(00:00:00) As you mentioned Our Guest this afternoon is lube rhyme Hearst. He's executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency. The PCA and many ways is the state counterpart to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and has wide responsibilities and Authority relating to environmental issues and protection its technical staff might be conducting a variety of activities on any given day ranging from taking water samples and lakes to investigating suspected hazardous waste dumps to monitoring air and water effluent from industrial or power plants. The PCA has 320 full-time employees, excluding their legal staff and a budget of about 12 million dollars a year, which is almost equally divided between federal and state contributions. Its headquarters are in Roseville in the metro area, and the PCA also has five Regional Offices in Duluth Rochester Brainard, Detroit Lakes and Marshall. Mr. Breem Hearst became executive director six months ago when Governor Al We appointed him to succeed Terry Hoffman. He's been associated with the PCA since 1974 and has directed to of the agencies divisions those of solid waste and water quality before serving as Deputy executive director. His background is in civil engineering and he was graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1960. Welcome. Mr. Brian Maurice. Thank you Tom. I should also mention that we will be taking a number of questions from listeners for the better part of this hour and I'll be giving out our ksjn phone numbers in about 10 minutes. But first we can go over a few things that have been in the news lately. One of those things has to do with hazardous wastes and I know that it was some months ago that it came to public attention that there were a number of hazardous waste disposal sites that had been where it where toxic waste or industrial wastes had been stored for any number of reasons some time ago some fairly recent and in response to that the peace Established a strike force and publishes a monthly log of what those sites are where they are and what's being done about them. We haven't heard too much recently say in the past few weeks specifically about this and I guess the main question that arose then in which could be asked again right now is whether or not we seem to have the situation under control is 46 sites, which are now on the PCA is list of hazardous suspected hazardous waste disposal sites. Is that pretty much it with maybe two or three editions once in a while or is that just the tip of the iceberg? I think that's a good question Tom. I guess my judgment is that it may be the tip of the iceberg. I hope it's more than that that we have seen more than we're going to find in the future. But in reality there have been a number of disposal sites around the state. I'm sure where the material was disposed where it is not known where the disposal sites are at least known by US 46 Be just the beginning. We can't say with any assurance that this is at all near the end. Hmm what I noticed that the Ironwood sanitary landfill was in the news in the past few days and it's PCA is taking specific action in that situation and yet that came to our attention a good long time ago. Why does it take so long in in many individual cases for something to be done for enforcement to be levied? I guess against individual violators of pollution standards taking the Spring Valley situation. Specifically we first became aware that there may have been hazardous materials disposed at that landfill some you're a year and a half ago immediately because upon becoming aware of that. We did contact Advanced Transformer, which was a company that dispose the material at the landfill and we began working with them to identify what materials were buried they were cooperative and through the past year. They did excavate Of the barrels they did excavate the contaminated soil. The barrels were removed from the site in from the state to acceptable landfill areas. The material has been stockpiled. The soils has been stockpiled but we remain concerned about the contaminated groundwater. So a lot has happened and we have been working with the company. They have been Cooperative. The recent action really came about because there was a breakdown in negotiations between the company and the agency and there was disagreement over the extent of monitoring that should be conducted and the who's responsible for that monitoring and we thought that it was necessary to bring the lawsuit at this time so that the remedial program could continue forward as fast as possible, but there was a lot going on even though it looks like we didn't start enforcement action until now because the company had been cooperative and had done a lot of work. Hmm. Another thing that's been going on for quite a while is the pcas concern about the quality of water in the Mississippi River. And it might have come to be somewhat of a surprise to people that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency listed the Mississippi River particularly the stretch that is in Minnesota at least a 33 Mile Stretch of it as one of the more seriously contaminated stretches of water in the country. And I don't think you needed to be told that but the image that was created was that the federal people seem to know more about the Mississippi River than perhaps the state people and maybe I'm wondering what what you have been doing in regard to that. I was somewhat surprised by that release we were not informed ahead of time that the EPA was making this announcement or that they had made this determination. I think the water quality in the Mississippi River in the Twin City area has improved greatly in the last several years particularly in the last five years. There has been a lot of work gone on we have worked with the ways Control Commission in the metropolitan Council by the issuance of Charge permits to the Waste Control Commission for the discharge from that plant and that permit contains specific effluent limits that they must achieve. The about 32223 years ago, we became aware that the commission was not in full compliance with that permit. And we did enter into a stipulation agreement with them in 1979 specifying what actions they had to take to come back into compliance since the entering of that stipulation agreement that facility has been in compliance about 90% of the time. So there has been good progress made there is more to go is not to say that we're at the end of the line. There is more work that has to be done. But we're confident that that will be done and the rubber will continue to improve hmm. Why is it that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is going to be in charge of the program in the permits as I understand it for limiting industrial toxic wastes and and metal waste heavy metals that are that are discharged into the into the water system rather than the PCA. That's a decision that we made some years ago when the pre treatment program as it's called was The first came about and our determination was that the entity that is treating the waste in this case the waist Control Commission should have the responsibility for controlling the discharges to their own system all of these industries and I believe there are about 5,000 that the commission did notify of this pretreatment requirement discharged into the system owned and operated by the way Control Commission. And we feel that the responsibility is that of the commission we've done deal with the commission rather than with the 5,000 individual dischargers. We feel it's a more efficient than a more effective approach is some is the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Was it coincidental that this just happened to be announced at the same time or just within days of the Environmental Protection Agency announcement that the river was indeed fairly seriously contaminated. It was coincidental. We have been working with the commission for several years in the development of this pre treatment program. And like I say we weren't aware that the announcement was coming out from the EPA and I don't believe the ways Control Commission was either so I believe it was a matter of coincidence. Hmm. We were talking just before we went on the air about the budget which is for the PCA is about 12 million dollars a year. And you said I believe it's 45% and 55% contributed by state and federal or federal and state. I guess it would be the federal has just a little less than half. That's correct. There has been a lot of publicity about budget cuts under the Reagan Administration and that are falling particularly on the Environmental Protection Agency. What's that going to mean for for the state Pollution Control agency and the sources of funds it's been used to getting as far as the agency itself is concerned the information. We are getting from the Reagan Administration is that the program grants or the money that's given to the state to help us operate our program that 45% He referred to will remain at a At that level there are no indications that that will be reduced. It's not be an increase to keep up with inflation. But at least it is not being cut so that percentage will remain somewhat constant in the next biennium. As far as we can tell there are other Cuts I think that are going to affect minnesotans not particularly the agencies operation, but the Reagan Administration has proposed no money for the Construction Grants program. That's a program, whereby the federal government contributes 75% of the money to construct Municipal wastewater treatment facilities the state then matches that with 15% The Proposal we have seen is that there will be no funding for that program in 82. So that would be a severe have a severe impact on the city's in Minnesota to other programs. In the Water Area are not being funded one is called the 208 program. It's to await because that's the paragraph number and the law but that is a program that looks at what we call non-point sources of pollution or pollution that's caused by Ariel runoff from fields and forests and so forth. There will be no money for that program as we understand it. The money in previous years that the state has received has been around on an average figure of 250,000 dollars a year. The other area that's being eliminated is a program, whereby the federal government contributes money to help in restoring polluted lakes in Minnesota has been a recipient of some five million dollars in the past years in that program. We also understand that will be zeroed out. There will be no money for that program. So there will be impacts on the state because of the Reagan Administration cuts. How does that make you feel are these various projects just not going to be accomplished or does it mean that some of them say like the wastewater treatment facilities in some of the Cities will be continued but it'll just cost minnesotans more or does it really mean that we're really stopping in certain areas and it's not going to start up again until sometime in the future if then it depends on the program on the wastewater treatment program The Proposal is for additional funding in fiscal year 83, so that would mean that that program will resume albeit at a reduced level 83 to 85. I believe as a proposal Minnesota will be receiving approximately half of the money that we received in past years. So it will be a slow down not a complete control curtailment of that program which then that means that it's going to take longer to clean up some waterways. Is that generally disheartening for you? Or I think it is disheartening. We have contacted the Congressional Delegation of Minnesota and are asking them to give some help to us and trying to get funding restored for a 1982. We think it's important that they're not be zero funding in the complete Interruption of the program which is very disruptive not for the just the municipalities, but for the people that are designing the facilities and for the agency itself where we have staff assigned to that program has that to your knowledge affected morale at the PCA or perhaps even the employees whether or not they'll stay around and continue to work with government if they can. I haven't seen a large impact on the morale. I know there is a lot of concern among the employees on this reduction. I see more of a concern though with the municipalities the cities that thought they were going to get some money and now they're not besides the zero funding an 82 the administration also had a rescission of about 1.7 billion dollars nationally and Minnesota did lose considerable money in that effort. So there we were planning to fund a number of communities. We had 191 communities on our what we call our needs list for Project funding for 1980-81 and we're able only to fund 17 so you can see the impact that that would have on the municipalities. They're very concerned. Hmm to your knowledge is Minnesota affected more or less than a lot of other states in the country by the by the budget cutbacks on the federal level. We're probably very comparable to most of the I would say states east of here many of States the smaller states, of course don't have the number of cities to deal with or the number of problems to deal with that we have and we don't have the number that you would have further east in the larger States. So, but I think overall the impacts would be somewhat similar. Hmm. I think it's probably time if you can put on your headphones there to listen and to some of our listeners who may well have some calls to be addressed to mr. Lube Ryan Hurst who is executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency and is in our studios in st. Paul this afternoon. If you live in the metro area and would like to ask. Mr. Brian Hurst a question. The number is two two seven six thousand 2276000, and if you are not in the Twin Cities area, but would like to call we have a toll-free number from for people in other parts of the state. That number is 1-800-695-1418 hundred. Six, five two nine seven zero zero so as we wait for a few people to call in with some questions. I thought I'd also ask you another question here. You've you've been with the PCA and before that for a short time at least with the Environmental Protection Agency. And in one way or another through several years in the 1970s have been involved with things as we enter the period of the 1980s. What are we are we into any philosophical changes as far as the direction of our of our main governmental agencies as far as Pollution Control. I think we are seeing some some changes and I think we notice that most dramatically at the federal level at this time clearly the administration at this time is I think taking a slower approach to environmental control. They are looking at maybe deregulating or reviewing regulations to ensure that they're not onerous to the regulated community. And we see that they're looking more at the economic balance than was done before so I think there is a slight change that's most noticeable at the federal level and I think in general we do have to look at the economic impact of our regulations. We have to look at the need for the regulations and the reasonableness of the regulations at the state level and maybe across the board on the environmental movement. I think it's the maturing movement it began in the late 60s the early 1970s when not much had been done. There was a roar a lot. Pollution problems around they were very visible and there was a lot of public outcry for improvement a lot has been done throughout the 70s. We've made a lot of progress and I think the people generally are pleased with the progress that has been made there are some areas where there's a need for improvement obviously, but I think in general there's been a lot of support for the efforts and I think if you look at the public opinion polls today, even while that's not on the top of the list maybe necessarily but it certainly is there that the people still want environmental Improvement. They still want to clean environment and I think that's the message that we see in Minnesota good. I think we're ready for to listen to a few callers now, go ahead you're on the air. Please ask your (00:16:41) question. Yes. I'm calling from Minneapolis and my question is more of a specific than a general nature. But I work at FM C corporation and I was speaking recently to people that that deal with the What not waste that are generated in large quantities out there from the Machining processes and I was told that with the with the just straight oil non mixed with water oil that they use they separate that from the chips and they burn it in a way that I believe is approved. But that with the very large quantities many hundreds of gallons a day. I think of water soluble oil that is used as a coolant on the machines. It's a you know standard in all machine shops that this oil with all the other oils that are mixed with it frequently. No non-water soluble oil its cutting oil that this just goes right down the sewer directly and I assume therefore no mississippi. Is this a is this legal? That's my question. I (00:17:45) guess thank you. Okay, I think you would have to look at now these specific ordinance that has been proposed by the waist Control Commission in conjunction with your pre treatment program, but generally if it's a water soluble oil, it's just what it says. It's going to be mixed up with the waste water that goes to the treatment plan and it will get some removal at the treatment plant. We have not noticed in our stamping of the Mississippi River and observations of the river that there are oil problems either at the planet Pig's Eye or in the river Downstream of the discharge, but specifically I would guess that that is not illegal to discharge the water soluble oil of the mixture but I would suggest that you would have to look specifically at the ordinance to see if in fact there would be some pre treatment requirements placed on that type of material. You would suspect that the Waste Control Commission would have FMC on their list of several hundred. I guess Industries in the Twin Cities that are now going to have to much more carefully monitor what they are discharging. Yes. I'm sure they do. Hmm. Okay, let's go to another listener right now. Go ahead. You're on the air, please. (00:18:56) Yes. I'm calling from Circle Pines and we're just north of the Arden Hills Ammunition plant and recently I've heard that they had some problems with some pollution are pollutants in the past and I'm wondering what the nature of these pollutants are and just how widespread is the contamination of the groundwater in this area. (00:19:17) We have been investigating that matter at the at the arms plant and it was resulted from the disposal of solvents and other material in the ground in the past years. We don't know the complete areal extent of the contamination. We do know that there is some contamination of the groundwater. I mean in the immediate area we know there has been some impact on the wells in the area, but we have to do and complete a complete study before we know what the complete areal extent is. What might we be expecting in the near future or in the far future as far as any specific results from that study. Do you happen to know what your timetable is there? We are talking with the defense department in the Army who would be responsible for this study and we don't have a timeline yet. But normally these take four to six months to complete their not quick turnaround studies. They do require Sometimes some time to complete. So I would guess that we're looking at least a minimum of six months before we have any more detailed information and that would be after it starts but it hasn't started yet hasn't started yet. Are you expecting that something will come of your talks with the defense department in the near future. I'm sure it will they've been Cooperative so far and I think that we will get something underway fairly soon. Okay. Let's go to another listener now. Go ahead. You're on the air. (00:20:37) I'm calling from Victoria Minnesota and I want to know if you are aware of and what your view Might be love the fact that the Carver County landfill waste program has selected five sites and two alternate sites all of which. Are in the waters identified by the Hickok engineering firm as the headwaters in marshes and streams of Lake Minnetonka, which of course is we know flows on out through the creek and into the river. (00:21:15) Okay, the the identification process that you're speaking of is maybe a little background on this is part of the requirements of the waste management act that was recently passed by the state legislature. The 1980 session part of that act requires the Seven Counties in the metropolitan area to identify five sites for for sanitary landfills and one for demolition landfill and submit those proposed sites to the pollution control Agency for a technical review. So we can determine What's called the intrinsic suitability of the site. We are in that process now with the counties in the metropolitan area. We have not completed a detailed review of the sites in Carver County that will be done in the very near future. We will then be holding public hearings on these proposed sites. And anyone who's interested can come in and comment and present information to us on what our position should be concerning these landfills or the proposed sites for the landfills. So I can't specifically comment on the Carver County sites without seeing what the specific detailed information is, but there will be at some point public hearings where people can come and make you aware of things that you may not be aware of or that need some reinforcements and those dates for those hearings will be published by the PCA and the news media will be informed and be able to also pass that information along. Yes. That's correct. We will have that information and I could suggest if you would want to get the latest timeline for that that you would call the pollution control agency and I could give you a number to call for our general information and that would be number two nine six 7373 and they could give you information on when we anticipate having our public hearings on the Carver County sites. Okay. It is 28 minutes after 12. We are talking with mr. Lube rhyme Hurst who is executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency. We're taking calls from our listeners. And if you're if you would like to ask him a question, if you're in the metro area, you can call to 276 thousand 2276000. If you are outside the metro area, we have a toll-free number at 1 800 662 help 907 001 865 to 97 00 the toll-free number for people who live outside the metro area. We do have other listeners who are waiting. Let's go to the next one right now. Go ahead. You're on the air. (00:23:53) It's bright and I'm 11 years old and I'm from st. Paul and I chemistry class was studying acid rain and we went to the public hearing and we testified to think that if we don't do something about it that soon we will reach the pH that the hens got one of two if we don't disagree about to (00:24:15) thank you for your question Elizabeth. I'm very glad that you did attend our public hearings that shows a real interest in the the problem that we have in Minnesota. We have been conducting a study of acid rain and what were generally finding is that the Lakes generally North and Northeast and the northeastern part of the state are most susceptible to the acid rain problem. We also note that the precipitation and that area is more acidic than in other parts of the state. Our studies show that maybe up to 10% of the lakes are would be susceptible to the acid rain or the pH problem. I hope we don't get to the stage where they have the problem like they do in the either the northeastern part of this country or in northern Europe. We haven't noticed that so far and that's a very critical part of our public hearing at this time to determine what is the appropriate standard ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide so that we can protect and not have this acid rain problem. The the ambient air quality standard which is being debated in the public hearings is is has been going on for quite a long time and I guess since February these hearings have been being conducted. We began our hearings on February 11 and they've been going on off and on since that time. We anticipate that the hearings will continue into September maybe through September before that hearing process is completed. We would anticipate that the agency board would act on the specific standard Sometime Late this calendar year early in 1982 are people who are concerned with acid rain best directing their efforts in terms of these ambient air quality standards or might there be other air quality standards say effluence from power plants or from industries that might be larger contributors than what we're really talking about in these in these hearings that are going on right now. I think a more appropriate way to address the acid rain problem is by through the emission standards and not Surly by the ambient standard what we have to look at is to reduce the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions as much as we can the ambient standard won't necessarily address that problem directly. Although we have to have an appropriate ambient standard also, where do we stand with emission standards right now are those under review or is there any movement say to challenge those and either relax them or make them more stringent? The the standards are are in existence. There are federal standards that new sources have to conform with and standards that the agency has those are not under review at this time. The only standards that we have under review and are active reviewing the hearing process are the ambient air quality standards. Do you have any information from the federal government, which I guess in various ways has proposed some changes in both the Clean Air and clean water acts whether or not the federal government might be relaxing its standards or might propose to do that. Near future regarding air emission standards. I'm not sure about the air emission standards. I know they are considering relaxing their ambient air quality standards and there has been some discussion about looking at the other standards. Also, I don't have any specifics on that at this time, but there is some indication that there might be some relaxation of the ambient standards. Okay, we have other listeners waiting patiently. Let's go to another one right now. Go ahead. You're on the (00:27:38) air. Hi Lou. I live in Minneapolis. And I don't drink the water here. I read a chart that was published in Newsweek. I think it was two years ago, and it was a scale of I think they went up to 400 and they listed anything over 97 or a hundred is a danger level and Minneapolis was 102 on that list for drinking water we're talking about my question is what are the alternatives to drinking water from the Mississippi River if there are any if ther feasible as far as expenditures and if that rating has improved any or if you're familiar with the reading that was published, (00:28:28) I'm not specifically familiar with a radiant. So I don't know what parameters were included or how they arrived at it. The information we have is that the Minneapolis water is perfectly safe to drink as is the same Paul water and I guess I don't know what what document you're referring to or the study you were referring to so I can't comment on that specifically if you have questions, I would suggest that May want to call the Department of Health who does monitor and control the drinking water for the state. Did you have a follow-up question sir? Okay, thank you. Let us then move to another caller and go to his or her question right now. Go ahead (00:29:09) please thank you. I'm calling from metropolitan area and I'm concerned about the radioactive waste from weapons manufacturing at Honeywell. I noticed this last week that they plan to burn radioactive materials and I was wondering first of all if the PCA has any say about this and secondly, what is the safety or the danger of doing something like this (00:29:32) the specific proposal that you're talking about is that Honeywell has proposed or is looking at a way of oxidizing depleted uranium that they use in their production process. We met with Honeywell earlier this week to get some information on this process and our early review indicates that the Air pollution control equipment that they will have on the system will certainly take care of the normal emissions that you would be concerned with primarily the particulate matter. We want to review and much more detail how that will remove any radioactive emissions that might occur. So we are not we have barely scratched the surface on our review of this proposal. So we really don't know at this time how we would react to it the agency would require and what issue and emission Source permanent air pollution permit for the facility. There may also have to be an environmental review. I think we would do an environmental assessment first. That's the first step in the environmental review process. So I'm sure this would get a complete review before anything occurs. If your review showed that this was okay what might be the earliest that something like this might be able to take place if if it was okay, and I guess how long would the process begin from? Are we are now how long would the process take to determine that depends on a number of things that depends first of all on how interested Honeywell is in pursuing this proposal and assuming that they are interested we would have to get more information from the company for review the environmental assessment worksheet. It's called the first step in there. You can environmental review process would take at least 30 days and possibly 60 days before we could bring it back to our agency board for their consideration. And what that document does. Is it really determines if you should do an environmental impact statement now if the answer to that is yes, then you're looking at at least an additional six months to a year before that document would be completed and then you're looking at a permitting process and if there is controversy on the permit you looking at some additional four to six months, so If you take the long time line, I think you're looking at maybe a year and a half to two years before it could be in place. If everything goes smooth and there is no controversy then it may go as rapidly as four to six months. Hmm it that raises a fairly interesting question when an industry or a corporation comes to you with something like this it obviously takes an awful lot of PCA staff time and energy and research and who pays for what portions of that. Is there some sort of general rule. It's followed when when you are working with a particular industry or corporation on such matters. We have no fee structure that we charge an applicant. So all of the costs that are borne by the agency are funded by the legislature they are they come out of our budget. Okay, that's pretty clear answer. It is 22 minutes. Now before one o'clock. We're visiting with Lube rhyme Hearst executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency and taking calls from listeners. From within the metro area and from around the state of Minnesota. If you are in within the metro area and would like to call in a question. Our number here is 2276 thousand 2276000. If you are outside the metro area and would like to call us we have a toll-free number. That number is 1-800-695-1418. 1-800-695-1418 a few lines that are available if you want to call now, you could probably get a question in before one o'clock here. We do have a couple people on the line. However, and let's go to the next listener right now. Go ahead (00:33:20) please. I'm calling from Lake st. Croix Beach and I'm wondering what are the regulations governing compost heaps. And at what point does it get a compost heap become a public health hazard? Third (00:33:33) I don't know the size of the compost operation you're talking about but if it is a compost operation that's conducted Say by a municipality in there are several in the area. They would require would be required that they get a permit from the agency and we would look to make sure that the operation is conducted in a safe manner. If you're talking about a backyard compost operation. We do not get involved in that and I would suggest that they should or you should work with the local authorities on that matter. We can provide technical assistance and console consultation on composting and we're interested in doing that. So if you do have questions and would like some assistance, I would suggest that you call our office and that number again since we mentioned it earlier in the hour, but if you do have some questions relating to some specific issues and and either can't ask them today or they come up later. What's that number? Again? The number is 2 9 6 7373. Okay. Thank you. Let's go to another listener now. Go ahead. You're on the air. (00:34:29) I asked the question relating to the five sites that have so Far been recommended as Carver County as landfill site and I was aware of all the information that you very correctly gave relating to the program and the need for it. My question was would it disturb you or what do you think of the possibility of landfill or garbage dumps being put on sites that are directly and already positively identified as lands marshes that are adjacent to Waters that do form the Watershed for (00:35:12) Minnetonka. I wasn't aware. I haven't like I say, I haven't seen the specific information on the site's and we don't anticipate a hearing on the Carver County sites until sometime in early September, but we would not allow a landfill to be in a marshy area. If that's one of the proposals otherwise, it would depend on the geology of the area and what type of soils are in the area and it will also depend on if you are going to put in a liner in a leachate collection system or not. So I think you cannot judge it simply because it's in a watershed that it would be unacceptable would depend on the site-specific conditions, which I haven't seen. Okay, I think that answers the question. Let's go to another listener right now, please go ahead you're on the air. (00:35:55) Hello. I'm calling from Chisago County. I live in a rural area here and I'm concerned a little bit about the use of sludge. I think sewage treatment sludge on you know for fertilizer in the cropland and what I'm wondering is if any of the you know, heavy metals or whatever might be in there could contaminate my well and how would I go about finding (00:36:18) out? Okay, we do work with the ways Control Commission. And that is that agency that is land spreading sludge from the wastewater treatment plant. We do have requirements that they must meet before we allow any sludge to be land spread in among those requirements is a limitation on the concentration of heavy metals that can be in the sludge and based on what the analysis shows. We then limit the quantity of material that can be placed on any given site. We also require that the commission monitor those sites. Before and after placement of the sludge. We think it's a good program. We think it's a good use of the sludge. It's used as a fertilizer as a resource and we think it can be done safely. Okay, we have other callers waiting on the line. Let's go to another one right now. Go ahead please. (00:37:08) Hello. I'm calling from Minneapolis yesterday the administration revealed that it had some proposals to reduce emission standards on automobiles. I understand that motor vehicle emissions have been a serious air pollution problem in Minneapolis. I wondered if there is any chance that the state government will take a stand against the relaxation and auto emission standards. (00:37:34) I haven't seen the specifics of The Proposal but I can tell you my general reaction and that simply is that from the information I've seen it shows that the cost to put on and meet the auto emissions standards as they now exist for the next several years is only about $100 per automobile. I don't think that's a very owner as cost. Especially when you look at the total cost of an automobile. And if you consider that the emission from an automobile including nitrogen oxides Is a contributor to the acid rain problem so my general reaction to it is that I don't think it's advisable at this time to reduce the auto emission standards. Okay, again a reminder that we are listening and talking with Lube rhyme Hearst executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency. It is 16 minutes now before one o'clock and we are taking calls from listeners. So if you have a question for mr. Breem Hearst about the environment or about some of the work that the pollution control agency is doing or is about to do or has just finished. We have two numbers. If you're in the metro area, you can call two two seven six thousand 2276000. If you are not in the metro area, we have a toll-free number and that is 1-800-662-2386. 1-800-662-2386 do have a number of people waiting patiently on the line. So let's get to another one right now. Go ahead please. Hi, you're on the air. (00:39:08) Yes. I am from the Brighton Minnesota. And I have three questions. First one is that there has been a report produced by the by the US Army about the kiss cam contamination about the landfill sites in the Arsenal to enthuse Arsenal and this was produced in the article was produced in 1978 of October to be exact and I was just curious on why Minnesota Pollution Control agency has not done any while checking well checking from that period of 72 presently and the only note only found out about it recently. The report that I'm referring to is u.s. Army report number 2 number 1 number 1 to 9, and it was produced by the by Army Corps of Engineers, I believe (00:40:07) sir. Maybe I'll ask you quickly to State your other two questions too. So that perhaps some of them may be able to be answered together in the same statement of he is. Mr. Brian Hurst is to answer the whole issue of the Twin Cities Army disposal site. So go ahead and ask the other two quickly and will write them down (00:40:25) here. I try I read very quickly briefly on that report at the Minnesota Pollution Control agency about the New Brighton well contamination. I went to the Arsenal to try get a copy of that and they have refused me. And first question is where in within the government that can write to to get a copy of that report or and a second one towards any other information dealing with New Britain New Brighton. Well contamination (00:40:57) Okay. Okay, the I understand you to say that you went to the arms plant and not to our agency for the information the information that we have in our files on a particular site is public information and you're certainly welcome to it. If you want to come out and look at it. The only caveat is if we are in a litigation stance or some way that the material has been given a confidential status but to my knowledge, it has not been confidentiality would only deal with the process and would not deal with the findings of any investigation. So that information would be available in our office going back to your first question of why did it take us so long to conducts investigations of the wells specifically I can answer your question. I don't know we most recently became aware of it within the last several months and we have begun working since that time, but I can't answer your earlier question. There was a report though to your knowledge that was three years back in 1978 referring to the site. I I was not aware of that in 78. So I I can't answer that question. Okay. And as you said you're negotiating right now with the defense department to try to figure out who's going to pay for probably a fairly extensive study into the whole area. Yes, and I believe the army they have been cooperative and I think they will conduct the study. The question is how extensive study is needed and how much are they willing to go and how much detail are they wanting to go into? Okay. I hope that answered our listeners different questions on it. And if not, there is a number at the pollution control agency that that he might be able to call for additional information. And that number I think was to 967373. That's correct. Okay, we have other people waiting on the line. Let's go to another listener right now. Go ahead, please. (00:42:42) Yes. I'm calling from the city of Plymouth and on three occasions. The previous week I've had a chance to have a drink of water in the city of New Hope and it appears that there's quite a bit of a mildew flavor to the water. And I wonder if this is part of a widespread problem or if it's an accident unique to the city of New Hope or what you could tell me about this (00:43:06) specifically. I don't think I can tell you very much except at this time a year and I'm not sure where a new hope that teams our water supply but if it is a surface water supply this time of year you have algal blooms and you will get and sometimes do get the taste of that in your water. It's still perfectly safe to drink now if that's not the case, then you may want to check more specifically on that that problem and again on drinking water. I would suggest that you contact the Department of Health who has the regulatory control on drinking water might there also be somebody in New Hope the city would be able to answer questions like that. Certainly I would suggest You also call the city. Okay other people waiting. Go ahead please with your question. You're on the air. (00:43:53) I have two more questions from Lake st. Croix Beach. Okay, why are the downtown for the barges in downtown? St. Paul River barge is all covered and yet out here on the st. Croix the coal barges are never covered and then why aren't the gravel trucks forced to cover their loads on I-94. These are real hazards. I've had windshield broken by dropping stones and I understand that it is a regulation that they're supposed to be covered. (00:44:18) Thank you again. I suppose don't think that's a requirement of the pollution control agency. It would be if it factors contributed to a particular problem as an air pollution problem. Otherwise, it may be a requirement on highways of the Department of Transportation from a safety aspect and I would suggest there that you may want to contact a dick Brown the commissioner of Transportation. Okay, and she also had the first question had to do with barges on our shipping. Yes. And again that would be as far as Transportation goes and State Transportation safety. That would be with the Department of Transportation. Normally I would think they would want to cover the barges. If in fact they're traveling any distance to minimize the any contamination or Omission from a barge but I think on the st. Croix they're traveling from a transfer Point close to the sword of the mouth of the st. Croix River and then up to the plant to the the NSP plant now on this King plan. So the distance traveled is very small and maybe that's why they don't cover. This is also a gas but barges who carry a lot of different supplies, maybe some of the things that the reason why some barges are covered and some others are not depends on what the cargo is certainly would could be grain could be Cole could be a number of things sure. That would be a consideration. Is there any source of information related to that though that she might go to you said that would the Department of Transportation be involved in that or the you may want to contact the Department of Transportation to see if they do have any regulations and requirements in that area particularly on the highway question. I think also both Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I know st. Paul for sure has people in city council government or in city government who are planners and who are environmental Specialists who deal with the problems of barges in the cities and the regulations governing them and it could well be that a call to either Minneapolis or st. Paul might yield some information also on that or at least some direction as to where to go next. Okay, we have other people waiting to ask questions. Let's go to another one right now. Go ahead, please. (00:46:26) Hello. (00:46:28) I guess we might may have lost that listener, but we still do have some other people waiting also. So let's go to another listener. Go ahead. You're on the air, please. (00:46:36) Yes. I'm calling from tar Minnesota and I had two questions one. What is the policy of the of the agency on the use of 245 D and what is being done to promote or encourage hand application of herbicides overspraying over aerial spraying? (00:46:53) Thank you. We did conduct a study several years ago on aerial spraying in selected areas of the blue wasn't Superior National Forest using 245 D. I believe that's the material you mentioned. We found that through this study that the material did not last in the water. We did not detect in the water. And if we did it, it was a dissipated very rapidly. We did not find any residual contamination in the water that we were measuring we do not have a policy of prohibiting the use of this material if it's done in an acceptable manner specifically though, we do not regulate that either that is done by the Department of Agriculture the use of pesticides or many times. It's applied by the Department of Natural Resources, and you may want to contact those those agencies also, but the pollution control agency does not have a policy prohibiting the use of material provided it's done in a safe and acceptable manner would the A likely to be get involved if there was some concern or sore some some perhaps preliminary evidence that such matters might need some attention and further study sure. If there's any indication that there is a problem we would get involved and we would want to make sure that the operation is conducted so that you don't have environmental damage. How am I right whether or not that was creating a problem get to your attention in the first place. Would it be by people calling you or how is it that the pollution control agency begins to hear about and take action on specific things that haven't heretofore been addressed many times. It's by the the citizens themselves calling us. We do receive a number of complaints and concerns by citizens throughout the state and we do investigate every one of them. We have like Tom mentioned are five Regional Offices. And we do ask them to conduct all investigations on complaints that we receive and that's how a lot about the work begins. Okay, we have time for one or maybe two more questions. So let's go to another listener right now. Go ahead, please. (00:48:56) Hello. I'm calling from South Minneapolis. And I'm calling in reference to the Honeywell intention to incinerate nucleotides in I believe New Brighton Area. My first question is how can they expect to render nucleotides harmless by simple incineration? And the secondary question is how can they possibly have a conscience to dispose of nucleotides in such a large metropolitan area? (00:49:23) Okay, thank you. Okay, we have looked at the proposal and we have not completed our review of it at this time. We did meet with Honeywell earlier this week and they are proposing a fairly sophisticated treatment system to handle the emissions from the incineration or oxidation of this depleted uranium. We think the system has a proposed will handle the particulate matter very adequately. We have not completed our review This concerns the radioactive emissions and we do want to do much more study in that area. Is that likely by the way to Come to any sort of public hearing at any point. I'm sure it would if there is concern people can request a public hearing on our agency permit. And if there is an environmental impact statement on the project, there will be a public hearing on the impact statement. So there will be opportunity for public comment and input. Okay. I think we have time for one more brief question. There's listener who's been patiently waiting on the phone. Go ahead please with your question. (00:50:22) Yes. I live in the metropolitan area and I've often wondered why can't the funding for the PCA come from the various companies that pollute the various environmental systems. I mean, it takes seems like it's going to progressively get worse and worse where the funding for the PCA is Getting less and less why couldn't a percentage of the profits like royalties be charged to the companies for your service. (00:50:44) That's a good question. And it is a question that we have looked at. It is a question that has been looked at by the legislature. That is a matter that ultimately would have to be dealt with by the legislature. What we specifically looked at was charging a fee for permits that we issue and we would assess the fee based on the size of the facility and also on the amount of time and effort that the agency would have to go into in reviewing an issuing that permit that is a good question. It's one that we have looked at but it is one that would have to be debated in the legislative process. Do you know if that question has been debated by other legislators and perhaps other similar pollution control agencies in some other states in this country are in effect subsidized to a certain degree by industry that is done and it was done in the state of Michigan not specifically on permit issuance, but it was done on monitoring where the industries that were being monitored were required and assess a certain fee for the monitoring activity and that then fee supported the activity of the agency.