## Facts

- Reserve Mining Company operated a taconite processing facility at Silver Bay, Minnesota, on Lake Superior.
- The facility generated large volumes of finely ground tailings that Reserve discharged into Lake Superior; related particulates were also released into the ambient air.
- The tailings contained asbestos-like mineral fibers alleged to enter public drinking-water systems and the air, creating a risk of serious disease, including cancer.
- The litigation involved federal and state governments, environmental organizations, and labor/industry intervenors seeking to stop or limit the discharges.
- After a lengthy trial, the district court entered an injunction ordering immediate cessation of the air and water discharges, effectively shutting down the plant.
- Reserve appealed; the injunction was stayed pending appeal; the court of appeals heard the consolidated matters en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether the air and water discharges created a legally cognizable public health threat sufficient to justify injunctive relief under applicable federal and state law.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering immediate cessation of discharges (practical shutdown) rather than a conditional, phased remedy.
3. How equitable considerations, including economic and employment effects, should affect the scope and timing of injunctive relief in preventive public health litigation.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that the discharges presented a legally cognizable risk to public health and warranted injunctive relief.
- The court modified the remedy, concluding the record did not show an imminent health catastrophe justifying immediate shutdown.
- The court required Reserve to transition to on-land tailings disposal within a reasonable time under court supervision.
- The court required immediate interim steps to reduce air emissions and limit fiber contamination during the transition.

## Legal Principles

- Preventive injunctive relief may be ordered when credible evidence shows a significant risk to public health, even without proof that harm has already occurred.
- The magnitude and imminence of the demonstrated risk informs the scope and timing of equitable relief; non-imminent risks may justify stringent controls and mandated conversion rather than immediate closure.
- In environmental/public health injunctions, courts may balance the public interest in health protection against severe economic and social consequences, while still requiring effective compliance measures.
- Complex pollution cases may warrant ongoing judicial supervision to implement phased remedies, enforce interim limits, and adjust orders as technical and scientific information develops.

## Conclusion

The en banc court held that asbestos-like fiber contamination from Reserve’s operations justified injunctive intervention, but it limited the drastic remedy of immediate shutdown by ordering a supervised, time-limited conversion to on-land waste disposal with immediate interim controls on air emissions and contamination.


Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975) (en banc)