Page Title
 |  |  |  |  |
| BARRELS |
A short history of the disposal of barrels in Lake Superior
(Initially presented to the Living Green Conference in 2005 by Glenn Maxham)
What are my qualifications for speaking on the barrels issue? I'm the Vice-president of the Save Lake
Superior Association...a group of deeply concerned citizens formed to get Reserve Mining Company
at Silver Bay to quit dumping its taconite processing waste "tailings" into Lake Superior....SLSA, with
the financial and moral support from thousands, won that momentous case...today the tailings are
disposed of on land. I regret to say that I was not yet a member of this environmental organization.
After joining it about 20 years ago, I took the lead role in researching the festering issue of the
dumping, by the US Army Corps of Engineer, 1457 barrels of waste from the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant...known as T-Cap—in the Arden Hills/New Brighton area....discards from the
Honeywell company production of land mines which, we found out many years later, were not to be
disclosed to the public in the interest of national security....they were officially "classified" category.
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the 55 gallon drums were, "trucked to Duluth
under guard, loaded onto Corps barges, and sunk in Lake Superior." The classified clamp of security
assured there would be no public disclosure of the barrel dumping nor of the contents. The dumping
was done six or more times from 1959 to 1962. This dirty little secret might still be unrevealed to this
day had it not been for the accidental snagging of one of the barrels in a net towed by the Sivertson
fish company tug HIAWATHA seven miles northeast of Duluth in 1968. The crew of the tug, says the
MPCA, said the barrel, weighing about 700 pounds, contained "metal parts resembling buckshot."
The public was quickly assured by a Pentagon spokesperson in August of 1976 that we need not be
alarmed because, in his words, "The only thing that is down there in those barrels is medium carbon
steel and maybe some aluminum shavings."
We in SLSA, and others, were not satisfied with the Pentagon assessment...and we all kept pressing
for proof based on recovery and testing of the contents. Dr. Alden Lind, noted environmentalist, called
for recovery of 15% of the barrels from each of the sites...with further recovery decisions based on
what toxic pollutants, if any, were found during the testing.
Intentionally, or due to sloppy work, precise data on the dump sites were not recorded by the Corps...
In December of 1976 the Corps dispatched a tug to do some searching in an area believed to be one
several dump sites and reported it checked out a location where 20 of the barrels were reportedly
known to be...this puzzling notation was filed, quote, "Incomplete survey notes prepared by the Corps
of Engineers personnel documenting approximate triangulations from shore locations of the tug on
the lake were located in record searches for this project, however, no notations could be used to
identify which of the three survey sites was the site believed to be where the barrels were located."
Captain James Hager of the Corps of Engineers explained the lack of data on the dump sites. He
said historical records "are limited due to required record destruction and the sinking of one tugboat
and the burning of another, both with log books." Later, his statement was declared untrue!
A year later the Army and Munitions and Chemical Command launched another search. But in the
Corps' final report in 1991 the agency said this, and we quote, " The exact area searched was not
detailed in the report ....the effort was unsuccessful in locating the barrels. Public releases cited
difficulty, cost, and testimony from personnel involved with the production contract, attesting to the
harmless nature of the material, as sufficient reason to discontinue recovery efforts."
The result was another success by the Corps to avoid recovery and testing of the drums. It did admit,
in its final report, that it had found "drag and gouge marks" on the lake bottom and this prompted this
agency to greatly revise previous guesses as to where some of the barrels might be...not seven
miles northeast of Duluth but instead, says the official report, that the marks could be the spot where
the fish tug snagged the barrel, may have actually been, "approximately one mile southwest of the city
water intake."
Another of the many examples I found in which governmental agencies issued totally contradictory
earlier statements they had made, Corps of Engineers spokesman Bob Dempsey stated, “When the
Corps and the MPCA agreed that the barrels posed a limited health threat, it is mainly due to their
location miles from a city intake and at great depth." Which Corps statement are we to believe....and
just what constitutes what he calls only a "limited health threat?"
It is this information that raises the loudest alarm and keeps us on track in our effort to get more
barrels brought to the surface for scientific analysis of contents. What I'm going to tell you next is, by
far, the most significant point of the whole presentation...one to remember after leaving.
I spent the better part of two days in the Duluth office of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency after
my request was granted to examine and copy it's documents on the barrel issue....two large
cardboard boxes full.
After perusing reams of documents, and with my eyes starting to glaze over, this startling copy came
to the surface. It was a communication from a Mr. Eichorn at the Department of the Army Hygiene
Agency at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland to the Commander of the USA Armament Material
Readiness Command, Environmental Quality Office, Rock Island, Illinois. It was 30 June, 1977. The
subject was listed as: Environmental Hazards of Waste Disposal in Lake Superior.
Mr. Eichorn requested that the Environmental Quality Office "evaluate, on a worst case basis, the
potential environmental hazard due to chemical toxicity of disposal in Lake Superior, during the period
1957-62, of six sealed 55 gallon drums containing potential toxicants (lithium chloride, barium and
calcium chromate, calcium chloride and zirconium metal)
The weight of these so-called "potential toxicants" was estimated by the governmental
agencies to total more than six tons. Nowhere in the stacks of MFC A documents did I find a single
record of this startling information having been told to the public at any time. I can only speculate on
reasons that public disclosure was withheld It could it have been fear of frightening those drinking
Lake Superior water....perhaps not wanting to face pressures for barrel removal...or some other
argument...we don't know. We did get confirmation that the MFC A was aware of the document...and
said that awareness existed, in its words, "from the outset."...presumably for the preceding thirty years!
Can we be accused of being alarmists in view of the fact that, among official reports, are those
declaring that some of the barrels exuded a purplish fluid when struck with axes to make them sink?
Are we supposed to take comfort in the assurances from the Corps that the toxic chemicals were
rendered harmless by the dilution factor? How are we to truly know that to be factual?
Duluth's water was not then or now tested for the presence or absence of virtually all of the known
toxics verified to be in all seven of recovered barrels in 1994....The MFC A issued a statement that it
was surprised to find PCBs in these barrels and didn't know why they appeared there. The
concentration greatly exceeded the state's recommended allowable limit of .04 parts per billion for
that considered safe for human consumption. The barrels held from 44 to 590 parts per billion.
These polychlorinated biphenyls can cause cancer and reproductive failure.
Exceeding safe levels also was the barium reading. It can cause kidney damage and cardiac
problems....the amount of lead was likewise too high for humans. Even in small amounts it can
impact child development and harm to the central nervous system
And there was an excedence of cadmium. It can cause serious intestinal problems and kidney
damage that could result in renal failure...and there was too much benezine in these supposedly
harmless barrels...like cadmium, benezine can induce liver damage and create depression and
harms the central nervous system.
It's impossible to imagine that anyone would want to tolerate these nasty pollutants in our drinking
water. The PCBs, incidentally, were in barrels just two miles off from the water intake source...
But what are the odds of the chemicals getting into our water intake pipe even from a distance of two
miles? Remember the stressful days when we had to deal with the asbestiform particles from
Reserve's taconite tailings? When we had to get our water from elsewhere in milk cartons until filters
were installed? Those particles started out on their journey from Silver Bay fifty miles up the shore...
perhaps with the help of a current created by the rotation of the earth called the coriolis effect and
known to exist on the North shore...some of the barrels were dumped north of the pumping station
where they could have leaked their contents and then sucked into the municipal intake pipe.
An obvious question at this juncture is this? Has there been any medical proof that Duluthians
ingested any of these toxicants...certainly none that have come to my attention!
But there is this disconcerting enquiry made on November 11, 1976 to MPCA executive director Peter
Gove from Dr. Donald Mount, director of the EPA's research laboratory in Duluth. It says, in part, “We
have noticed again a change in water characteristics coming into our lake water intake at the
laboratory, such that some of our animals have stopped spawning and other behavioral
abnormalities have cropped up. We have noticed incidents of this nature from time to time in past
years.
In 1995, then Superior Mayor Herb Bergson contacted the Army Corps of Engineers urging further
research on contents of the nine barrels that were recovered and examined. He was told by the Corps
that, " They (the barrels)...have shown that they contain harmless, formerly classified scrap grenade
assemblies."
Apparently, MPCA Commissioner Chuck Williams didn't swallow the Corps' "all's well" with the
barrels....In a letter to then Senator David Durenburger he wrote"
It is the MPCA's belief that, without further examination of all of the dump sites, we cannot assure that
Lake Superior is adequately protected...we do feel that it's imperative that all of the dump sites be
investigated. It delays an environmental assessment that is long overdue. To the general public" says
Commissioner Williams,” it signals continued indifference by the Department of Defense to settling
the question of the barrels' contents once and for all. It also sends a message to the people of
Minnesota—and the rest of the nation—that the federal government is unwilling, unable or
uninterested in addressing environmental issues involving facilities."
Williams didn't see his request even minimally fulfilled....only five more barrels were raised and
examined but that seemed to be enough for him.
He told the News Tribune in 1994 " We are now satisfied that the barrels do not pose an immediate
threat. With all the other environmental priorities we have, we can't justify continued expenditures of
resources on barrels at this time." He then took a shot at those who wouldn't let the issue die when
he stated, “Although they are no doubt well-intentioned, those who call for continued efforts to recover
the barrels in Lake Superior are not well informed."
Ralph Pribble, a MPCA water quality expert bragged in 1995 that, “we got more than enough
information to make a confident decision"....the decision was, in effect, to ignore the barrels. The
Corps of Engineers added, "Our position is the same as it was that the barrels don't pose any threat.
There's no need to go back down."
Meantime MPCA spokesman in charge of that agency's involvement in the barrel issue gave his
frequently repeated claim that "We don't believe there's any short-term threat to human health." We've
seen nothing from him that would indicate whether this means there could be long-term threats to
human health.
Be assured that the barrel issue continues to be actively pursued by SLSA.
(Initially presented to the Living Green Conference in 2005 by Glenn Maxham)
What are my qualifications for speaking on the barrels issue? I'm the Vice-president of the Save Lake
Superior Association...a group of deeply concerned citizens formed to get Reserve Mining Company
at Silver Bay to quit dumping its taconite processing waste "tailings" into Lake Superior....SLSA, with
the financial and moral support from thousands, won that momentous case...today the tailings are
disposed of on land. I regret to say that I was not yet a member of this environmental organization.
After joining it about 20 years ago, I took the lead role in researching the festering issue of the
dumping, by the US Army Corps of Engineer, 1457 barrels of waste from the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant...known as T-Cap—in the Arden Hills/New Brighton area....discards from the
Honeywell company production of land mines which, we found out many years later, were not to be
disclosed to the public in the interest of national security....they were officially "classified" category.
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the 55 gallon drums were, "trucked to Duluth
under guard, loaded onto Corps barges, and sunk in Lake Superior." The classified clamp of security
assured there would be no public disclosure of the barrel dumping nor of the contents. The dumping
was done six or more times from 1959 to 1962. This dirty little secret might still be unrevealed to this
day had it not been for the accidental snagging of one of the barrels in a net towed by the Sivertson
fish company tug HIAWATHA seven miles northeast of Duluth in 1968. The crew of the tug, says the
MPCA, said the barrel, weighing about 700 pounds, contained "metal parts resembling buckshot."
The public was quickly assured by a Pentagon spokesperson in August of 1976 that we need not be
alarmed because, in his words, "The only thing that is down there in those barrels is medium carbon
steel and maybe some aluminum shavings."
We in SLSA, and others, were not satisfied with the Pentagon assessment...and we all kept pressing
for proof based on recovery and testing of the contents. Dr. Alden Lind, noted environmentalist, called
for recovery of 15% of the barrels from each of the sites...with further recovery decisions based on
what toxic pollutants, if any, were found during the testing.
Intentionally, or due to sloppy work, precise data on the dump sites were not recorded by the Corps...
In December of 1976 the Corps dispatched a tug to do some searching in an area believed to be one
several dump sites and reported it checked out a location where 20 of the barrels were reportedly
known to be...this puzzling notation was filed, quote, "Incomplete survey notes prepared by the Corps
of Engineers personnel documenting approximate triangulations from shore locations of the tug on
the lake were located in record searches for this project, however, no notations could be used to
identify which of the three survey sites was the site believed to be where the barrels were located."
Captain James Hager of the Corps of Engineers explained the lack of data on the dump sites. He
said historical records "are limited due to required record destruction and the sinking of one tugboat
and the burning of another, both with log books." Later, his statement was declared untrue!
A year later the Army and Munitions and Chemical Command launched another search. But in the
Corps' final report in 1991 the agency said this, and we quote, " The exact area searched was not
detailed in the report ....the effort was unsuccessful in locating the barrels. Public releases cited
difficulty, cost, and testimony from personnel involved with the production contract, attesting to the
harmless nature of the material, as sufficient reason to discontinue recovery efforts."
The result was another success by the Corps to avoid recovery and testing of the drums. It did admit,
in its final report, that it had found "drag and gouge marks" on the lake bottom and this prompted this
agency to greatly revise previous guesses as to where some of the barrels might be...not seven
miles northeast of Duluth but instead, says the official report, that the marks could be the spot where
the fish tug snagged the barrel, may have actually been, "approximately one mile southwest of the city
water intake."
Another of the many examples I found in which governmental agencies issued totally contradictory
earlier statements they had made, Corps of Engineers spokesman Bob Dempsey stated, “When the
Corps and the MPCA agreed that the barrels posed a limited health threat, it is mainly due to their
location miles from a city intake and at great depth." Which Corps statement are we to believe....and
just what constitutes what he calls only a "limited health threat?"
It is this information that raises the loudest alarm and keeps us on track in our effort to get more
barrels brought to the surface for scientific analysis of contents. What I'm going to tell you next is, by
far, the most significant point of the whole presentation...one to remember after leaving.
I spent the better part of two days in the Duluth office of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency after
my request was granted to examine and copy it's documents on the barrel issue....two large
cardboard boxes full.
After perusing reams of documents, and with my eyes starting to glaze over, this startling copy came
to the surface. It was a communication from a Mr. Eichorn at the Department of the Army Hygiene
Agency at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland to the Commander of the USA Armament Material
Readiness Command, Environmental Quality Office, Rock Island, Illinois. It was 30 June, 1977. The
subject was listed as: Environmental Hazards of Waste Disposal in Lake Superior.
Mr. Eichorn requested that the Environmental Quality Office "evaluate, on a worst case basis, the
potential environmental hazard due to chemical toxicity of disposal in Lake Superior, during the period
1957-62, of six sealed 55 gallon drums containing potential toxicants (lithium chloride, barium and
calcium chromate, calcium chloride and zirconium metal)
The weight of these so-called "potential toxicants" was estimated by the governmental
agencies to total more than six tons. Nowhere in the stacks of MFC A documents did I find a single
record of this startling information having been told to the public at any time. I can only speculate on
reasons that public disclosure was withheld It could it have been fear of frightening those drinking
Lake Superior water....perhaps not wanting to face pressures for barrel removal...or some other
argument...we don't know. We did get confirmation that the MFC A was aware of the document...and
said that awareness existed, in its words, "from the outset."...presumably for the preceding thirty years!
Can we be accused of being alarmists in view of the fact that, among official reports, are those
declaring that some of the barrels exuded a purplish fluid when struck with axes to make them sink?
Are we supposed to take comfort in the assurances from the Corps that the toxic chemicals were
rendered harmless by the dilution factor? How are we to truly know that to be factual?
Duluth's water was not then or now tested for the presence or absence of virtually all of the known
toxics verified to be in all seven of recovered barrels in 1994....The MFC A issued a statement that it
was surprised to find PCBs in these barrels and didn't know why they appeared there. The
concentration greatly exceeded the state's recommended allowable limit of .04 parts per billion for
that considered safe for human consumption. The barrels held from 44 to 590 parts per billion.
These polychlorinated biphenyls can cause cancer and reproductive failure.
Exceeding safe levels also was the barium reading. It can cause kidney damage and cardiac
problems....the amount of lead was likewise too high for humans. Even in small amounts it can
impact child development and harm to the central nervous system
And there was an excedence of cadmium. It can cause serious intestinal problems and kidney
damage that could result in renal failure...and there was too much benezine in these supposedly
harmless barrels...like cadmium, benezine can induce liver damage and create depression and
harms the central nervous system.
It's impossible to imagine that anyone would want to tolerate these nasty pollutants in our drinking
water. The PCBs, incidentally, were in barrels just two miles off from the water intake source...
But what are the odds of the chemicals getting into our water intake pipe even from a distance of two
miles? Remember the stressful days when we had to deal with the asbestiform particles from
Reserve's taconite tailings? When we had to get our water from elsewhere in milk cartons until filters
were installed? Those particles started out on their journey from Silver Bay fifty miles up the shore...
perhaps with the help of a current created by the rotation of the earth called the coriolis effect and
known to exist on the North shore...some of the barrels were dumped north of the pumping station
where they could have leaked their contents and then sucked into the municipal intake pipe.
An obvious question at this juncture is this? Has there been any medical proof that Duluthians
ingested any of these toxicants...certainly none that have come to my attention!
But there is this disconcerting enquiry made on November 11, 1976 to MPCA executive director Peter
Gove from Dr. Donald Mount, director of the EPA's research laboratory in Duluth. It says, in part, “We
have noticed again a change in water characteristics coming into our lake water intake at the
laboratory, such that some of our animals have stopped spawning and other behavioral
abnormalities have cropped up. We have noticed incidents of this nature from time to time in past
years.
In 1995, then Superior Mayor Herb Bergson contacted the Army Corps of Engineers urging further
research on contents of the nine barrels that were recovered and examined. He was told by the Corps
that, " They (the barrels)...have shown that they contain harmless, formerly classified scrap grenade
assemblies."
Apparently, MPCA Commissioner Chuck Williams didn't swallow the Corps' "all's well" with the
barrels....In a letter to then Senator David Durenburger he wrote"
It is the MPCA's belief that, without further examination of all of the dump sites, we cannot assure that
Lake Superior is adequately protected...we do feel that it's imperative that all of the dump sites be
investigated. It delays an environmental assessment that is long overdue. To the general public" says
Commissioner Williams,” it signals continued indifference by the Department of Defense to settling
the question of the barrels' contents once and for all. It also sends a message to the people of
Minnesota—and the rest of the nation—that the federal government is unwilling, unable or
uninterested in addressing environmental issues involving facilities."
Williams didn't see his request even minimally fulfilled....only five more barrels were raised and
examined but that seemed to be enough for him.
He told the News Tribune in 1994 " We are now satisfied that the barrels do not pose an immediate
threat. With all the other environmental priorities we have, we can't justify continued expenditures of
resources on barrels at this time." He then took a shot at those who wouldn't let the issue die when
he stated, “Although they are no doubt well-intentioned, those who call for continued efforts to recover
the barrels in Lake Superior are not well informed."
Ralph Pribble, a MPCA water quality expert bragged in 1995 that, “we got more than enough
information to make a confident decision"....the decision was, in effect, to ignore the barrels. The
Corps of Engineers added, "Our position is the same as it was that the barrels don't pose any threat.
There's no need to go back down."
Meantime MPCA spokesman in charge of that agency's involvement in the barrel issue gave his
frequently repeated claim that "We don't believe there's any short-term threat to human health." We've
seen nothing from him that would indicate whether this means there could be long-term threats to
human health.
Be assured that the barrel issue continues to be actively pursued by SLSA.