Photos Arlene Lehto More from MPR Back to main story Resources Save Lake Superior Association Your Voice Join the conversation with other MPR listeners in the News Forum.

	E-mail this page			Print this page

Human health vs. environmental protection
by Stephanie Hemphill, Minnesota Public Radio
October 29, 2003

Arlene Lehto, an early activist in the Reserve Mining case, says it's not clear whether the government would have won the case if it had been argued on a purely environmental basis. The discovery of asbestos-like fibers in the taconite tailings turned the case into one of protecting human health. (MPR Photo/Stephanie Hemphill)

The Reserve Mining case started out as an environmental argument, but it was ultimately settled over the question of whether human health was at risk.

Silver Bay, Minn. — Reserve Mining Co. started operations in 1955. Over the next 15 years, a plume of green water spread from the processing plant at Silver Bay into Lake Superior. Eventually it reached Upper Michigan. The current carried suspended particles of Reserve's waste rock. In 1972 the EPA went to court to force Reserve to stop dumping its waste in the lake.

EPA scientists studied the current and measured the sediment. They found higher-than-normal amounts of heavy metals in the bottom of the lake. They found reduced numbers of bottom-dwelling organisms 15 miles away from the plant. They also said the sediment was killing baby rainbow trout.

The lawyers were preparing to argue the case based on those harms to the environment. Then the scientists discovered asbestos-like fibers in the water supplies of Duluth and Two Harbors. They warned the public that the fibers could possibly cause cancer.

I would much rather have seen it play out entirely on the environmental issue and won it at that, because it would have been a landmark environmental case. Now it became a landmark health case. - Arlene Lehto

Suddenly the concern shifted. The issue was no longer probable harm to the environment, but possible harm to human health.

Arlene Lehto was an activist who helped form the Save Lake Superior Association, a grass-roots group that pushed the government to act against Reserve. She says the shift in attention from the environment to human health was a disappointment to some environmentalists.

"It turned the case completely head-over-heels, and the win was not on an environmental issue. So they were quite unhappy about that," Lehto says.

Lehto says it's not clear whether the government would have won the case if it had been argued on a purely environmental basis.

"We'd like to think people respected Lake Superior, which has a 500-year flush rate. If you're going to get the silt out and the fishing industry back, it was going to take more than one lifetime to do it," Lehto says. "In many respects I would much rather have seen it play out entirely on the environmental issue and won it at that, because it would have been a landmark environmental case. Now it became a landmark health case."

The Reserve case predicted the direction of environmental laws written afterward. Today, the bottom line for most environmental rules is a standard designed to protect human health, not the environment.

Ironically, the threat to human health from Reserve's waste has never been proved, while nearly everyone now agrees that dumping such huge amounts of crushed waste rock in Lake Superior would ultimately harm the lake and its fish.

Because questions remain about whether fibers in the waste rock might cause cancer, Northshore Mining -- which now operates the plant built by Reserve -- continues to dump its waste in an enclosed basin. The company is not allowed to sell it, as other taconite processors do.

"That could be a very valuable commodity," says Jim Kelly, who retired after working 30 years at the Silver Bay plant.

"You could sell it as gravel, protect the other gravel resources that are here, and so on. But this is all a legacy that's left that you have to try to undo," Kelly says.

Kelly says the issue is still too hot for most politicians.

"In this state, from a political standpoint, what they say is, 'That's a federal ruling, and we can't do anything about it.' So you go to the feds, and the federal politicians aren't going to have anything to do with any environmental issue. They're just going to stay away from it," says Kelly. "So you can't get any driving force to correct the issue, even though it may be the right thing to do."

But Northshore Mining and its supporters have managed to persuade the Minnesota Department of Health to hold a scientific symposium on the possible health risks of the taconite fibers. A report on the research presented at the symposium is due in early 2004.

News Headlines

Related Subjects