« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
managing body of any municipality, governmental subdivision, or public or private corporation."
The commission has a history of cooperating with water pollution control agencies in adjoining States as is indicated by joint resolutions with such agencies in North Dakota and Wisconsin and specifically a joint resolution of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission and the Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution regarding the St. Croix River dated the 11th day of August 1953.
The two States of Minnesota and Wisconsin have a history of cooperation in numerous stream surveys of all common boundary waters which include the Mississippi River, the St. Croix River and the St. Louis River.
Meetings have been held with, and information has been supplied to, the Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution relative to the proposed project on which this hearing is being held.
The commission is not unfamiliar with the problem of thermal pollution as several permits for heated waste discharge have been issued and thermal pollution is dealt with in standards adopted by the commission for three sections of the Mississippi River and in proposed standards for two sections of the lower Minnesota River and tributaries thereto.
The commission welcomes any comments or suggestions which this committee may wish to offer and desires to request a copy of the transcript of this hearing.
The following documents are submitted for the record :
Application by Northern States Power Co. for permit for discharge of circulating water to St. Croix River, Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No. 1, Oak Park Heights.
Notice of public hearing on application by Northern States Power Co. for permit for discharge of circulating water to St. Croix River from Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No. 1, Oak Park Heights, Minn.
Joint resolution, Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission and Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution dated 11th day of August 1953.
Policy statement adopted by the Water Pollution Control Commission on April 18, 1963.
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.,
Minneapolis, Minn., August 5, 1964. Re application for permit for discharge of circulating water to St. Croix
River-Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No. 1, Oak Park Heights.
GENTLEMEN : Northern States Power Co. hereby makes application for a permit to discharge to the St. Croix River circulating water for condenser cooling from its proposed Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No. 1, in Oak Park Heights, Minn.
The location of the point of discharge is shown on the attached print of drawing NF-E5577-P1, which is the tentative layout of the proposed plant.
Applications are being made to the Minnesota Department of Conservation for a permit to appropriate the water from the St. Croix River which will be used for the condenser cooling and to appropriate ground water for the plant sanitary system and feedwater makeup.
It is necessary that this plant be in service early in 1968. To that end construction must begin in January 1965 and site preparation in October 1964.
The maximum full-load heat rejection from the plant is estimated at 2,520 times 10% British thermal units per hour and the average daily heat rejection from the plant is estimated at 2,320 times 109 British thermal units per hour. The marimum rate of discharge is estimated at 660 cubic feet per second; the minimum rate is estimated at 395 cubic feet per second.
A separate application will be made for the plant sanitary sewage disposal system.
If further information is required, we are available at the convenience of your staff to discuss the proposed design in greater detail.
We respectfully request that the commission issue a permit to Northern States Power Co. to discharge circulating water from Allen S. Knight unit No. 1 to the St. Croix River. Yours very truly,
HIBBERT HILL, Vice President-Engineering.
STATE OF MINNESOTA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
Notice of public hearing on application by Northern States Power Co. for permit for discharge of circulating water to St. Croix River from Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No.1, Oak Park Heights, Minn. Pursuant to authorization of the Water Pollution Control Commission and in accordance with applicable statutes, a public hearing will be held by said commission or by one or more authorized members, employees, or agents thereof in the Auditorium Theater at 215 South Second Street, Stillwater, Minn., on January 13, 1965, at 10 a.m., for the purpose of hearing evidence and receiving information bearing upon the application by the Northern States Power Co. for a permit for the discharge of circulating water to the St. Croix River from the proposed Allen S. King Generating Plant, unit No. 1, to be constructed in Oak Park Heights, Minn.
Testimony offered thereat should be pertinent to the matter at hand and confined to water pollution control aspects or related matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Water Pollution Control Commission. Evidence may be presented in either written or oral form.
ROBERT N, BARR, M.D.,
Secretary, Water Pollution Control Commission. Dated: November 30, 1964.
Joint RESOLUTION-MINNESOTA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION AND
WISCONSIN COMMITTEE ON WATER POLLUTION Whereas the St. Croix River is an interstate stream common to the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin and pollution thereof originating in one State does or may adversely affect public health or public rights in both States, thus creating a problem of common interest and requiring correction by said States; and
Whereas sewage and industrial wastes, now discharged into said river and its tributaries, do create or are likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic
, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate uses, or to livestock, wildlife, fish or other aquatic life; and
Whereas protection of public health and preservation of public rights demand that said waters shall be made suitable for legitimate uses : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission and Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution each does hereby agree to require the effective correction of existing pollution and prevention of additional pollution within the boundaries of its State as provided by the laws of such State to the end that said waters may be maintained or rendered suitable for all purposes heretofore defined and that, in furtherance of said objectives, the guiding policy shall be the requirement that facilities for treatment of sewage for all sewered municipalities shall provide at least effective sedimentation plus chlorination, with such design of treatment plants that secondary or other higher degrees of treatment may be added as conditions may require, and that facilities for treatment of industrial waste shall provide the most effective treatment warranted by conditions in each case with the understanding that additional or special type treatment be required where water uses so dictate ; and be it further Resolved, That adoption of this resolution by the water pollution control agency of each State shall be evidenced by the signature of its executive officer, Dated this 11th day of August 1953.
A. J. CHESLEY, M.D.,
THEODORE F. WISNIEWSKI,
MINNESOTA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION-ST. CROIX RIVER
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Present and future uses of the St. Croix River and the necessity for preservation of this river were discussed.
M made by Dr. Barr, S by Mr. D. Wilson, and C, that the following be adopted as a general policy of the commission to be applied to the municipalities on the St. Croix River :
1. Provision should be made for both primary and secondary treatment, with chlorination, for all new sanitary sewage discharges. Equivalent treatment should be provided for industrial wastes.
2. Where a lesser degree of treatment is now provided, additional treatment facilities should be constructed as rapidly as is feasible. April 18, 1963, commission action. Senator Nelson. Is there another witness for Minnesota ! Will you state your name for the record, please?
STATEMENT OF FRANK L. WOODWARD, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Mr. WOODWARD. My name is Frank L. Woodward. I am State sanitary engineer of Minnesota. My title is director, division of environmental health.
Senator NELSON. I am glad to have you appear before the Commission. You may read excerpts of your statement, or summarize anything that should be summarized, and all the statements you submit will
be included in the printed record. Mr. WOODWARD. I am here at the direction of the secretary of the State board of health. The statement I am making is the statement of the State Board of Health of Minnesota.
Senator NELSON. Thank you.
Mr. WOODWARD. I believe, Senator, this being very short and there being nothing in terms of quotes, that I might read the entire two pages and a bit more and will also submit attachments to which I will make reference in the statement.
Senator NELSON. Thank you.
The Minnesota State Board of Health is honored to have the opportunity of being represented at this hearing for the purpose of presenting this statement regarding the activities and concerns of the board in matters relating to air pollution. While Minnesota is not likely to experience air pollution problems as extensive as those that have been encountered in the more heavily industrialized areas, the State board of health has long recognized the need for develop ment of a program of air pollution control.
The Minnesota Legislature, in 1917, authorized the State board of health to adopt regulations having the force of law relating to matters of public health. In general, the board has requested specific amendments to the law, Minnesota statutes, section 144.12, to authorize the adoption of regulations under this authority for particular areas of concern. In 1957, the board requested the legislature to amend the statute to permit adoption of regulations on atmospheric pollution. Before passage, this amendment was reworded to read : "atmospheric pollution which may be injurious or detrimental to public health.” Attachment A to this statement contains the pertinent material relating to this permissive authority.
Feeling the need for development of some competence in the field of air pollution control, the board has made several requests for appropriations to establish a minimum air pollution control program but, thus far, these requests have not been fruitful. The board, nonetheless, has made every effort to use its influence constructively in these matters in every way possible. Some examples of these efforts follow :
1. For the past 11 years the board has participated in the national air sampling network, operating an air sampling station on the roof of the State board of health building in Minneapolis and also assisting in arrangements for establishing stations in other parts of the State. During the past 9 years, the board has participated in the radiation surveillance network of the U.S. Public Health
Service, collecting air samples at the same location in addition to other measures carried on for detection of radioactive contamination of the environment. Thus far, these requests have not been fruitful.
2. The board has diverted personnel from other programs, insofar as possible, to develop a limited competence to provide technical consultative assistance to local government units, industries, and others in the design of solutions to specific air contaminati problems. These activities have included the acquisition of some basic equipment for field investigations and analysis.
3. A joint study of air pollution, as a present and future problem in Minnesota,
was undertaken in 1959 and 1960 cooperatively with the U.S. Public Health !
Service. The report of this 9-month appraisal was issued in early 1961 and widely circulated. A copy of this report is attached (attachment B). (In committee files.)
A copy of this report is included in booklet form. I recommend, for the record, the committee might only wish to take the conclusions
which appear at the beginning of the report. This is attachment B.
Senator NELSON. The staff will put the appropriate summary or e excerpts from that report into the record, and your remarks, in toto,
as read will be part of the record.
Mr. WOODWARD. We are furnishing the entire report because there is background material there which we think may be of value in your interpretation.
Senator Nelson. You may continue. Mr. WOODWARD (reading): 4. At the request of the Ramsey County legislative delegation and officials of the city of St. Paul, a bill was prepared proposing a State air pollution control program for consideration by the 1963 legislature. The bill was not enacted.
5. In March of 1964 the board appointed an air pollution advisory committee to assist in the development of recommendations concerning "specific legislative needs at the State and local levels of government in this problem area, in air pollution, with appropriate recognition of the special control problems presented by the Twin Cities metropolitan complex," and to "assist in the delineation and definition of the appropriate role of the State government and the State board of health in air pollution regulatory and control functions in the State.” The full charge to this committee and a copy of the membership of this committee are appended (attachments C). This committee has just completed a progress report and has prepared recommendations for air pollution legislation to be submitted to the board for its consideration. The progress report and the legislative recommendations are also attached (attachment D). It is planned that a bill will be drawn with the assistance of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes for presentation to the forthcoming session of the State legislature.
When preliminary proposals for a large electric-generator plant at Oak Park, Minn., became known, the board immediately requested the assistance of the U.S. Public Health Service's Division of Air Pollution to evaluate this matter, and this assistance was forthcoming. A report of the Public Health Service evaluation has just been received and a copy of the conclusions and recommendations of this report is attached (attachment E). Also, the board requested and obtained in September 1964 an emergency grant of $3,000 from the State Legislative Advisory Committee in order to enable the board to contract for the consultative services of a qualified air pollution control expert to render an additional objective opinion concerning these questions and to offer rec. ommendations for any special controls necessary to prevent objectionable air pollution problems as a result of this facility. This independent report is exDected to be available in the near future.
I might point out the reason we had to get outside consultation is because under our program we have not been able to develop the competence within the State service that could answer some of the questions that are necessary on the case. It seems apparent that while Minnesota does have specific air pollution problems, none of these are of grave magnitude
or insoluble. It is the viewpoint of the board that principal objectives of air pollution control activities at the local and State levels of government in Minnesota for the foreseeable future can be
principally directed at the prevention of the development of conditions evident in many much more highly industrialized areas of the country today. The resolution of existing air pollution problems and the control and preservation of the generally excellent quality of the air resources in Minnesota require only public and industrial recognition of the need for broadened State and local authority to deal effectively with air pollution problems and adequate financing translated into effective programing by the State legislature.
The board has a long history of cooperating with its neighboring States in matters of joint interest, and it will most certainly cooperate with Wisconsin in any matters suggesting an interstate air pollution problem.
That is the end of my statement.
Senator NELSON. I notice on the first page of your testimony, the third paragraph, that you state that the board made several requests for appropriations to establish a minimum air pollution control program. To whom were those requests made?
Mr. WOODWARD. These are made in our biennial budget.
Senator Nelson. Have you made any requests to the Federal Government under the Clean Air Act of 1964?
Mr. WOODWARD. We have not because of the fact we have no air pollution money at the State level to match the money from the Clean Air Act.
Senator NELSON. I see.
Mr. WOODWARD. I might point out, when I say we have borrowed people from other programs, the people we have borrowed are people who are now on funds supplied by the Federal program grants. These cannot be matched against the clean air funds, as we understand it. This puts us at a point where we just can't match any Federal money in this field. We are without a specific State appropriation.
Senator NELSON. Did you have any questions, Senator Metcalf?
Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, this attachment E, which is the evaluation of the air pollution aspect of the proposed large electric generator plant, sets forth at least a marginal case for air pollution. Suppose under standards established over in Wisconsin, either by statute or otherwise, it was felt that here was a case for a denial as a result of that pollution, and Minnesota went right ahead and said there wasn't any air pollution, what would happen?
Mr. WOODWARD. You are speaking of attachment E?
Senator METCALF. Yes. I am saying, as I read attachment E, the case is at least marginal.
Mr. WOODWARD. Attachment E is the summary and conclusion of the report of the specialists on air pollution
Senator METCALF (interrupting). After you read that summary report and your agency comes to the conclusion that pollution which would only exceed human perception threshhold for sulfur dioxide occasionally and long-term chronic effects will be experienced by longlived vegetation such as trees would not justify the denial of a license, but Wisconsin said it woud, what would you do about it?
Mr. WOODWARD. Senator, I don't feel that the State Board of Health of Minnesota is in any position to issue a permit for-you mention materials likely to cause pollution, nor to deny the issuance of a permit. Our authority in this field is so limited due to the adoption of regulations and no regulations have been adopted. I might point out that one of the reasons that we had for requesting the authority without adopting the regulations in 1957 was the knowledge that air pollution