those of an asbestos mine or mill; for, while we concur in the trial court's finding that Reserve discharges fibers similar, and in some cases, identical to amosite asbestos, it is also true, as testified by plaintiffs' own witnesses, that only a portion of Reserve's discharge may be so characterized.³⁸ Additionally, it is also true that at least some of the fiber counts reported to the court reflect all amphibole fibers present, thereby including fibers inconsistent with amosite asbestos.³⁹ Even if all the amphibole fibers inconsistent with amosite could still be attributed to Reserve's discharge, it remains uncertain whether the disease effects attributable to amosite may be extended to these other fibers, or whether the varying forms of asbestos possess differing pathogenic properties.⁴⁰3. Conclusion.

Plaintiffs' hypothesis that Reserve's air emissions represent a significant threat to the public health touches numerous scientific disciplines, and an overall evaluation demands broad scientific understanding. We think it significant that Dr. Brown, an impartial witness whose court-appointed task was to address the health issue in its entirety, joined with plaintiffs' witnesses in viewing as reasonable the hypothesis that Reserve's discharges present a threat to public health. Although, as we noted in our stay opinion, Dr. Brown found the evidence insufficient to make a scientific probability statement as to whether adverse health consequences would in fact ensue, he expressed a public health concern over the continued long-term emission of fibers into the air. We quote his testimony at some length.

(Dr. Brown). Based on the scientific evidence, I would be unable to predict that the number of fibers in the air of Silver Bay, as seen on four days in October, that I would be unable to predict that cancer would be found in Silver Bay.

Now, going beyond that, it seems to me that speaking now in general terms, where it has been shown that a known human carcinogen, sir, and I make that distinction and I shall make it again, I suspect, a human carcinogen is in the air of any community, and if it could be lowered I would say, as a physician that, yes, it should be lowered. And if it could be taken out of the air completely, I would be even more happy.

But the presence of a known, human carcinogen, sir, is in my view cause for concern, and if there are means of removing that human carcinogen from the environment, that should then be done. (A.23:207-08.)

He explained further:

As a physician, I take the view that I cannot consider, with equanimity, the fact that a known human carcinogen is in the environment. If I knew more about that human carcinogen, if I knew what a safe level was in the air, if I knew what a safe level was in the water, then I could draw some firm conclusions and advise you in precise terms. That information is not available to me and I submit, sir, it's not available to anyone else. And that until that information is developed in a scientific way, using techniques that would be acceptable to the medical community, until that time has arrived, then I take only the view that I have expressed. (A.23:211.)

But with asbestos, * * * we're dealing with a different situation, we're dealing with a material which is known to cause cancer not only in animals but in humans. (A.23:212.)

Finally, in a post-trial deposition taken December 6, 1974, which the parties have stipulated may be considered by this court, Dr. Brown further testified:

Q (Mr. Bastow, attorney for the United States). (I)s there any question in your mind that the people living on the North Shore are being exposed to a human carcinogen in the air and water?

A (Dr. Brown). Court studies demonstrated to my satisfaction that similar (asbestiform) fibers are present in the air of Silver Bay and since I am convinced that asbestiform fibers are carcinogenic for humans, my answer to your question would be yes.

He added:

I took some pains to also say that it was my medical opinion that the presence of a human carcinogen in the air and water was not to be taken lightly * * *.

Until I know what the safe level is I therefore could not, as a physician, consider with equanimity the fact that they are being exposed to a human carcinogen. (Brown dep. at 8-12.)

B. The Discharge Into Water.

The claim that Reserve's discharge of tailings into Lake Superior causes a hazard to public health raises many of the same uncertainties present with respect to the discharge into air. Thus, the previous discussion of fiber identity and fiber size is also applicable to the water discharge. In two respects, however, the discharge into water raises added uncertainties: first, whether the ingestion of fibers, as compared with their inhalation, poses any danger whatsoever; and second, should ingestion pose a danger, whether the exposure resulting from Reserve's discharge may be said to present a legally cognizable risk to health.

1. Ingestion of Fibers as a Danger to Health.

All epidemiological studies which associate asbestos fibers with harm to health are based upon inhalation of these fibers by humans. Thus, although medical opinion agrees that fibers entering the respiratory tract can interact with body tissues and produce disease, it is unknown whether the same can be said of fibers entering the digestive tract. If asbestos fibers do not interact with digestive tissue, they are presumably eliminated as waste without harmful effect upon the body.

The evidence bearing upon possible harm from ingestion of fibers falls into three areas: first, the court-sponsored tissue study, designed to measure whether asbestos fibers are present in the tissues of long-time Duluth residents; second, animal experiments designed to measure whether, as a biological phenomenon, fibers can penetrate the gastrointestinal mucosa and thus interact with body tissues; third, the increased incidence of gastrointestinal cancer among workers occupationally exposed to asbestos, and the hypothesis that this increase may be due to the ingestion of fibers initially inhaled.

a. The Tissue Study.

Recognizing the complete lack of any direct evidence (epidemiological or otherwise) on the issue of whether the ingestion of fibers poses a risk, the trial court directed that a tissue study be conducted to determine whether the tissues of long-time Duluth residents contain any residue of asbestoslike fibers.

The study sought to analyze by electron microscope the tissues of recently deceased Duluth residents who had ingested Duluth water for at least 15 years; that is, approximately since the beginning of Reserve's operations. As a "control" check on results, tissue samples were obtained from the deceased residents of Houston, Texas, where the water is free of asbestos fibers. Although this study was necessarily expedited, plaintiffs' principal medical witness, Dr. Selikoff, testified to the sound design of the study and expressed his belief that it would yield significant information.

One of the court-appointed experts, Dr. Frederick Pooley,⁴¹ in explaining the results of the study, stated that he found that the tissues of the Duluth residents were virtually free of any fibers which could be attributed to the Reserve discharge. Dr. Brown said of this study:

It is my conclusion, from the tissue study, that residents of Duluth have not been found to have asbestiform fibers in their tissues when compared with Houston. (A.23:208.)

As we noted in the stay opinion, the parties dispute the significance to be attributed to the results of this study. Dr. Selikoff, prior to the conclusion of the study, expressed this view:

Now, our feeling was that no matter what air samples show or water samples show or anything else, unless it is found that asbestos is in the tissues of people who have drunk this water * * * if we do not find it in the tissues in appreciable quantities, then I would risk a professional opinion that there is no danger, at least up to this point, to the population no matter what our samples show or water samples. (A.11:95.)

After negative results had been actually obtained, however, plaintiffs argued, and the district court agreed, that because the specimens of tissue represented only a microscopically minute body area, the actual presence of fibers may have been overlooked.⁴²

We note that this limitation had not seemed dispositive prior to the study when Dr. Selikoff commented:

I would think we should find some fibers there. We're looking for needles in a haystack, but that's all right, we should find needles in the haystack with all the difficulties of the study, the technical difficulties, if we examine sufficiently large numbers of samples in some instances we should find some fibers there. (A.11:77.)

The district court decided, and we agree, that the study cannot be deemed conclusive in exonerating the ingestion of fibers in Lake Superior water as a hazard. The negative results must, however, be given some weight in assessing the probabilities of harm from Reserve's discharge into water. The results also weigh heavily in indicating that no emergency or imminent hazard to health exists.⁴³ Thus, while this study crucially bears on the determination of whether it is necessary to close Reserve down immediately, the negative results do not dispose of the broader issue of whether the ingestion of fibers poses some danger to public health justifying abatement on less immediate terms.

b. Animal Studies and Penetration of the Gastrointestinal Mucosa.

At a somewhat more theoretical level, the determination of whether ingested fibers can penetrate the gastrointestinal mucosa bears on the issue of harm through ingestion. If penetration is biologically impossible, then presumably the interaction of the fibers with body tissues will not occur.

This medical issue has been investigated through experiments with animals which, unfortunately, have produced conflicting results. For example, Reserve witness Dr. Davis reported on his experiment in feeding crocidolite and chrysotile asbestos to rats for varying periods of up to six months. He killed the rats at the end of the period and examined their gastrointestinal tissues for evidence of fibers. At the time of trial, light and electron microscopy had so far revealed no evidence of fibers in the tissues. (A.16:143-59.)

Plaintiffs, however, cited contrary studies. Research by George Westlake, in which rats were fed a diet including chrysotile fibers, indicated that fibers had traveled through the colon wall and accumulated in the area of the mesothelium.⁴⁴ (A.11:23-25.) Pontrefact, who injected chrysotile fibers into the stomachs of rats, found that fibers had dispersed throughout the body tissues.⁴⁵ (A.11:37-41.)On this conflicting scientific evidence, Dr. Brown testified that the Westlake and Pontrefact studies provide some support for the hypothesis that asbestos fibers can penetrate the gastrointestinal mucosa.⁴⁶

c. Excess Gastrointestinal Cancer Among the Occupationally Exposed.

The affirmative evidence supporting the proposition that the ingestion of fibers poses a danger to health focuses on the increased rate of gastrointestinal cancer among workers occupationally exposed to asbestos dust. Plaintiffs' experts attribute this excess incidence of gastrointestinal cancer to a theory that the asbestos workers first inhaled the asbestos dust and thereafter coughed up and swallowed the asbestos particles.

The attribution of health harm from ingestion rests upon a theoretical basis. As Dr. Selikoff explained, there are several possible explanations for the increased evidence of gastrointestinal cancer, some of which do not involve ingestion. (A.11:41-43.) Moreover, as noted previously, the excess rates of gastrointestinal cancer are generally "modest" (A.10:220, 223, 226, 279.), and substantially lower than the excess rates of mesothelioma and lung cancer associated with inhalation of asbestos dust. Also, the experts advised that an analysis of a small exposed population may produce statistically "unstable" results. (A.10:278-80.)

The existence of an excess rate of gastrointestinal cancer among asbestos workers is a matter of concern. The theory that excess cancers may be attributed to the ingestion of asbestos fibers rests on a tenable medical hypothesis. Indeed, Dr. Selikoff testified that ingestion is the "probable" route accounting for the excess in gastrointestinal cancer. (A.11:44.)⁴⁷ The occupational studies support the proposition that the ingestion of asbestos fibers can result in harm to health.

2. Level of Exposure Via Ingestion.

The second primary uncertainty with respect to ingestion involves the attempt to assess whether the level of exposure from drinking water is hazardous. Of course, this inquiry is handicapped by the great variation in fiber counts, and Dr. Brown's admonition that only a qualitative, and not a quantitative, statement can be made about the presence of fibers.⁴⁸

In spite of these difficulties, the district court found that the level of exposure resulting from the drinking of Duluth water was "comparable" to that found to cause gastrointestinal cancer in asbestos workers. 380 F.Supp. at 48. The court drew this finding from an elaborate calculation by Dr. Nicholson in which he attempted to make a statistical comparison between the fibers probably ingested by an asbestos worker subject to an excess risk of gastrointestinal cancer with the probable number of amphibole fibers ingested by a Duluth resident over a period of 18 years. (A.22:228-229.) To make this calculation, Dr. Nicholson computed what he believed to be the level of exposure in a typical occupational environment and multiplied this figure by the total amount of air inhaled by the worker over a four-year period (taken to be the relevant period in which a risk of excess gastrointestinal cancer was posed), thereby obtaining total fibers inhaled. A percentage reduction was then applied to obtain the number of fibers brought up the respiratory tract and swallowed. For Duluth residents, Dr. Nicholson calculated the number of fibers ingested over an 18-year period, assuming a daily intake of two liters of water and a fiber concentration of 25 million fibers/liter. From these assumptions, Dr. Nicholson opined that a Duluth resident over a period of 18 years ingested about two-thirds of the amount of asbestos fibers swallowed by an asbestos worker in four years. As is evident, this calculation is beset by several uncertainties. The assumptions as to fiber concentration in occupational settings and the resulting percentage of fibers ingested involve margins of error. Furthermore, in assuming that the relevant fiber concentration in Duluth water was 25 million fibers/liter, Dr. Nicholson used a figure twice that found by the court as the mean concentration of all amphibole fibers.⁴⁹ Reserve witness Dr. Gross performed a calculation similar to Dr. Nicholson's, but using somewhat different assumptions, and concluded that Duluth water would have to contain several hundred million fibers/liter and be ingested for 60 years before an exposure comparable with occupational levels would be reached. (A.17:37-51.)

The comparison has other weaknesses, for without regard to the comparability of the gross exposure levels, the dynamics of the exposure process are markedly different. The vagaries attendant to the use of assumptions rather than facts result in comparisons which are of dubious accuracy. Thus, Dr. Brown testified that, if Nicholson's calculations were correct, he would conclude only that the risk was non-negligible. (Brown dep. at 20.)

The Nicholson comparison, although evidentially weak, must be considered with other evidence. The record does show that the ingestion of asbestos fibers poses some risk to health, but to an undetermined degree. Given these circumstances, Dr. Brown testified that the possibility of a future excess incidence of cancer attributable to the discharge cannot be ignored:⁵⁰* * * I would say that it is conceivable that gastrointestinal cancers can develop from the ingestion of asbestos, and what I don't know, Your Honor, is just how low that level of ingestion must be before the likelihood of GI cancer becomes so remote as to be, for all intents and purposes, ignored as a real live possibility. (A.23:157.)

We quote at length Dr. Brown's testimony expressing the medical concern appropriate to the continued discharge of asbestos fibers into Lake Superior:

(Dr. Brown). After some degree of exposure to the literature and to the testimony given in this trial I would say that the scientific evidence that I have seen is not complete in terms of allowing me to draw a conclusion one way or another concerning the problem of a public health hazard in the water in Lake Superior.

Q. (The court). Would you define the difference between what you say is scientific proof and medical proof, and then maybe I will give you another kind of proof that I have to live with here and we will see where we are going? A. Well, science requires a level of proof which is pretty high. That is, we do not accept as truth things that seem to be casually associated, a cause casually associated with an effect. We have erected certain statistical barriers which force us to come to conclusions based on probability, and Dr. Taylor used those terms. He used .05 per cent, he used things like .01 per cent, criteria which generally are accepted in the scientific community as levels which are consistent with or from which you can conclude that there is some cause and effect relationship.

Q. All right. Now, scientific proof for what purpose? Doesn't the quantum of proof vary with the purpose? Now, I haven't really asked you this before, but wouldn't scientists be satisfied for one purpose and not another, or is that when you stop and put on your medical hat then, after you get a certain quantum of proof?

A. Well, as a scientist, sir, I would say that there are many questions which have been raised in this trial which would provide me with a hypothesis which I would like to see pursued. This is in the abstract scientific sense of an interesting intellectual question for which there is suggestive evidence.

Now, when I turn, however, to the medical side of things, Your Honor, I am faced with the fact that I am convinced that asbestos fibers can cause cancer, I am faced with the fact that I have concluded that the size of the fibers is not particularly helpful in allowing me to decide whether a given fiber is or is not carcinogenic.

As a medical person, sir, I think that I have to err, if err I do, on the side of what is best for the greatest number. And having concluded or having come to the conclusions that I have given you, the carcinogenicity of asbestos, I can come to no conclusion, sir, other than that the fibers should not be present in the drinking water of the people of the North Shore. (A.23:202-203.)

C. Conclusion.

The preceding extensive discussion of the evidence demonstrates that the medical and scientific conclusions here in dispute clearly lie "on the frontiers of scientific knowledge." Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 499 F.2d 467, 474 (1974). The trial court, not having any proof of actual harm, was faced with a consideration of 1) the probabilities of any health harm and 2) the consequences, if any, should the harm actually occur. See Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796 at 799 (D.C.Cir., filed Jan. 21, 1975).

The District of Columbia Circuit was recently confronted with a problem analogous to the one now before us in Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, --- F.2d --- (D.C.Cir., filed Jan. 28, 1975). The court, faced with a regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency⁵¹ requiring the phased reduction of the lead content in motor vehicle gasoline promulgated pursuant to a statute authorizing a restriction only if the emission product of a fuel or fuel additive "will endanger the public health or welfare," rejected the EPA regulation stating that "the case against auto lead emissions is a speculative and inconclusive one at best." Id. at 6-8. The majority reasoned that in the absence of past harm, no potential consequences can be considered:

If there can be found potential harm from lead in exhaust emissions, the best (and only convincing) proof of such potential harm is what has occurred in the past, from which the Administrator can logically deduce that the same factors will produce the same harm in the future. (Id. at 14.)

Judge J. Skelly Wright, in dissent, approached the problem of potential harm as encompassed within the statutory term of "will endanger" differently. He discussed this concept of danger to the public health in terms of separate but reciprocal evaluations of both risk and harm:

While "risk" and "harm" are separate concepts that cannot be compared and ranked * * * there is a reciprocal relationship between them, and they may not really be assessed in isolation * * *. The "significance" of the risk * * * can only be ascertained through knowledge of the threatened harm, and it is the total "risk of harm" that must be sufficient to endanger the public health. This relationship does not, however, invalidate the separate analysis * * *, for the parameters of each term must be identified before their interaction can be studied. (Id. at 14 n. 14 of dissenting opinion.)

Judge Wright, believing the EPA regulations valid, concluded that the low probability of harm (greater than a remote possibility) shown by the EPA coupled with the potentially dire consequences which could result from lead emissions justified the EPA regulations. See id. at --- - --- of dissenting opinion.

These concepts of potential harm, whether they be assessed as "probabilities and consequences" or "risk and harm," necessarily must apply in a determination of whether any relief should be given in cases of this kind in which proof with certainty is impossible. The district court, although not following a precise probabilities-consequences analysis, did consider the medical and scientific evidence bearing on both the probability of harm and the consequences should the hypothesis advanced by the plaintiffs prove to be valid.

In assessing probabilities in this case, it cannot be said that the probability of harm is more likely than not. Moreover, the level of probability does not readily convert into a prediction of consequences. On this record it cannot be forecast that the rates of cancer will increase from drinking Lake Superior water or breathing Silver Bay air. The best that can be said is that the existence of this asbestos contaminant in air and water gives rise to a reasonable medical concern for the public health. The public's exposure to asbestos fibers in air and water creates some health risk. Such a contaminant should be removed.

As we demonstrate in the following sections of the opinion, the existence of this risk to the public justifies an injunction decree requiring abatement of the health hazard on reasonable terms as a precautionary and preventive measure to protect the public health.

The district court enjoined Reserve's discharge of asbestos fibers into the air at Silver Bay, Minnesota, as a federal common law nuisance, as a public nuisance under state law, as a violation of certain Minnesota air pollution control regulations, APC 1, 5, 6, and 17, 380 F.Supp. 55-56, and as a violation of APC 3(a)(2) and its underlying statute, Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1) (Supp.1974), which require a permit for the operation of emission facilities, United States v. Reserve Mining Co., --- F.Supp. --- at --- - --- (D.Minn., Oct. 18, 1974).⁵²

A. Federal Common Law Nuisance.

We reject the federal common law of nuisance as a basis for relief. As formulated in Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972), and Texas v. Pankey, 441 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1971), federal nuisance law contemplates, at a minimum, interstate pollution of air or water. The United States, while invoking this doctrine, alleges only that Reserve's discharge "significantly endangers the health of all those persons living in the vicinity of the defendant's taconite ore processing operations." The States of Michigan and Wisconsin do not complain of air pollution and Minnesota alleges that the discharge causes common law public nuisance but does not allege interstate effects. The pleadings indicate that Minnesota's claim rests on Reserve's violation of Minnesota laws by creating an alleged danger to the health of its citizens. We construe Minnesota's complaint as asserting a state nuisance law violation.⁵³

Additionally, in our review of the record, we find no evidence of any interstate health hazard, and no testimony from medical witnesses indicating any substantial concern over the health of any citizens exposed to Reserve's air discharge other then those residing in the Silver Bay, Minnesota, area. Although the district court opinion refers to a measurement of cummingtonite-grunerite fibers in snow samples from northern Wisconsin, 380 F.Supp. at 50, and the district court found evidence of these fibers in the air "as far away as Wisconsin * * *,"⁵⁴ 380 F.Supp. at 50, the trial court limited to the Silver Bay area any showing of a significant burden of excess fibers. 380 F.Supp. at 48.

B. Violations of Minnesota Law.

We turn now to Minnesota's claims that its laws are being violated by Reserve's air discharge.⁵⁵ In ordering, on April 20, 1974, an immediate cessation of air discharges containing amosite asbestos, the district court relied upon violations by Reserve of APC 5, 6, and 17 regulations published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency pursuant to Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.07 and the state's public nuisance law which is formulated at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 609.74(1). 380 F.Supp. at 17. Subsequently, Minnesota amended its complaint⁵⁶ under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b) to allege violations of APC 1 and 3, and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1) relating to air emission permits. Because the district court held that Reserve's discharge also violates these provisions, 380 F.Supp. at 56 and Order of October 18, 1974, at 14, we also examine whether these alleged violations provide alternative or additional grounds for injunctive relief.1. APC 1.

The district court observed that studies of suspended particulate matter in the air over Silver Bay for the months of July through October 1972 disclosed only isolated instances of violation of the primary and secondary air quality standards of APC 1.⁵⁷

The court noted, however, that

the data introduced at trial, * * * reveals that since October 1972 there has been a marked increase in the number of days in which the secondary standard was exceeded and several days in which the primary standard was exceeded. (Order of Oct. 18, 1974, at 14-15.)

On the basis of this evidence, the court properly held that Reserve was in violation of APC 1.

2. APC 5.

APC 5 limits the emission of particulate matter from industrial processes.⁵⁸ Generally, it prohibits the operation of an existing emission source unless it has filtration equipment with a collection efficiency of 99 percent by weight. The district court found, and Reserve does not deny, that its present methods of filtration fail to comply with this standard.

3. APC 3 and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1).

APC 3[a](bb) requires that a person "operating an existing installation which is a source of air contaminants and air pollution shall apply for an operating permit."⁵⁹ Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1) makes unlawful the operation of an "emission facility"⁶⁰ without a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The district court properly held that Reserve is in violation of both APC 3 and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1) by its failure to obtain a permit for its emissions into the air of Silver Bay.

4. The Stipulation Agreement.

Reserve concedes that it does not have a permit as required by APC 3 and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1), but contends in its brief that an existing stipulation (A.1:198-210.) with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, signed by Reserve in late 1972, "is itself a permit authorizing Reserve's air discharges." That agreement expressly provides that Reserve shall be issued "appropriate installation and operating permits" by the Agency only upon compliance "with applicable laws, regulations and standards of the Agency * * *." (A.1:210.) The agreement does not relieve Reserve of the duty of obtaining the required permits. Reserve also relies upon the stipulation agreement as a defense to Minnesota's claims that it is in violation of APC 1 and 5, standards previously discussed. While the stipulation arguably shields Reserve from criminal liability or civil penalties for its violation of air emission regulations, it cannot shield Reserve from an abatement order based on the existence of a hazard to health from the air emission, for evidence of this hazard had not yet surfaced when Minnesota and Reserve entered into the stipulation.

5. Public Nuisance.

Because we affirm the district court's findings that Reserve, by its air emission, is violating APC 1, 3, and 5, and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1), it follows that Reserve's violations may be enjoined as a public nuisance. Minnesota's pollution control law so provides:

Injunctions. Any violation of the provisions, regulations, standards, orders, stipulation agreements, variances, schedules of compliance, or permits specified in chapters 115 (water pollution control; sanitary districts) and 116 (Pollution Control Agency) shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by law in an action, in the name of the state, brought by the attorney general. (Minn.Stat.Ann. § 115.071(4) (emphasis added).)

In light of this statute, we deem it unnecessary to discuss whether Reserve's air emissions could constitute a public nuisance independently of violations of the state's air pollution control regulations.

6. APC 17.

The district court found that Reserve's emission of amosite asbestos fibers into the ambient air violates the asbestos emission regulation, APC 17, of the Pollution Control Agency.⁶¹

This regulation designates the use of specific control equipment for emissions within its coverage. The regulation calls for control equipment, referred to in the regulation as a fabric filter and by the parties as a baghouse filter, with a mass collection efficiency of 99.9 percent. See APC 17(e)(2)(bb)(i).⁶²

APC 17 defines "asbestos" as "any of six naturally occurring, hydrated mineral silicates: Actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite, and tremolite." It defines "manufacturing operation" as the "processing of asbestos or the production of any product containing asbestos." A product is deemed "to contain asbestos if a detectable amount of asbestos is present in the product or in any material that goes into the product."

Minnesota contends that the district court's finding that Reserve's emissions into the air "contain substantial quantities of amosite fibers and fibers similar to amosite," 380 F.Supp. at 89, supports the court's holding that Reserve is in violation of APC 17. Reserve takes the position that compliance with APC 17 is unnecessary for any health reason and necessitates economic waste because baghouse filters cost more to install and maintain than air filtration systems meeting other Minnesota emission control standards.

Reserve urges a restricted application of the phrase "manufacturing operation" as it appears in the regulation and argues that, because taconite is not considered asbestos in the ordinary usage of that term, Minnesota improperly interpreted APC 17 and has unreasonably applied it to Reserve's operation. Reserve further questions the reasonableness of the emission standard defined by the regulation. It argues that even if fabric filters do have a mass collection efficiency of 99.9 percent, the quantity of emissions will vary from plant to plant according to the amount of material processed and without respect to what level of emission is safe to health. We need deal only with Reserve's first objection, that it is not a "manufacturing operation" for purposes of the regulation.

Is Reserve engaged in "the processing of asbestos" or "the production of any product containing asbestos?" On the basis of the record in this case we cannot say that Reserve's taconite should be considered asbestos for the purposes of this regulation or that Reserve's product, iron ore pellets, contains asbestos within the meaning of APC 17(a)(12). The court below made no finding that the pellets contain asbestos. At the most, asbestos occurs as a contaminant in a component, cummingtonite-grunerite, of the taconite that Reserve processes to produce iron ore pellets.

The State of Minnesota adopted APC 17 following the adoption of a national asbestos emission standard, 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.20-.24 (1974), by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Federal Register published this standard on April 6, 1973, 38 Fed.Reg. 8820, and Minnesota adopted its standard on June 11, 1973. We assume that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopted this regulation, in common with APC 1, 3, 4, 11, 15 and 16, pursuant to the state implementation plan requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5 (Supp.1974).

In comments accompanying adoption of the national standard the administrator of the EPA identified five major sources of asbestos emissions: 1) mining and milling; 2) manufacturing; 3) fabrication; 4) demolition; and 5) spraying. 38 Fed.Reg. 8820. The administrator made explicit that the EPA regulation, insofar as it relates to mining and milling, applies only to asbestos mines and asbestos mills:

EPA considered the possibility of banning production, processing, and use of asbestos or banning all emissions of asbestos into the atmosphere, but rejected these approaches. The problem of measuring asbestos emissions would make the latter approach impossible to enforce. (Id.)

The administrator made no specific reference to other mining or milling. With respect to manufacturing, the EPA's standard applies to "selected manufacturing operations." Id.⁶³

On May 3, 1974, the EPA clarified its asbestos emission standard by stating that it does not apply to asbestos occurring as a contaminant, as distinguished from asbestos as a product. This clarification expressly notes that the release of asbestos as a contaminant in the milling of taconite ore does not constitute milling or manufacturing for purposes of the federal standard. 39 Fed.Reg. 15397 (May 3, 1974). In this revision, the administrator added a definition of "commercial asbestos" to distinguish asbestos which is produced as a product from asbestos which occurs as a contaminant in other materials and to make explicit that materials that contain asbestos as a contaminant do not fall within the standard. The administrator further commented:

Asbestos is also a contaminant in taconite ore. EPA at this time believes that asbestos releases from the milling of such ores should be covered by the hazardous air pollutant regulations and intends in the near future to propose for comment regulations which would accomplish this. Because the revisions here being promulgated are only clarifications of the Agency's intentions at the time the initial hazardous air pollutant regulations for asbestos were published and because they are not being proposed for comment, EPA believes that it is not appropriate to include restrictions on releases of asbestos from taconite milling operations in these revisions. (39 Fed. Reg. 15397 (May 3, 1974) (emphasis added).)

The Administrator then observed that he had not included in the original regulation a definition of "asbestos mill." He clarified the original regulation by defining the phrase and explained the definition in this way:

The definition excludes the milling of ores that contain asbestos minerals only as a contaminant as previously discussed under the definition of "commercial asbestos." As noted earlier, the Agency intends to propose regulations covering taconite milling operations. (Id.)

Minnesota has offered no record of any hearing or other evidence of the purpose of APC 17. We cannot accede to Minnesota's argument that APC 17 should be applied more extensively than the federal regulation after which it is closely patterned in the absence of evidence of an independent background for its adoption. Although Minnesota may adopt more stringent air pollution control standards than the Clean Air Act requires, see 42 U.S.C. § 1857d-1, this record furnishes no implication that it has done so. As bearing on this issue, Dr. John Olin, Deputy Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, testified only that "I wrote that regulation" (Tr. 18,233.) and that "(w)e would feel that the Reserve operation would fall under (it)." (Tr. 18,240.) On this record, we hold APC 17 as inapplicable to the discharge of asbestos fibers occurring as a contaminant in the processing of iron ore.

In summary, we affirm the district court's holding that Reserve is in violation of APC 1, 3, and 5, and Minn.Stat.Ann. § 116.081(1). As such, Reserve's continuing violations are subject to an abatement order. We disagree with the district court's application of APC 17 to Reserve.⁶⁴

The district court found that Reserve's discharge into Lake Superior violated §§ 1160(c)(5) and (g)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (FWPCA).⁶⁵ 380 F.Supp.