November 9, 1972
Chkogo, Illinois
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC SESSION
Pollution off Lake Michigan
and its Tributary Basin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
Perry/
cjt
Public Session of the Lake Michigan
States and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
convened at 9:30 a.m., November 9, 1972, in
the Gold Room of the Pick-Congress Hotel, Chicago,
Illinois, Mr. Francis T. Mayo, Regional
Administrator, Region V of the Environmental
Protection Agency, presiding.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Oliver D. Williams, Assistant Administrator,
Division of Environmental Protection,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, Wisconsin.
William L. Blaser, Director, Environmental
Protection Agency, State of Illinois,
Springfield, Illinois.
Oral H. Hert, Technical Secretary, Stream
Pollution Control Board, Indiana State
Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
P-^L, - »
-
-------
Ralph W. Purely, Executive Secretary,
Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, Michigan.
James 0. McDonald, Director, Enforcement
Division, U, S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois
Jerome R. McKersle, Chief Water quality
Evaluation Section, Bureau of Standards
and Surveys, Division of Environmental
Protection, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
Carl T. Blomgren, Manager, Standards
Section, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
Jacob D. Dumelle, Member, Illinois Pollution
Control Board, Chicago, Illinois.
4 ,,
• ' ;
-------
Samuel L. Moore, Director, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Indiana State
Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Carlos Fetterolf, Chief Environmental
Scientist, Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Lansing, Michigan.
Dale S. Bryson, Deputy Director, Enforcement
Division, U, S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
-------
PUBLIC SESSION
OF THE
LAKE MICHIGAN STATES AND
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOVEMBER 9, 1972
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Ms. Lillian M. Banahan, Attorney
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
9800 Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Yates M. Barber
Fish and Wildlife Administrator
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
U.S. Dept of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 22003
Mr. Casey Buk.ro
Environment Editor
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Carol A. Curran, Attorney
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan Ave.
Milwaukee, Wise. 53201
Mr. Richard J. Belmonte, Civil Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Quincy Dadisman, Reporter
Milwaukee Sentinel
10817 N. San Marino Dr.
Mequon, Wise. 53092
Mr. William L. Blaser, Director
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, 111. 62706
Mr. Carl T. Blomgren
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2121 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, 111. 60612
Mr. Hal Bonner
Businessmen for the Public Interest
109 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Stephen K. Breslauer
Staff Consultant
NUS CORP
4 Research PI.
Rockville, MD. 20850
Mr. Harlan Draeger, Reporter
Chicago Daily News
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jack A. Druckemiller
Manager of Environmental Affairs
Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.
2101 Spy Run Ave.
Ft. Wayne, Ind. 46801
Mr. Nick Dudiak
Assistant Ecologist
Dames & Moore
17325-65th Ave.
Tinley Park, 111. 60477
Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle, Member
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington St
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
-2-
Ms. Dianne B. Edelson
Lake Michigan Protectors of the
Environment
263 Hastings Rd.
Highland Park, 111* 60035
Mr. Jonathan Ela
Midwest Representative
Sierra Club
444 W. Main
Madison, Wise.
Ms. Loraine Falktor
Lake Michigan Protectors
383 Hastings Rd.
Highland Park, 111.
Mr. Daniel Feldman, Attorney
Commonwealth Edison Co.
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Carlos Fetterolf
Chief Environmental Scientist
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Mich. 48926
Ms. Nancy Flowers
Information Director
Lake Michigan Federation
53 West Jackson
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jim Gibbons, TV Reporter
and Film Crew
Chicago, 111.
Mrs. H. Goiter
Chairman Conservation Committee
South Shore Commission
Chicago, 111.
Mrs. Judi Gordon, Program Asst.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Paul G. Hayes, Reporter
Milwaukee Journal
333 W. State St.
Milwaukee, Wise 53201
Mr. James B. Henry
Vice President & General Counsel
American Electric Power Service
Corporation - 2 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10004
Mr. John Hogan &
WGN-TV
Chicago, 111.
Film Crew
Mr. Barton Hoglund, Asst. Director
Center for Environmental Studies
Argonne Nat'1 Lab
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111.
Mr. Peter H. Howe, Staff Biologist
Commonwealth Edison Co
Rm 1236 BO 767 - 72 W. Adams
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Bruce Ingersoil
Chicago Sun-Times
401 N. Wabash
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. David Jeruis
Environmental Review Officer
U.S. Dept of the Interior
Rm 217 - 2510 Dempster St.
Des Plaines, 111. 60016
-------
-3-
Ms. Eileen L. Johnston
505 Maple
Wilmette, 111. 60091
Mr. David Kee
Chief, Air Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. John Kelley
Water Quality Standards-Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Charles W. Kern
Environmental Technologist
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
5265 Hohman
Hammond, Ind. 46325
Mr. Paul Keshishian
Director of Power Products
222 W. Washington Ave
Madison, Wise.
Mr. Carl Larsen
Northwestern University
2732 Hampton Pkwy
Evanston, 111.
Mr. Kenneth Lehner
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan St.
Milwaukee, Wise. 53201
Mr. G.E. Lemasters, Executive Asst,
Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.
2101 Spy Run Ave.
Ft. Wayne, Ind.
Mr. A. H. Manzardo
Chief, Permits Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Gary J. Mariner, Physicist
Argonne Nat'1 Lab.
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. J.P. McCluskey
Director of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth Edison Co.
72 W. Adams St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jerome McKersie
Chief, Water Quality Evaluation
Wisconsin Dept Natural Resources
PO Box 450
Madison, Wise.
Mr. William G. McMaster, Jr.
Businessmen for the Public Interest
109 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111. 60602
Mr. Thomas P. Meine, Chemical Engineer
Wisconsin Public Service
PO Box 1200
Green Bay, Wise.
Mr. Gary Milburn
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
-4-
Dr. Andrew J. McErlean
Office of Technical Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C.
Mr. Thomas J. Murphy, Asst. Professor
DePaul University
1036 W. Belden
Chicago, 111. 60614
Mr. James Napolean
Director of Safety
Chicago Park District
425 E. 14th Blvd.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John Nowak
6110 W. Peterson
Chicago, 111. 60646
Mr. Bill Omohundro, Asst. Director
Public Affairs Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Vijay Panchal, Chemical Engineer
Cook County Dept of Environmental
Control
159 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111. 60601
Mr. Roy Porteous
Lake Michigan Federation
53 West Jackson
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Ralph W. Purdy, Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Mich.
Mr. John H. Pingel, Health Physicist
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Argonne, 111. 60439
Ms. Barbara Lynn Piper
Senate Republicans - Springfield
421 State House
Springfield, 111.
Mr. Philip A. Reed, Filt. Engineer
Chicago Water Bureau
1000 E. Ohio St.
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. John Z. Reynolds, Director
Environmental Planning
Consumers Power Co.
Jackson, Mich,
Mr. Nicholas A. Ricci, Asst. V.P.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan
Milwaukee, Wise. 53092
Mr. Walter Romanek, Attorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Peter Scullen
Commonwealth Edison
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Helen Starr
Public Affairs Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
Mr. Ralph Stow, Reporter
Chicago Today
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John V. Tokar
Argonne Nat'l Lab.
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111.
Mr. Gilbert Vosswinkel
Civil Engineer V
City of Milwaukee
841 N. Broadway - Room 812
Milwaukee, Wise. 53202
Mr. David P. Welch, Sanitary Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Wayne L. Wingert
Detroit Edison
Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Oliver D. Williams
Asst. Administrator
Wisconsin Division of Environmental
Protection
Box 450
Madison, Wise.
Mr. Thomas G. Yocum
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Great Lakes Fishery Lab.
Box 640
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48107
Mr. Howard Zar, Physical Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
MR. MAYO: May we have your attention,
ladies and gentlemen? This meeting is open.
By way of introduction, I am Francis T. Mayo,
Regional Administrator, Region V of the
Environmental Protection Agency. I think it
would be appropriate to start out by outlining
the reasons for convening this public session
on the control of pollution in the Lake Michigan
Basin, and to suggest the objective which
hopefully we can reach. As you are fully aware,
we met in September pursuant to the enforcement
conference provisions of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. At that meeting a
mass of evidence was presented bearing upon
problems arising from phosphorus, chlorides,
heavy metals, pesticides, phthalates, polychlorinated
biphenyls, taste and odor, and thermal discharges.
Due to the volume of testimony we were unable to
conclude the conference by holding an executive
session immediately after the conference proceedings,
and therefore set dates in October and November
for meetings of the executive session at which time
we anticipated agreeing upon recommendations to be
made to the Administrator of the Environmental
-------
5
Protection Agency. Those recommendations would
then have been transmitted to the states for
Implementation.
Prior to the first date set for the
executive session, Congress enacted on October 18,
1972, a complete revision of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and among other things
abolished the provision under which the enforce-
ment conference was convened. As a result, any
conclusions or recommendations which we now make
will not be able to be enforced under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
In my Judgment, it would have been
undesirable not to continue with any followup
to the conference session of September, and to
ignore the valuable contributions made by the
many people who attended. Therefore, I have
asked the representatives of Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan and Indiana to return for this Informal
session for the purpose of reviewing the record
and possibly to arrive at some understanding as
to how the problems focused upon can be resolved.
I think It Is important to recognize
that this is somewhat of a unique meeting because
-------
it attempts In part to bridge a gap between the
former enforcement conference process and the
requirements of the new legislation In a way that
makes available to the public an opportunity to
have exposure to the deliberations of the Interested
parties In matters dealing with public Interest on
subjects that are of vital concern with reference
to the environment.
By way of conduct of the meeting,
those of you who are familiar with the executive
session procedure that was used under the conference
mechanism, meetings were conducted as this one in
public with the conferees sitting for the purpose
of resolving differences and developing recommenda-
tions. The audience was in fact that, an audience,
and did not participate in the deliberations.
For the purpose of trying to resolve as best we
can Issues this morning and continuing the program
this afternoon, I would like to continue with that
arrangement and to the extent that time is available
to provide an opportunity for statements from
those who are in the audience and who desire to
make statements. That is not to engage in a cross-
examination procedure or to Invite dialog between
-------
7
those In the audience and the state and Federal
representatives, but rather to provide an
opportunity for us to do our business in public,
and then to the extent that time is available, to
provide an opportunity for those in the audience
to make what they feel are relevant statements on
issues*
We are making the meeting today a
matter of record, not as a requirement of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in the present
form* but rather as a means of seeking to continue
to make available to the states and the Interested
parties a followup record that will relate quite
specifically to the discussions and statements and
the materials that were presented at the September
session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference,
so that we do not leave that activity hanging in
the air without some record of having discussed
the IBsues that were raised at that session of the
conference.
Those who may wish to obtain copies of
the transcript of this meeting should contact the
recorder personally, Mr. Wendell Terry, and make
their individual arrangements to obtain copies of
the transcript.
-------
8
At this time I would like to call
upon the representatives from the official
state water pollution control agencies of
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin to
introduce themselves, starting at my left, please*
MR. BLOMGREN: Carl T. Blomgren, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
MR. BLASBRs William L. Blaser, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
MR. BRYSON: Dale S. Bryson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Chicago.
MR* McDONALDs James 0. McDonald, United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
MR. PURDY: Ralph W. Purdy, Michigan Water
Resources Commission.
MR. FETTEROLFs Carlos Fetterolf, Michigan
Water Resources Commission.
MR. HERTs Oral H. Hert, Indiana Stream
Pollution Control Board.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oliver D. Williams, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
MR. McKERSIE: Jerome McKersie, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
MR. MAYO: Thank you. In simplest form we
-------
9
have thermal and nonthermal issues to discuss.
The agenda that has been made available lists
the several specific subjects upon which we meet
and conduct our public discussion* I think it
would be appropriate for us to proceed first with
the discussion of the thermal issues, and to try
to conclude our discussion on those issues this
morning. To the extent that the State and Federal
representatives can reach some conclusion on
these issues, and there is time remaining this
morning before the luncheon recess, I think we
could, with the consent of the other members,
take time to hear statements from those of you
in the audience on the thermal issue. Then
following lunch, devote our time to the remaining
issues on the program, and following those discussions,
invite statements from the audience on that group
of Issues. We have not set a time to conclude
the meeting. I think all of us would like to
conclude these discussions today and not be faced
with the necessity of reconvening this meeting
tomorrow.
In order to introduce the issues dealing
with the thermal questions that are before us, I
-------
10
think it would be appropriate for me to read
for you at this point In time an EPA statement
and to make It clear that the statement that Is
now available to you Is a statement that has
been participated in at both the regional level
and at the Washington staff level*
The questions raised by the construction
of several large powerplants on the shores of
Lake Michigan have been a matter of urgent concern
and have occupied countless hours of the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference. In briefest
summary I shall attempt to outline the facts
underlying the problem. Six nuclear electric
generating stations are in various stages of
construction in the four Lake Michigan states; several
of the plants are scheduled to be in full operation
at various dates in 1973*
At the third session of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference (March 23-25, 1971) EPA
Administrator Ruckfrlshaus proposed to the state
conferees for their adoption a water quality
standard whose implementation would require the
Installation of auxiliary cooling facilities at
the nuclear powerplants under construction. The
-------
11
essence of Administrator Ruckelshaus1 recommendation
was that waste heat discharges located on Lake
Michigan In excess of 1/2 billion BTU/hr which had
not begun operation as of March 1, 1971* shall
have closed—cycle cooling facilities associated
with their operation.
Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended through 1970, water quality
standards consisted of three elements: criteria,
the beneficial uses to which the water was to be
put, and an implementation plan geared to attain
the criteria and uses. The new Federal Water
Pollution Control Act states that best practicable
control technology shall be achieved not later
than July 1, 1977* However, if the application
of best practicable control technology does not
attain water quality standards, then more stringent
limitations will be required. It should be noted
that the water quality standards which will be
considered by the Environmental Protection Agency
under the new legislation for approval or disapproval,
will consist only of criteria and use designations.
Implementation plans are no longer subject to
approval by EPA as part of water quality standards.
-------
12
In place of implementation plans Incorporated
in the standards, the new Act imposes a continuing
planning process requirement on each State which
requires the state to have comprehensive control
plans including implementation plans for all
navigable waters within the State*
At the March 23-25, 1971 session of the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, the
conferees made certain findings and recommendations.
Most of these findings and recommendations were
approved by Administrator Ruckelshaus on May 14,
1971* and forwarded to the states for implementation.
Subsequent to the issuance of the approved findings
and recommendations, the four Lake Michigan states
took certain actions relating to implementing the
conference recommendations* Basically these actions
were consummated in the adoption by the states of
thermal water quality standards. The principal ele-
ments of the adopted conference recommendations and
those elements considered by the states for
adoption as water quality standards were as follows:
maximum temperature limits, specific definition of
mixing zones, implementation schedules, and guides
on restrictions on Intake mechanisms, discharge
-------
13
plumes, and monitoring. The conference specifically
adopted a recommendation which required closed-
cycle cooling systems on all new thermal waste
dischargers above a certain size.
Recognizing the risk of summarizing what
each State adopted, I have attempted to do that.
The summary is as follows:
Indiana: Essentially adopted all of the
conference recommendations*
Illinois: Essentially adopted all of
the conference recommendations with the exception
of the closed-cycle cooling requirements on all
plants not under construction as of January 1,
1971, and the plan of implementation on bringing
older sources into compliance with the general
conference recommendations.
Michigan: Essentially adopted all of
the conference recommendations with the exception
of the closed-cycle cooling requirements on new
sources and the plan of implementation on bringing
older sources into compliance with the general
conference recommendations. The state did not
adopt the mixing zone definition, leaving that
determination to a case-by-case basis.
-------
14
Wisconsin: Adopted the monthly maximum
criteria exempting certain areas from the
requirements. Other requirements, including
mixing zone and installation of closed-^cycle
cooling, were not adopted.
Under the new Act the standards submitted
to EPA by the four States must be approved or
rejected by January 18, 1973. If EPA fails to take
action by January 18, 1973, the standards submitted
by the States will automatically be approved. It
Is EPA's intention to review and act on all of the
Lake Michigan thermal standards by the required
date. At this time it would appear that much of
what is in the submitted standards is approvable.
This disposition of the pending thermal
water quality standards will not, however, resolve
the Lake Michigan thermal problem which faced the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference in each of
its sessions. We know that the thermal question is
not readily resolvable, not only from our own
experience but from a reading of the new Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972.
Congress considered voluminous testimony
in their deliberations on the new bill. On the
-------
15
basis of the evidence they concluded that best
practicable control technology would be required
for all municipalities and industries by July 1,
1977* and best available technology by July 1,
1933* Congress obviously felt on the basis of
the testimony they heard that all of the answers
were not in on the question of thermal pollution.
While they recognized it as a pollutant and a problem,
they saw fit to address the question in a special
way in various sections of the Act.
Specifically, Congress provided for the
establishment of a program to start to get some
answers on the thermal problem. The new Act
requires the Administrator, in cooperation with
State, Federal, and public and private organiza-
tions, to conduct comprehensive studies on the
effects and methods of controlling thermal
discharges. In evaluating alternative methods
of controlling thermal discharges* In evaluating
alternative methods of control, the studies are required
to consider the state of the art, economic feasibility,
including cost-effectiveness, and the total impact on the
environment. The studies will consider methods of minimizing
-------
16
adverse effects and maximizing beneficial effects of
thermal discharges. The results of the studies are
to be reported not later than 270 days after
October 18, 1972, which is the effective date
of the Act, and will be generally available.
The results of the studies will be considered
in the permit issuing process set up by the
Act in developing thermal water quality standards.
(See Section 104(t)).
Basically, to control all municipal and
industrial discharges, the Act establishes a
national permit system superseding the program
set up under the Refuse Act* EPA is to determine
what best practicable control technology is for various
industries, and is to set effluent limitations
within l year. EPA is to administer the permit
program until such time as a state satisfies the
Administrator that it has the statutory capability
to manage the program, at which time the program
will be transferred by EPA to the state. (See
Section 402.)
With regard to thermal pollution a
special section provides that thermal discharges
will be subject to the requirements of best
-------
17
practicable control technology with respect to
existing sources and those under construction,
and best available control technology with respect
to new sources. If the thermal discharger can
prove at a public hearing to the satisfaction of
the Administrator (or a State if the permit
authority has been transferred to the state) that
the prescribed effluent limitation is not necessary
to assure the protection and propagation of a
balanced Indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, then the Administrator may
impose a less stringent effluent limitation.
(See Section 3l6)«
A problem of great concern during past
Enforcement Conference discussions has been the
entrainment and destruction of aquatic biota during
cooling water usage. The new statute provides
that cooling water Intake structures, unlike
heated effluents, must immediately reflect the
best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact.
On the basis of the new Act, the control
of thermal discharges will be handled by the permit
process. There are presently 27 Lake Michigan
powerpiants in the pre-operational anc operational
-------
18
stage* Additionally* there are numerous other
lesser thermal discharges to the lake. The
Act provides for the Issuance of permits In the
Interim before final effluent limitations are
promulgated by EPA, subject to such conditions as
the Administrator determines to be necessary to
carry out the provisions of the Act. However
desirable it may be to make an early Interim
decision on what the statutory requirement of
best practicable control technology is, we must
fully appreciate the consequences* As regards
significant thermal discharges, determination of
best practicable control technology should be
one meant to last for a number of years since the
undertaking of most thermal control programs are
usually long term projects. Construction of
facilities and the engineering attendant to such
construction is usually extended over years rather
than months.
Until the promulgation of effluent
limitations required by the statute has been
effected, Lake Michigan powerplant permit
applications will be processed in the following
manner:
-------
19
1. Each permit application will
Initially be processed on the basis of compliance
with federally approved water quality standards*
Under the statute if it is determined that best
practicable control technology for thermal
discharges requires more than the achievement
of water quality standards such as offstream
cooling, the discharger will be required to Install
such facilities unless the discharger can demonstrate
that a less stringent effluent limitation will
assure the protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife.
2. During the term of the permit a
comprehensive monitoring program will be undertaken
to evaluate the effects of the thermal discharges
upon the environment.
3. The permit will be issued for a
relatively short period (not to exceed 3 years).
However, the permit shall be terminated whenever
either of the following occurs: 1) a finding that
the effluent being discharged does not assure the
protection and propagation of a balanced Indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, or
2) the promulgation of final effluent .Limitations
-------
20
defining best practicable control technology for
thermal discharges.
We must proceed to see that other
questions related to cooling water usage are
addressed promptly* First on this list is the
requirement to have cooling water Intake facilities
reflecting best technology available. To develop
the necessary data base on this question, EPA is
suggesting the formation of a technical committee
to undertake the evaluation of existing data and
to make appropriate recommendations to EPA and
the Lake Michigan states. It is our suggestion
that the committee should consist of two representa-
tives named by each of the states and two persons
named by EPA. It is my suggestion that Dr. Robert J,
Zeller, Director, Region V, EPA Surveillance and
Analysis Division, chair this committee.
On another and more general problem, the
EPA and the States have in the past discussed the
need for adequate monitoring of programs to assess
damage to the aquatic environment attributable to
existing and planned cooling water uses. As
required under the licensing procedures of the
Atomic Energy Commission and under certain state
-------
21
requirements, a number of studies have been
conducted to assess damage* As was discussed
at the September session, it appears that
criteria do not exist to trigger the installation
of appropriate corrective measures should damage
become evident* A mechanism is also lacking to
make an overall assessment of the damage that
may occur to the lake's ecosystem from waste
discharges scattered at various points around the
lake. This lack exists because present studies
are geared toward a local, or at best regional
assessment of a problem and not to the impact
on the overall lake. Both monitoring elements,
i.e., local and lakewide are important to assess
damage to the lake. To address this problem, I
suggest the formation of a technical panel to be
composed of at least three representatives from
each Lake Michigan state and three representatives
from the EPA. The State representatives may be
other than state employees and should be members
of the academic community, persons employed by
utilities, and members of environmental and other
citizens' groups. It would be my suggestion to
have Dr. Andrew McErlean, Senior Staff Biologist
in the Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
-------
22
in Washington, to chair this technical panel.
Dr. McErlean is eminently qualified to head this
most important group. The charge of this panel
would be:
To review background information dealing
with past, present and future studies relating to
thermal discharges to Lake Michigan;
To make assessments as to whether the
individual studies concerning thermal discharges
will adequately assess damage attributable to that
cooling water use;
To assess the pertinence of individual
localized studies to monitor changes in the overall
lake ecosystem;
And to recommend, as necessary, additional
efforts that should be expended to assess
environmental effects of the use of Lake Michigan
water for cooling*
I am prepared to lend such assistance
as I can to fashion the kind of a program which
will collect and evaluate the facts and to assure
maximum protection to the public resource, as well
as fair play for the Industry.
-------
23
I would like to acknowledge to the
audience that this statement was not made
available to the other members of the panel
here until this morning. We were actively
Involved In the drafting and processing of this
material through yesterday afternoon and Its
preparation and reproduction last evening*
As I said earlier, it represents the
Input from both Region V and our Washington
staff. Gentlemen, I think the time Is yours
to respond to this material and proceed as
constructively as we can on the Issues that
remain with us following the September session
of the Lake Michigan Enforcement conference.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAYO: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSs I have one question with
respect to the two committees that you have
recommended and the studies that you proposed*
Perhaps In light of the fact that the statement
has been prepared in conjunction with your
Washington staff, you undoubtedly have considered
this. How would these studies relate and how
do they tie in directly with the overall national
-------
24
program which I assume the Environmental Protection
Agency will be establishing since thermal issues
and thermal concerns are not restricted exclusively
to the Great Lakes?
MR. NcDONALDt Well, I think the purpose,
Mr* Williams, of appointing Dr. McErlean is
because he has been actively involved in this
thermal question from the national standpoint.
The section in the bill that provides for
comprehensive national studies, Section 104(t)
of the new Act, would be something that Dr.
McErlean could tie in with any specific lakewide,
plant-by-plant studies that were undertaken
here on Lake Michigan* The intent of the national
legislation under Section I04(t), the comprehensive
national studies, is a broader one and not nearly
as specific as what Mr. Mayo outlined in the
statement here.
MR* WILLIAMS: Is it likely or anticipated
then that within the other regions of EPA that
similar study groups will be impaneled,
comparable studies perhaps along coastal zones?
MR. MCDONALD: I think Region V, with this
session, the executive session having been scheduled,
-------
25
Is faced with coming up with what type of
proposal it wanted to make regarding the solution
to this very difficult thermal problem, getting
it on some logical basis for the future. This
is our proposal, I would think that if other
regions, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and so
forth, have similar type problems they may well
follow this approach. I don't think we are
waiting to see what the other regions will do.
We have a proposal that we think may be pertinent
to this particular area, and start it now.
MR. WILLIAMS* In summary then, this would
be one of the positive achievements, I suppose,
of the enforcement conference, the fact that we
laid a good deal of groundwork over the past
3 or 4 years, and are really prepared to take
off on this thermal question in a more positive
way, perhaps, than other regions are.
MR. MoDONALD: I think that is a good way
of summing it up. You know, having been involved
In past conferences, there is some substantial
disagreement in the scientific community on what
the damages really are in the lake, and particularly
there Is a dearth of information from the Federal
-------
26
standpoint on this. Also, there Is a very
Important question that Mr* Mayo addressed himself
to as part of this proposal, and that Is getting
some mechanism by which necessary backfittlng
if required, or offstream cooling, If required,
could be triggered. I think the last session of
the conference brought out there was no lakewlde
or uniform, state by state, certainly no Federal
mechanism or criteria for really assessing what
damage Is and what It would mean In terms of
translating It Into, say, offstream cooling If
required. This would be a very essential
Ingredient. That was to my way of thinking at
the last conference one of the real weaknesses
that we have that has to be solved. This study
would address Itself to that.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Mayo, In the statement with
relation to the Federal position, you mention
the control of thermal discharges will be handled
by the permit process. How would, say, the
controls that are required on the types of Intake
structures be handled?
MR. MAYO: I think it is anticipated that
under the new legislation, Mr. Purdy, that these
would be conditions related to thermal discharges.
-------
27
MR. McDONALDs I would like to add, under
Section 316 of the Act, which Is labeled Thermal
Discharges, this particular section on Intakes
Is also covered In that section. So you are
looking at thermal discharges not only as
dlcharges but the whole cycle of Intake versus
outflow.
MR. PURDYs Where you state the conditions
upon which each permit will be processed, you
are now talking about the Federal position on
that, and the option is still open to the states
to require any other conditions that they may
require as long as they are compatible with
those?
ME. McDONALDs Exactly. If the State has
in fact not only compatible but more stringent
conditions than this new Act, particularly in the
permit and enforcement section, then those more stringent
regulations of the State will apply. I think
Mr. Hert in Indiana probably has the Bailly plant
under more stringent requirements. Those more
stringent regulations would be applicable*
MR. PURDYs You mentioned your permit would
not exceed 3- years. One of our orders requires
-------
28
that the order of the commission be reviewed
at the end of >a* years. This condition would
still apply?
MR. McDONALDs The -y years is not firm
at all. It would not exceed §• years. If
it was negotiated and was more convenient for
the State agency and the Federal Government to
arrive at a shorter duration for a permit, I
think we would do this.
MR. PURDYs The question that I have also
would relate to, say, a plant that might be under
construction at this point in time.
MR. McDONALDs A nuclear plant?
MR. PURDY: Nuclear plant, and a decision
might be at this point in time that the once
through cooling under conditions specified might
be sufficient, but then when the regulations have
been developed on best practicable treatment
control technology, if they should include something
more than that, will a time be allowed to build
those facilities? And if the plant is scheduled
to come into operation prior to the time that
those facilities can be placed in operation, will
that come under, say, this period of 197? as an
-------
29
outside date? Could they operate in fact without
having those facilities in operation?
MR. MCDONALD: 1 think the crux of the
statement that we have here is to try to get
some logical process involved in the permit
issuing business that we all have at hand as of
October 18, so the dischargers., the powerplants,
state and regulatory agencies, environmentalists,
all have a pretty good idea of where we are going«
So if a plant, for example, that is now under
construction, a plant is on line, wants to be
operating say next July, that plant for permit
issuing processes would have to meet the water
quality standards for the discharge that would go
out* There might be a schedule that the discharger
might have to meet, might have to do certain things
with its discharge pipe, might require some off-
stream cooling possibly. Then if at some later
point in time after that permit is issued, subject
to the water quality standards requirement, if
the Administrator and when the Administrator
Issues his definition of best practicable treatment
for powerplants, if that definition says off stream
cooling, then it would be incumbent upon the Federal
-------
30
Government, If we Issue the permit, or you if
you issue it, to so notify the individual
discharger indicating that the permit that he
now has is being terminated subject to developing
a compliance schedule that would result in the
necessary installation being constructed to
control that discharge, unless he was able at
a public hearing to prove he really did not need
that more stringent cooling power requirement,
off stream cooling* I don*t think there is any
intention here on behalf of the Federal Government
to summarily and arbitrarily close down the plant
that is once licensed. We would have a process
that obviously, as you know from your experience
in pollution control, you have to develop a
schedule. You have to take time to build remedial
facilities that are necessary. That would be our
intention if we issue it. I don't know how
regulatory agencies could do otherwise.
MR. PURDYs This is subject to the condition
that you don't have a very gross problem. You
might develop different techniques«
MR. MCDONALD: Right. I think if you have
an extreme problem, if an extreme problem developed,,
-------
31
it was a gross problem, there was agreement on
this or even disagreement, but there was a
substantial evidence that we had a gross problem,
that powerpiant —obviously with the permit process
you and the Federal Government would have— it would
have power to close down that plant if necessary,
I think the Federal Government certainly would be
prepared to do what it had to do under the statute
to see that this happened if there was no agreeable
schedule to control this, or it was so damaging
that there had to be some shutdown of the plant*
That is a good question to clarify at the outset.
MR. MAYO; May I interpose a point? Is it
your understanding that once "best practicable
control technology" is defined by the Administrator,
this according to the Act is to be accomplished
in a year*s time, that then July 1, 1977, becomes
a target date for the achievement of that?
MR. McDONALDt Exactly. The statute is very
clear that July 1, 1977> is the date. This might
mean if it takes the Administrator some time to
announce this decision, that the power companies
from the outset should be on notice that they may
have to do some significant acceleration of work
-------
32
that ordinarily might take a longer period of time,
If they have to Install additional facilities*
MR. PURDYs However, 270 days Is the outside
date for the announcement of the best practicable
control technology?
MR. McDONALDs No. The 270 days, I don»t
mean to get Into the specific terms of the bill,
It will be helpful If you study It later, Section
104(t) of the Act provides that within 270 days
from enactment, from October 18, 1972, the
Administrator must come out with the results of
any studies.
MR. PURDY: My last question relates to the
coordination of the studies. I am assuming that
this committee would also be, say, Including In
Its appraisal the adequacy of the studies, those
that might be conducted by the Department of the
Interior?
MR. McDONALD: Yes, sir, certainly would.
That again would be a very essential Ingredient
In this study, to let this panel determine what
has been done, what they feel about these things,
what weaknesses there are, and then get an agreement
about what holes ought to be plugged. I think the
-------
33
overriding worth of this study also rests on this
point that Mr. Mayo pointed out* that is, there
has been great concern and disagreement In the
academic community on what Is happening to the
lake Insofar as health Is concerned. There has
been disagreement among the consultants, reputable
consultants with completely opposite viewpoints*
There also has been great consternation on behalf
of the environmentalists as to what Is going on
In the lake, their inability as they see it to
participate in the decisionmaking process as
to how corrective measures can be taken if indeed
they are required. I think the real heart of
this proposal is Mr. Mayo's proposal to set up
this panel that would include a total of 15 members,
three from each state, three from the Federal
Government, not excluding the Environmental
Protection Agency, but composing the panel of
environmentalists who are concerned with this
problem, who can participate in the review process,
decisionmaking, set up the mechanism that may
result in what they feel would be adequate
protection of the lake* along with the community
and the regulatory agency and the academic world.
-------
34
I think we may get something here where we can
get some agreement on what it takes to really
assess damage, which I really think is one of
the key points to be concerned with.
MR, FURDYs As we look down the road in
coordinating the various programs between the
states and the Federal Government on this and
other matters, it appears we may have to open a
Chicago office of the Michigan Water Resources
Commission.
MR, McDONALD: That may be appropriate.
As you look at this legislation, you can see
the thrust is to turn over these things to the
state* Maybe we ought to do that.
MR. BRYSONs How about an office of EPA in
Lansing?
MR, PETTER0LF: In your statement, you felt
that Andrew McErlean was eminently qualified to
head this most important group. Would you care to
expand on that?
MR. McDONALDt Why don't you stand up and
identify yourself, and you know yourself better
than anybody else. Why don»t you Identify your
background and give the people here on the panel
-------
35
an opportunity if they would like to ask some
questions, to delve into that.
The first thing you have to do with
Dr. McErlean is figure out how to spell his name,
and then how to pronounce it. It is spelled M-c
E-r-1-e-a-n, Andrew McErlean, Ph«.D.
PR, McERLEAN: My name is Andrew McErlean,
Senior Staff Biologist in the Office of Enforcement
and General Counsel in Washington. Prior to
coming to the Environmental Protection Agency in
August of this year, I have been involved with
thermal studies on Chesapeake Bay, and so forth.
My background is primarily marine and estuary
ecology. I have been involved in the last 10
years in that type of research.
MR. McDONALDs Are there any questions?
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
MR. HERT: Mr. Mayo, on page 3 you talk
about the issuance of permit applications* Item
No. 2, "During the term of the permit a comprehen-
sive monitoring program will be undertaken to
evaluate the effects of the thermal discharges
upon the environment." Are we talking about the
power companies undertaking this monitoring program,
-------
36
or are we talking about EPA undertaking this
assessment?
MR, MAYO: Using the essence of the second
recommendation to establish the committee to
oversee and overview these activities, I think
that we can presume that the responsibility for
the conduct of the necessary studies would be
a responsibility of the utility and the cost
attendant to those studies would be cost to the
utility, with this overview playing an Important
role in signing off on the sufficiency of that
study in order that, when the necessary study
activities are completed» we have reasonable
prospects that the interested parties are likely
to be in agreement on the conclusion. That Is
one of the difficulties that we have at the present
time. There is a divergence of opinion on the
sufficiency of the studies now under way, and
that divergence of opinion continues to contribute
to a divergence of conclusions on the adequacy
of the data to demonstrate no damage or to demonstrate
that damage has taken place. One of the Important
things that needs to be accomplished, a continuation
of the existing studies and any new studies, is to
-------
37
have a mechanism through which the interested parties
have an opportunity to reach some conclusion on
the sufficiency of the study given, and consequently,
to have a reasonable opportunity to reach the same
conclusions using the data that comes from the
study effort*
MR. HERT: I hope they have better luck than
the thermal committee that I was a member of a
few months ago* We didn't seem to come to much
agreement.
Also on page 9 you stated, "As was
discussed at the September session, it appears
that criteria do not exist to trigger the
installation of appropriate corrective measures
should damage become evident." I am not sure
that I understand that statement. In my belief,
the states have appropriate authority to take
appropriate corrective measures if damage becomes
evident.
MR. McDONALD: I don't think that is really
the question that we have, not the capability of
the state to do this, Mr. Hert. I think it was
clear at that last session of the conference when
we talked with ABC about what criteria, what
-------
38
parameters they would use to really know when
damage was occurring, they said they didn't know.
I think the Federal EPA feels the same. We don't
know. I think from some of the state regulatory
agencies that made presentations at that meeting,
I think legitimately and honestly they said they
don't know* I thought one thing that came out
of that conference that was quite clear from all
sides was that we need to get some common denomina-
tor of being able to assess what damage really
is. Is it when it is 100,000 fish killed, for
example, or when it is 500,000? How many organisms
are in the intake structure? How far spread if
it is a thermal plume? What happens to the
bottom? We need these measures so we can have
some uniformity in the way that we are trying
to approach it, and the intent of this panel is
to face up on a consensus basis, which is what
it will have to be at the end ultimately—regulatory
agencies, academic community, environmentalists
coming up with an acceptable set of criteria as
to what constitutes damage so that we can lay to
rest this long time debate that we have had as
to what constitutes damage to this lake. This
-------
39
seems to be of top priority, and I think the sense
of the last conference was that most people felt
this way. It Is not a question of Judging the
capability of a state.
MR. FURDY: I would like to pursue this a
little bit. I am aware of very extensive Individual
studies being conducted In Michigan waters, and at
the last conference In particular, and earlier ones,
we received reports of very extensive studies
being conducted by individual dischargers in
waters of, say, Illinois, Wisconsin, And I am
not prepared at this time to say that those
Individual studies are Inadequate, and in fact
this committee may decide that they are adequate
or that they may be conducting some overlapping
work which could be dropped and some other things
added. I do recognize this problem, though, of
how do you take those individual studies and say
what the effect Is on the overall lake. This may
not require anything in the way of additional
studies* It is only the Interpretation of the
results of those individual studies, and the
committee's task may be Just to develop the
criteria of how you assess or add up the results
-------
40
of the individual studies to make the assessment
on the overall lake.
MR. McPONALD: I think you are correct.
Again it is good that you raise it. We too are
not making Judgments on the adequacy of ongoing
studies or studies that have been completed* But
there needs to be some consensus by the various
parties who are interested In this about whether
that particular study is a study that we can all
sort of agree on as constituting something
meaningful when we get done, what will we do with
it, and how does it apply to the lake. All of
the studies you are doing in Michigan may well be
just what ought to be done. They would be used
in that framework* I think you are exactly right.
Again, your long involvement, there is
one thing that keeps going on about finding
something that we can all sit down and agree on
so that they can spend their time on other pollution
endeavors. This provides a hope for the future.
MR. FETTEROLF: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure
whether I am congratulating you, your staff, or
both. I certainly think that this interpretation/
explanation is laid out very well. It certainly
-------
41
is a marvelous first eopy to look at some of
these problems and issues.
Relative to page 5 where Congress Is
going to provide the establishment of a program
to get the answers on the thermal problem, and
they allow themselves 270 days from October 18,
this program is going to be paperwork, not a
field program* There is no way you oan mount
a field program and come up with answers that
will be new or unique in that length of time.
I don*t see what sort of structure this program
will have, and perhaps that is up to the Administrator
to establish in the very near future if he expects
to get anything done in 270 days. I hope that he
goes outside of EPA as well as Inside to secure
some of these answers. I feel these answers are
available. I feel that many of the biological
aspects of it will appear in the revision of water
quality criteria which has recently been completed
by the National Academy of Sciences. I feel the
information there reflects a view of the effects
of thermal discharges and ways to get around these
damages* So I would certainly hope that people
who devoted great amounts of time in coming up
-------
42
with some of the answers, their work, the work
done in the last 2 years, that will be included
in the group that the Administrator uses to solve
this problem. I would hope that the State of
Michigan could hear from the Administrator on
what his plans are in composing this group that
is going to provide him with the answers in 270
days.
MR. MAYO: It is interesting to note that
the Congress did not set the 270 day target date
for itself. It set the target date for somebody
else.
MR. FETTEROLF: Yes. Well/ I have a couple
of other comments to make.
Oral Hert mentioned the Lake Michigan
Technical Committee for Thermal Discharges* As
I look around the room, there are six members of
that technical committee here. That technical
committee was very disappointed when this enforce-
ment conference chose to overlook many of their
recommendations. I was particularly frustrated
by it because I thought they were pretty good
recommendations. I feel that we have been somehow
vindicated because what is In this paper you have
-------
before you includes many of the things that we
recommended. We are very pleased there has been
a little comeback, a little more logical approach
to the situation. Would you agree, Mr. Blomgren?
MR. BLOMQREN: Yes, sir.
MR. MCDONALD: What are you laughing at?
MR. BLOMGRENt It took 3 years to say that.
MR. PURDYz As far as I can see, Mr. Mayo,
the statement that you have placed before us
recognizes the mandate of Congress in the passing
of the new water act, and I think we ought to
proceed on to other matters.
MR. MAYO: We would like to get at least a
concurrence in terms of agreement with the two
basic recommendations that were made in the report,
and at least a sense of commitment on the part
of the Individual States to participate very
thoroughly and actively in the two study efforts.
MR. PURDY: We agree. We have participated
in the past. We will participate in the future.
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments?
MR. FETTEROLF: Mr. Mayo, on page 6, the last
paragraph: "The new statute provides that cooling
water intake structures, unlike heated effluents,
-------
44
must immediately reflect the best technology
available for minimizing adverse environmental
impact." There will be a technical committee
which will look into this, I take it, and whether
it is ecologically, environmentally, biologically
necessary or not, the statute says it shall be
done, Is that correct?
MR. McDONALD: That is absolutely right.
MR. FETTEROLF: It is easy to work with the
law if you know what the law is, and we can proceed
from there. You don't have to make a decision
on whether it is environmentally Important that
this be done. The law has made the decision for
us. We can proceed from that point. I have a
feeling that the Technical committee in assessing
the situation will also want to address themselves
to water intake structures, not Just water cooling
uses, but for municipal usage as well.
MR. BLASER: Mr. Chairman, we obviously will
participate in Illinois, and we are anxious to
move on to other business.
MR. McDONALD: Mr. Mayo, how do we leave this?
Who is going to get in touch with whom and when?
MR. MAYO: Well, we have from the Environmental
-------
45
Protection Agency's standpoint indicated our
willingness to accept the chairmanship responsibility.
I think it then falls on us to start the mechanics
of getting both of these committees into operation,
which should include as a very first step the
communication to the states to designate their
respective membership, and it may be quite
appropriate for the states to have some discussion
on that point, because as long as there is a desire
to get a sufficient breadth of interest from the
public, and from industry, I think it may be very
desirable for the states to attempt to divide up
their respective participation in a way that
develop* that balance* You may not be able to
get it in terms of three people from each state,
to get the breadth of interest that ought to
be acknowledged here, state interest, academic
interest, public interest, utility interest. We
could suggest that you have that kind of a
discussion, and we can provide you a mechanism
for doing that. Get the membership established,
and I think we would be willing to do the early
spade work on drafting the plan of action or a
program of action that these two committees could
-------
46
address themselves to as quickly as they could
be formed. Does that seem reasonable?
MR. HERTi Yes. Mr. Mayo, the second
committee which proposes state representatives
other than state employees, Is It your thinking
Dr. Zeller's committee could also Include other
than State employees?
MR. MAYO: It may very well. We will accept
the responsibility then of proceeding as expedltlously
as possible.
As indicated this morning, to the extent
that there was going to be time available, it would
seem appropriate to get statements from the
audience on the thermal issue. We have had the
benefit Of the dialog here. It may indeed be
of substance to the audience to make some related
comments. I would like to have some of your
suggestions there. We might do that until perhaps
11:30.
MR. HERT: I would suggest that since we
have restricted our comments to material that was
presented by the Environmental Protection Agency,
that those in the audience also restrict their
comments to similar information.
-------
47
MR. MAYO: To the thermal issue.
MR. HERT; Not to presenting additional
material at this time, only comments on the material
under discussion this morning.
MR. MAYOs How do you feel about that,
gentlemen? I think we ought to have time to go
until 11:30* If that is desirable, then go to
lunch, get back here early, say 1:00 o'clock at
the latest.
In order to proceed— I am looking at
the microphone situation, we don't have a floor
microphone—I think it would be helpful to take
one of the end microphones and ask whoever wishes
to make a statement to come forward to the end
of the table and I think Just hold the microphone
in hand for the purpose of making the statement
to be sure that what is said is clearly heard in
the room.
We are available, ladies and gentlemen,
to have your statements on the issues that we have
discussed so far this morning. As you come forward,
please identify yourself, your name and any
affiliation that you may wish to have acknowledged
in the record.
-------
48
MR. PETER SCULLEN: My name is Peter
Scullen and I represent Commonwealth Edison. I
have a rebuttal statement by D. W. Prltchard on
Dr. M. A. Shirazi*s review of the analysis of
the sinking plume phenomena, and I would like
this entered in the record as if we had read it,
and we will pass out copies. Is that acceptable?
MR. MAYO: Please make a copy available to
the recorder.
(The statement referred to is
appended to the transcript.)
MR. BRYSONj In order to clarify what has
been presented, following the last session of
the conference EPA did a review of some of the
statements that were presented at the September
session. Dr. Shirazi reviewed the statement by
Mr. Pritchard. He is on the staff of the EPA.
Dr. Shirazi developed the comments which were
distributed to the conferees and Interested
parties as necessary. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to suggest that Dr. Shirazi*s comments be
entered into the record so it is clear what is
being rebutted.
MR. MAYO: We will provide the reporter with
-------
49
a copy.
(The statement referred to
Is appended to the transcript.)
MR, MAYO: The time is yours, ladies and
gentlemen.
MR. ELA: My name is Jonathan Ela, Midwest
Representative of the Sierra Club. We have not
had an opportunity to review Mr. Mayo*s statement
in any great detail since we read it first this
morning, nor to tie it in In a definitive way
with the new clean water act Just passed by
Congress. With this caution, however, it seemed
very difficult to interpret the statement as
anything other than complete capitulation to the
Interests of the utilities and the other dischargers
of thermal pollutants into Lake Michigan. At the
last session of the enforcement conference in
September, we were told that the Environmental
Protection Agency had a position. It was a
very forceful position, developed over several
years. It is truly ironic that* now that the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency has the
statutory authority to enforce its own position,
it seems to have retreated from It in a series
-------
50
of somersaults that can be regarded as cataclysmic
from the point of view of the environment. We
have been alarmed with the statements heard this
morning, for it seems to Indicate that plants
under construction will be given nearly automatically
the permit that they require for the foreseeable
future for unlimited discharges of hot water into
Lake Michigan, and that only after a period of
review that will go on for something like 3
years will this matter be reconsidered. There
is not much comfort to be gained from history
in these ex post facto review period analyses
over existing pollutants. It seems very unlikely
that 3 years from now or 5 years from now,
after the plant has been operating for a period
of years, there will be any agency that will
enforce cooling towers or other backfitting to
these plants. We must be pessimistic on the basis
of what we have heard that the real problem of
thermal pollution of the lake will be met by the
authorities. It is alarming to read the definition
of best practicable technology that seems to be
in the statement this morning• There are, of
course, powerplants throughout the United States
-------
51
that are operating, operating economically, with
cooling systems of various sorts. It appears,
however, that for the future the Interests along
the Great Lakes will not be required to practice
these same technologies. If this weak, to say
the least, definition of best practicable
technology Is going to spread over Into other
areas of pollution as the Environmental Protection
Agency seeks to Implement the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as recently passed by
Congress, It seems Instead of having a great
victory on the passage of that Act, we have
taken a big step backwards. We hope this Is not
the case, and we certainly hope that the
Environmental Protection Agency will show more
fortitude In meeting the problems of thermal
pollution in Lake Michigan than seems to have
been indicated this morning. Thank you.
MR. RICCI: My name is Nicholas Rlccl,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company. With respect
to what I have seen In the report, I think we
can say that we support the idea of cooperative
studies, certainly based on our final judgment—
it would have to be based on a review of the
-------
52
details that will be involved— and assuming
that we will get adequate recognition for some
of the studies that we are presently conducting.
MRS. LOUISE ROME: My name is Louise Rome
from the Illinois League of Women Voters. In
general terms I would support what Jonathan Ela
has said about the content of this paper. I would
like to be specific as to Point No. 2, and I
am not sure whether it is Mr* Mayo or Mr. McDonald
who made the statement that the comprehensive
monitoring program would be financed by the
utilities. That is not in the report and the
prepared text. I am wondering what assurance
you have if the utilities would be willing to
do this kind of monitoring. The last meeting
in September clearly pointed to the fact that
studies in the design had not adequately been
developed, and I feel that turning it over to
the utilities for financing when there is research
money within the bills is rather an incredible
sidestepping. Can you address yourself as to
how we can get more effective monitoring in
view of the fact we have weaker enforcement
anyway?
-------
53
MR. MCDONALD: You really said a mouthful.
I can answer some of it. Let me answer this as
forthrlghtly as I can.
First of all, the utilities are the
ones that will be doing the discharging of this
heated water into the lake. As such, under the
new Act, this is nothing unique in terms of a
function that the utilities or any industrial
discharger has to perform. They are going to be
and we think should be obligated to do such
studies, however extensive they may be, over a
period of time, and maybe on a continuous basis,
to determine what those discharges are doing to
the lake both in the vicinity of their plant plus
plug-ins for totally wide assessment of what
damage might be occurring. Now, I think the
Important thing, your point is well taken from this
standpoint, there has been a good deal of reluctance
by many people to accept the studies that the
utilities have done in the past without assessing
the merits of that contention. Starting now with
the formation of this committee and getting a
broad representation on that panel for assessing
the types of studies that the utilities ought to
do, both at their plant and lakewide, and agreeing
-------
54
on common assessments of how we are going to
look at the results when they come in, getting
the types of studies underway that really are
needed In everybody's mind, and to do this
requires this broad acceptance,so everytime a
study Is done you don't have one of the parties
that feels they have been left out because this
study was a result of a self-serving study. The
studies are not Intended to be self-serving
studies. However, we feel very strongly that
they like any other discharger, that the utilities
have a great obligation to do these. Now, if
the utilities decide they are not going to
accept this obligation, I have every confidence
that they will accept this obligation, if they
want to get this problem resolved at an accepted
speed, this Is the way that we are going to move
on this program. For us to think that we are
going to get Just another study that the parties
can attack, what good Is that study? This isn't
the type of study that we have in mind. We have
in mind a study that we hope will have maximum
built-in integrity, the type of study that we
require, so that we can protect the lake. I
-------
55
think the kneejerk reaction on this type of
proposal is understandable by people such as
yourself and the gentleman from the Sierra Club
that got up indicating, as he indicated,after a
very rapid reading of this paper, cursory knowledge
of the statute, that this is a bad way to go.
I think what we are trying to do here is get a
good way to go and end this type of contest that
we have been engaged in for so many years. I
would hope that you and the Sierra Club, the
interests that Mrs. Home represents, the League
of Women Voters, would get a representation on
this panel so that we can sit down together and
try to hammer out positions that would protect
this lake. This is going to be your opportunity
as I see it to sit down on these very difficult
questions to try to come up with some answers
because I know that things are not all black and
white. I think you know that, too.
DR. CARSON: My name is Dr. James E. Carson
from Argonne National Laboratory. 1 am a
professional meteorologist. For the past year or
year and one-half I have been studying the Impact
of cooling towers and cooling lakes on the
-------
56
atmospheric environment. Cooling towers which
have been proposed by some people as a cure-all
for thermal pollution effects in the lake do
in fact create environmental problems. These
can be mitigated to some extent by placing the
plant at the proper place, far from major roads,
major transmission lines, and major communities.
However, merely placing a cooling tower on a
particular plant could make a stronger negative
impact than the item it was meant to cure, which
is water pollution. This conclusion has been
reached by several people, including those people
who have studied the environmental impact of
the Palisades powerplant in Michigan. This
study was not done by Argonne but another national
laboratory. I would suggest that the charge
that has been given to the Technical Committee
be very specific and state they must also
Investigate the impact of the alternate cooling
devices such as cooling towers, cooling lakes.
Only by assessing the relative magnitude of the
impact of these techniques can a really good
solution to the problem be developed. It is no
cure to come up with a cooling tower, for example,
-------
57
In design that causes numerous automobile
accidents In pursuit of clear water in Lake
Michigan. The impact of a cooling tower at
that particular plant could well be infinitely
worse than the proposed once through system.
Thank you.
MR. FISHER: My name is Paul Fisher, Director
of Power Production, Wisconsin Power and Light
Company. We operate a station on Lake Michigan,
four units, approximately 500 mw. We
are also 40 percent owner of the Kewaunee
Nuclear Station that will be operational in
late 1973- I would like to make some overall
comments relative to the Environmental Protection
Agency's suggestion on what Is before us today.
Overall, I feel that the EPA process suggestion
is a step in the right direction. I am a little
concerned about the assumption that all cooling
water intake facilities are by flat assumed to be
inadequate and should have the best technology
available. My own experience, each and every year
there will be better technology available.
Also, some sort of assessment is being
done by certain designers of intake facilities.
-------
58
Some designers have recognized in the past, we
have intake structures that are a thousand feet
out in the lake. I am not quite sure that we
can say all intake structures are inadequate.
I feel the suggestion for an overall study of
the lake is an excellent one. However, a study
of the entire lake, in my Judgment, cannot
discriminate in the effects of the thermal
pollution and the effects of municipalities.
I believe there should be some sharing of
costs. We ought to consider a study of the
entire lake. More is involved than Just utilities.
I believe it was raised in the event
cooling towers would be necessary for powerplant
.discharges considered to be deleterious to
marine life; I think it should be given adequate
time to correct. It takes leadtime to.design;
leadtime to engineer; and leadtime to construct.
If we design towers today, we cannot get them
in service in less than 2 years. In any proposal
of this sort, I would definitely like to see
a definition of what is a closed cycle, what
is the best practical technology. Unless
this is spelled out — we spent something like
-------
59
$6,000,000 on a powerplant in Wisconsin where
we want to avoid the effects that we are considering
today* We built a cooling pond. To me a cooling
pond is a closed-cycle system. Now we are asked
to explain why it is not a closed-cycle system,
and this is because we are taking makeup water
from a source and we are sending some back. I
think it is very important that any proposal
like this contain specific definitions. Thank
you.
MR. MAYO: Thank you.
MR. HOGLUND: My name is Barton Hoglund,
Assistant Director of the Center for Environmental
Studies, Argonne. I notice on page 5 a summary
Of the A ct States, "...to conduct comprehensive
studies on the effects and methods of controlling
thermal discharges." There was no discussion on
Dr. Carson's comments, but is It Intended, is it
practical to have the technical committee headed
by Dr. McErlean discuss and study alternate methods
in the same depth that they plan to study once
through cooling, or would it be wise to have
separate committees headed by men as knowledgeable
and experienced in marine problems heading up
-------
60
problems vf,_ ;ii meteorological conditions, cooling;
towers* but study them In the same depth and. same
degree of concern?
MR. MAYOj What was intended here in this
recommendation was to have this particular
committee address itself to the adequacy of the
studies that would address themselves to the Issue
of damage in the lake. It was not intended in
any way to shortchange or to minimize the necessity
of understanding other related issues* I think
those Issues can be addressed perhaps by a
different mechanism. You are probably all
familiar with the fact that related environmental
issues have to be addressed in the environmental
impact statements for each of the proposed
installations. These environmental impact
statements do get circularized, have an opportunity
for a full review. That is one of the mechanisms
that is available to us for purposes of looking
at, examining, the related environmental Impact
as a consequence to alternatives to once through
cooling. So there is a facility available at
least to address these Issues.
In the consideration of individual
-------
61
permits for these discharges, it seems to me that
there rests with the permit issuing agency again
responsibility to address the consequences of the
imposition of the requirements for controls other
than once through cooling, and the permit issuing
process involves a public hearing requirement that
can be taken advantage of. So again there are
mechanisms available to get at the issues of
the consequences of the alternative methods of
cooling. But for the purposes of this presentation,
we zeroed in on the Issue of determining damage
to the lake environment because that is where
the problem starts. Until we have adequately
addressed those Issues and can come to reasonably
agreeable conclusions, we are not really prepared
to face the question of should there be a requirement
for alternative systems, and the related question
that would flow from the statute, is it reasonable
to accept something less than the best practicable
control technology, but must subsequently be
determined as applicable by the Administrator?
That hinges on the impact of the water environment.
It seems to us crucial to the whole process is our
respective capability to, one, examine the impact
-------
62
on the water environment In the way that we agree
is credible and In the way that offers us a
vastly Improved opportunity to agree on the results
and, two, having agreed on the results, then
we ought to be in a much more intelligent position
to examine the need for alternative methods for
cooling.
MR, HENRY; My name is James B. Henry. I
am Vice President, General Counsel of American
Electric Power Service Corporation. American
Electric Power Company is the parent company of
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company which is
building the D.C. Cook nuclear powerpiant on
Lake Michigan. I would like to say that we fully
accept the statement of Mr. McDonald that we have
a responsibility to participate in studies as to
the effects of thermal discharges. I am sure there
may be some disagreement as we go along as to Just
what should be studied or what the conclusions
may be, but the principle, I think, is clear. We
certainly pledge our cooperation in any kind of
studies that are developed in the mutual interest
of the public,
I would like to make the point which
-------
63
sometimes Is overlooked. It is the public who
pays if unnecessary installations are made, for
example, cooling towers. It isn't the stockholders
of the utility, and it certainly isn't the
executives of the utility. It is the public. I
think that we as officers of utilities and employees
owe the duty to the public to participate in the
development in the fullest possible way in order
that Judgments in these matters may be made on
the basis of knowledge rather than on speculation.
MR. MAYO: Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
MR, YOCOMt My name is Thomas Q. Yocom, Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. At this point
I represent myself. I think one of the things
that Mr. McDonald said is very Important, and this
is in terms of determining what constitutes damage.
I think that you have to define damage, whether it
is in terms of the ecosystem or in terms of the
desirable species kind of thing. Thermal plume,
if you go to a thermal plume, you find that
walleyes are superb. Is this something that is
beneficial or is the walleye doing something at
the expense of something else? We haven't really
-------
64
put all of the stuff together, and It is going
to take something like a systems analysis to
come up with any kind of predictable values.
You probably have all seen the comments, we
have gotten nowhere here taking all of the
individual bits of information and trying to
stick it together to say what the effects are.
You can say the effect on whitefish is such and
such. If you want to take the effect on whitefish,
the effect on zooplankton, everything else,
and stick It together, you may come
up with recommended standards that are way below
what it is for any individual species. To say,
well, you guys go out and do a study, come back
with some information in 270 days is ludicrous.
MR. McDONALD: It isn't that you are going
to go out on Lake Michigan, this technical panel
that would be set up, and do a study in 270 days.
You have to have not only initial, you are going
to have ongoing assessment of damage. Just because
you study something for 3 years doesn't mean
something couldn't happen in the fourth year. I
think that is what we are talking about here today.
There has to be an ongoing assessment. First we
-------
65
have to know what we ought to assess. The point
that you make about Whitefish may be abundant* is
that good? Who knows? Some of these relationships
we have to decide„
MR. YOCOM: It is one of the things that
bothers me, the length of study. We have been
involved with the Army Corps of Engineers. Do
you want to collect data for us for a year, tell
us what the effect is? It can't be done. To
show there is no effect in 1 year does not mean
there is no effect. You may be putting organisms
under a stress situation. Here is an organism
that has evolved to a particular nature in Lake
Michigan. You put a little extra stress there.
You may have to wait until the entire environment
gets stressed by cold, for example, when you
knock the entire population out.
MR. McDONALDx This is not a one-shot effort.
It is an effort that has to be a continuous
monitoring process. When you reach a certain
point in the results, you have to be able to
assess whether there is damage or not. Your
point is well taken. This is not a 270-day
study or a 1-year study.
-------
66
MR. YOCOM: The thing I don't want to see
happen in terms of damage is for someone to say,
"Gosh5 because of the thermal plume we have three
populations of walleyes." If you take a look at
the ecosystem from the point of view, of what
man wants to get out of it—you may come up with
a different kind of standard if you look at it
from man»s point of view than from the ecosystem
point of view.
MR. McDONALD: If the Department of the
Interior is represented, that will not happen.
Your interests will be represented.
MR. McMASTER: My name is William McMaster,
and I represent myself also. I understand that
the effluent regulation will be effective in 1
year from the date of the act. I wonder why the
permit should run 3 years. It would seem 1
year from date of enactment would be beneficial.
Also, the fact that the decision on the
part of powerpiants can be made because once
EPA does permit the permit, no other agency will
be able to use any sort of effluent limitations
inconsistent with that. Does this leave us in a
position where plants may be built or may become
-------
67
operational In 2 years and we will be faced with
a case of requiring remedial work instead of
planning ahead?
I guess I have another question. I
am not sure I understand this well enough to have
an opinion on it. This proposal would seem
possibly to allow 3 years of operation by
the plant before the environmental effects are
really considered.
MB. McDONALD: Let me try to answer. Maybe
the other parties may want to talk also. In
terms of the 3- year permit, we said that the
permit would be issued for a relatively short
period of time. Three years is not a rigid figure
as we indicated to Mr. Purdy, It may well be a
lesser period of time. Secondly, if the effluent
limitation, when it is announced by the Administrator*
if it is more stringent than what the discharger
had to do to satisfy the water quality standards,
as we indicated in the statement the permit would
in effect be terminated so that this process could
go into effect. Now, let's make an assumption.
Let's take a plant, X plant discharges, they apply
for a permit. We write certain conditions, the
-------
68
State does, into the permit conditions. We say
you have to satisfy water quality standards.
The permit would be issued for a certain length
of time, say 2 years. Let»s say a year, a
year and one-half later, the Administrator comes
out with his final promulgation on the effluent
limitations required, and that would require, say,
cooling towers* At that point the discharger
would be so notified, and he would have an
opportunity under a new permit process that would
then start taking place, because of the termination
of the original permit, he would then have the
opportunity to demonstrate, if he cared to, in
a public hearing which you would be able to
participate in, which other interested parties
would be able to participate in, that either that
particular cooling tower would be required or
would not be required to protect the aquatic
environment in the lake. And then we would move
on, on the basis of that record, and issue a
new permit. So the length of time, the length
of the permit is somewhat speculative right now.
I don't think it is a binding thing.
There is one other factor on which Mr.
-------
69
Mayo made a statement, and that Is if,during the
term of the permit,damage was demonstrated, it
would require more stringent effluent limitations
fchan those imposed in the original permit, The
permit would also terminate ana the discharger
",-iould be so notified to install the other facilities
that would be required to correct that damage.
Of course, this again, as Mr. Purdy wanted clarified?
this would have to be on a time schedule to do
these things, to do what had to be done. This
is just a normal way that pollution control is
handled. I know of no case where you can snap
your fingers and say okay, build something that
ordinarily is going to take 2 years in 2 weeks.
You don't do this. When you put them on notice
to do what has to be done, if they don't do it,
we have very severe penalties under the Federal
law which Include injunctive relief to close down
a facility, which include criminal penalties of
$25,000 a day, $30,000 a day for repeated offenses.
There are very severe penalties which all of the
dischargers are subject to.
MR. MAYO: If there are no further statements,
ladies and gentlemen, we will recess for lunch
-------
70
and we will resume at 1:00 o'clock.
(Whereupon a recess was taken
until 1 p.m., November 95
1972.)
-------
71
The public session of the Lake
Michigan States and the Environmental Protection
Agency meeting was reconvened at 1
p.m., November 9, 1972, in the Gold Room,
Pick-Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illinois,
Mr. Francis T, Mayo, Regional Administrator,
Region V of the Environmental Protection Agency,
presiding.
MR. MAYO: It is time for us to convene
again, ladies and gentlemen. To continue with
the agenda, at the last session of the conference,
the conferees considered and heard evidence
concerning other areas of Importance in preserving
Lake Michigan. A package of recommendations
pertaining to these other, nonthermal recommendations
was given to each of the conferees for their
review. The principal topics of concern involved
status of compliance, phosphorus, chlorides,
pesticides, selected trace metals, phthalates,
PCB, and taste and odor problems in the Green Bay
portion of Lake Michigan.
At the last session, there was insufficient
time available to reach agreement on the final form
-------
72
of the recommendations. Since the last session,
EPA has reviewed preliminary comments and has
revised the recommendations. Today each of the
States has been provided the revised version with
the intention that final agreement will be reached
at this meeting. Along with comments already
received, certain revisions became mandatory due
to the recent passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. At this point,
I suggest that we discuss each of the main non-
thermal recommendations one at a time. I want
to open discussion on the proposed recommendations
for status of compliance.
Mr. McDonald.
MR. McDONALD: How do you want to handle
this? Do you want to read each of the recommendations
or how would you like to proceed?
MR. MAYO: Each of the members here at the
head table has received the original recommendations.
Subsequent to that time we had suggested revisions.
Those revisions were transmitted to the other panel
members. What we have before us, as I understand
it,is essentially the material with those recommended
changes, with some modest changes in language to
-------
73
fit the context of the new legislation. Now,
the audience also should have available to them
the same package of material. I think it might
be redundant to read each one of the recommendations,
I suggest that we proceed with them one at a time
and Just conduct our discussion on that basis *
We have a number of issues to address, I think
the less time we spend on redundant matters the
better off we will be in keeping a reasonable
schedule today.
MR. NoDONALD: Well, after distributing the
proposed recommendations at the last session of
the conference, Mr* Purdy narked up a copy of
these proposed recommendations, and as X under-
stand it, presented it to his Commission, what
he felt he could adopt. And at the same time
distributed copies to the other conferees. Ralph?
MR. PURDY: It becomes more than my position
now* It was placed before my Commission, My
Commission commented on it, and the copy that I
sent to you and to the other members of the other
States represents what my Commission felt they
could accept. So it is more than my position
now. It is my Commission's position.
-------
74
MR. McDONALD: What we did with what was sent
back to us was that we made some editorial changes, de-
leted references to conferences, conferees, and so
forth* ¥e also reinserted certain portions
vhat .-<,?© mandatory under the* not only the
pa-st legislation but the existing legislation.
I think w® were in substantial agreement with
what you proposed here by way of change, but it
seems to me that maybe we have to go down these,
Mr* Mayo, to see what we are agreeing to,
MR. MAYO: I suggest that we proceed with
them one at a time.
MR. MeDONALDi Okay. The Federal Government
has no problem other than the editorial changes
that we have presented. Maybe one of the State
conferees, Mr, Purdy, might want to indicate where
he cannot agree with this revised copy.
MR. PURDY: On phthalates, Recommendation
No. 3, , where It states: "The States
institute a control program to reduce to a minimum
level the discharge of phthalates to the environment,"
right at the moment these things are used in such
a diverse way I am not even sure of the mechanisms
by which they reach the environment. For example,
-------
75
it could be in rainfall or due to the fact that
the plastics containing these substances are
incinerated and so forth. I don't know where
they reach the environment in the largest quantities.
Secondly, as I remembered Dr. Mount's testimony,
one, the Food and Drug Administration did not seem
to be particularly concerned about the level
found in food products. They are not concerned
about this being a threat to the health of people.
And then the other one somewhat different from
the written testimony, as I understood Dr. Mount,
he was not too concerned about the toxicity of
this to fish and aquatic organisms* You know this
is somewhat different than the technical committee
report. As I remember it, we questioned Dr. Mount
on that particular subject, and he did not seem
to be real concerned. If there is no real concern,
I am wondering what the rush is to institute
a control program before we even know that they
need to be controlled.
MR. McDONALDs Mr. Bryson, do you have an
answer to that?
MR. BRYSON: Let me ask a couple of questions
first. In your report on the monitoring program,
where the industries have to tell what k:. :ducts
-------
76
they are using and so on, would that later be
covered in that reporting program?
MR, PURDYi Yes. It Is one of the Items
that we have identified that they must report
on, and through this we have estimated that some
60,000 pounds a year may be lost to the environment
In Michigan. But at the moment, you know, okay,
so there is 60,000 pounds lost, what Is the effect?
MR, BRYSON: If I remember the testimony,
it was along the lines that there are indications
that these do cause a problem or can build up
to levels where they do cause a problem. If
I recollect, he suggested doing what we can to
start instituting controls now so that we do not
end up with a PCB problem sometime in the future.
I think the thought is to see what we can do in
terms of controlling the discharge of these. Maybe
the first step at this point is getting a handle
on how much is being used in each state, and then
as we get a better handle on the toxiclty, as shown
in No. 2, that we are better able to institute
a control program at that point, if you look at
the control in the broadest sense here.
MR. PURDY: We are concerned with where they
are being used. We are concerned about the mechanism
-------
77
in which they reach the aquatic environment,
and monitoring to establish this path, but we
don't know that we ought to stop the discharge
at this point in time.
MR. FETTEROLP: Recommendation No. 3
is so broad it covers all phthalates. Phthalates
are made up of many different esters. So far,
the bioassay toxlcity work has really only
identified one or two esters as being biologically
harmful. Certainly we should be concerned about
the control of the particular esters which are
harmful* I am not certain that a blanket
restriction is warranted. I noticed in the report
covering phthalates and PCB's presented at the
September meeting that there really was not a
recommendation made by the technical committee
on control. It was more a gathering of information
and expression of concern without really being
sure that control measures were necessary. Could
I read that?
MR. McBONALD: Why don't you read that.
MR. PETTEROLP: It is in the last paragraph.
"Based primarily upon chronicity bioassay, the committee
feels it is necessary to reaffirm our Initial
-------
78
concern with environmental phthalate contamination
and to recommend to the conferees that comprehensive
State surveillance of municipal sewage treatment
plants, industries, domestic water intakes and
fish be initiated to determine phthalate trends
in the aquatic environment."
MR. BRYSON: Let me ask the other States, do
you have a feel for what quantity of phthalates
are being discharged to the streams and into Lake
Michigan? Mr. Williams, Will there be a handle
on phthalates?
MR. WILLIAMS: We will be Including phthalates
in our monitoring program. In general, I think we
concur in the Michigan recommendation here, that
greater emphasis be placed on the surveillance
and on the monitoring program, with controls
Instituted as these obviously become necessary. I
would make one suggestion with respect to the
surveillance program that is recommended for the
States. Although I am certain that we could and
will if necessary involve ourselves in the
evaluation of accumulation of phthalates in fish,
it strikes me in conjunction with another
recommendation, as I recall in pesticides or the
-------
79
PCS recommedations, that it speaks rather specifically
about the various sport fisheries and EPA coordinating
the fish analysis. I think here is an opportunity
for us to avoid duplication of effort. I think we
might strike the fish from the state surveillance
program and concentrate this where I think the
samples are being collected. They may as well be
analyzed for phthalate contributions there as well
and avoid duplication of effort.
MR. BRYSON: Mr. Hert?
MR. HERT: My comment on this, still with
I tern 1, asking for a progress report, I suppose
this may be a typographical error/ you want a
report by December 31, 1973* and not 1972?
MR. BRYSON: You are correct. No, wait a
minute. A progress report should be submitted by
the end of the year to see what program has been
instituted and so on in each of the States.
MR* HERT: The program to be Instituted by
March 1973, it seems to me untimely to submit a
progress report 2 months before you Institute
a program.
MR. BRYSON: I don't believe so because I
think certain things have to be set In motion now
-------
80
In order to be ready to go in March. What we are
after here is to see if something additional
doesn't have to be done prior to the March date
so that things will be ready to go.
Let me get back to the question that
I asked Mr* Williams* Do you have a handle
on the quantity of phthalates in the basin?
That is the same question that I asked
before.
MR, HERT: We do not have a handle on it.
We are instituting piant-by-piant analyses for
phthalates* We are not in a position to make a
progress report at the end of next month.
MR. FETTEROLF: I can say for the biologists
in Michigan and for the Commission that we are
very concerned about phthalates, but we do not
feel that an emergency program of control is called
for because of the assurance FDA has given us that
they are not concerned over human toxicity,
cumulative toxiclty, and therefore we feel that
this is one of the pollutants that there is time
with; that we can make a logical assessment of
the problem without any harsh restrictions at the
beginning.
-------
81
MR. MAYO: How about the issue of toxicIty
of fish and aquatio life, do you have a sense of
urgency there?
MR* FBTTEROSEt The Bureau of Sports Fisheries
at Columbia, Missouri, has been the prime Federal
facility looking into this. As stated in the
technical committee report, they feel in general
that the phthalate esters have relatively low
toxicity to aquatic life with the exception of
Daphnia, and I have been in touch with Schoettger
and Stallings at Columbia, and they really cannot
pinpoint a definite problem that we should have
a great deal of concern over at this time considering
the existing concentrations in our streams.
MR. PURDYr If I might comment on the progress
report, I had not interpreted that as meaning a
progress report on the results of the monitoring
program. It was a progress report on the action
the State had taken to develop a monitoring program.
MR. BRYSON: To see what sort of program is
going on, where it is headed.
MR. PURDY: Yes*
MR, BLASKR: Well, we have been running a
monitoring program on this with a combination of
-------
82
Federal and State moneys. One observation I
have Is that, although the suggestion Is that we
commence a monitoring program by Maroh 1973, with
our money, we cannot* We will have to wait until
July 1st, the beginning of a new flsjeal year,
and new appropriations. In discussing with the
head of our division of laboratories, he feels
that with the combination of new equipment, new
staff and training, he said he would need 8
months roughly to commence a good program, an
accurate program, 3 months after the assurance
that we would get Federal funding. I know those
dates are not pleasing to hear. He said once the
Federal funding Is made available, the equipment
has to be ordered, delivered, people found,
people trained, to get the accuracy of results
needed.
MR. BRYSON: Federal funding under the State
or local grant?
MR. BLASER: Regardless of how It comes.
Built Into our current fiscal budget we have only
a very low level of such testing, and some of that
testing we farm out. A comprehensive program I
would assume would mean a drastic expansion. We
-------
83
are roughly doing about 20 samples a month, 220
a year.
MR. MAYO: Do you think it would be sufficient
to take Item 3* and change it to read somewhat
like the following: The States institute compatible
surveillance programs to identify the level of
phthalates discharged to the environment.
MR. BRYSON: Can I add a phrase?
MR. MAYO: Have some identification of what
it is we are dealing with in terms of amount of
material and the principal locations in which
they are found.
MR. BRYSON: I would like to capture the
language that Mr. Williams used, which is along
the lines,"As toxlcity data become available,
the States should institute the necessary control
programs." Repeating the statement, "As toxlcity
data become available, the states should Institute
the necessary control program."
Concerning the question of -- I don't
believe the Department of Interior representatives
are here. I don't see them now.
Mr. Bartman, can you provide us a little
background on what level of work the Department of
-------
84
the Interior Is doing on level of phthalates
in fish in Lake Michigan?
MR. BARTMAN: I regret to report I cannot.
I can get these details for you in very short
order. I am not familiar with the details of
the program. Our program is primarily a research
program on phthalates rather than the overall
monitoring program, I believe.
MR. MAYO: Is there anything more on phthalates?
In order to perhaps proceed in a more orderly
way, I suggest that we start with the items on
the agenda, work with the items on the agenda one
at a time. We can express our concurrence as
we go along. Is there any comment on the status
of compliance?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think on the first page under
Combined Sewers, we use the word "negligible."
I am sure in Green Bay and other cities they take
considerable offense at the use of that term. I
recognize perhaps in total within the basin that
negligible may be appropriate. I think we could
substitute "inadequate," "unsatisfactory," something
that would be somewhat less offensive to those who
have done an outstanding job.
-------
85
MR. MAYO: Perhaps we can say "with notable
exception•"
MR. McDONALD: Such as Green Bay.
MR. WILLIAMS: I believe "unsatisfactory"
probably expresses it equally well.
MR. BRYSONs "Progress in meeting this
requirement basinwide has been unsatisfactory."
MR. MAYO: Is there any other comment on the
status of compliance item?
MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question on page 2,
Recommendation No. 2. I am not certain that
it would really relate to the other clearly enough
here. If you are behind, you should be given a
high priority in the Issuance of a discharge
permit.
MR. McDONALD: I think from a Federal standpoint,
getting a discharge permits-let's say you are a
major discharger— is going to start the clock
running on the enforcement program. Until such
time as the Federal permit is issued, the discharger
in effect under the new statute has a pass*
Federal enforcement action is not going to be
initiated, it says, until final administrative
disposition of it, No action will be taken from
-------
86
an enforcement standpoint until December 31* 197^.
We would like to do everything we can to accelerate
that process. That is the intent of that,
MR. WILLIAMS: Does this further imply, for
example, where EPA has had a 180-day action which has
been satisfied through agreement—and there have
been a few of these throughout Wisconsin—that
this in essence constitutes, until the terms of
that agreement have expired, the basis for the
discharge? In other words, there is as far as
the Federal agency is concerned an agreement here
which might possibly be further strengthened
through a discharge permit, but at least it
establishes the base?
MR. McDONALD: Yes, I think so.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would have two suggestions
on page 3 of this recommendation relating back
to the dates contained in Recommendation NO.
3. Where we have talked about April 1, 1973,
and then December 31, 1973, It would appear to
me that just as the comment was made earlier by
Mr. Hert, I believe, that we are asking for a
report before we have the information so to speak.
The date of September 1, 1973, for preparing a
-------
87
ranking would appear to be ahead of the game.
We are asking the States to require of their
municipalities a report by December 31* 1973*
in other words, a year from now. It would seem
more appropriate that perhaps February 1 or
March 1, 1974, that this ranking be issued based
on an evaluation rather than doing it 3
months in advance of the receipt of the reports.
It would appear more logical, if you are making
your determination before you get the information,
why did you ask for the information?
MR, McDONALD: In doing this there is an
assumption the State already has some sort of a
handle on the magnitude of its problems and tries
to place a ranking on these.
MR, WILLIAMS: I am certain that we can
give you a ranking pretty much today about the
severity of problems in Wisconsin, But I think
in terms of a meaningful report that the information
that would be gleaned by the December 31* 1973*
date would have some bearing on this and would in
fact be able to give to EPA and to the other states
a much more meaningful analysis of the problem,
and perhaps the anticipated solutions to the problem.
-------
88
MR. McDONALD: That language, I think —
didn't you put that In, Mr. Purdy? Didn't you
review that?
MR. PURDY: Yes. I found that the States
could Identify fairly soon the type of sewer
system that the various municipalities had,
either separate or combined sewer system. And
from the standpoint of surveillance programs,
and where such overflows created problems, a
previous condition where the stream did not meet
the water quality standards that have been adopted,
if we can rank those In some order of priority
on the basis of present Information, and the
studies in themselves required by the municipality
would show the specific area within the municipality
that is served by the combined sewer system, it
would spell out the engineering solution to the
problem and give you a cost estimate on that
engineering solution* The study to be required
of a municipality was separate from that required
of the state in the earlier one.
MR. WILLIAMS: If I might pursue it a bit
further, the question of dates aside, the word
"priority" crops up here. I am wondering if this
-------
89
relates -- perhaps Mr. Mayo would have some Insight
Into this -- if this relates to the new clean water
law and the funding that is indicated in there for
the correction of sewer problems. We are talking
in the new law about not only financing treatment
systems but the replacement of sewers. Is this
intended to assist EPA in the development of that
type of concept as to where the funds would be
applied first?
MR. MAYO: The new Act as I recall, in the
planning and construction portions, still requires
the identification of priorities for eligible
projects. With the extension of the eligibility
to include storm and combined sewers and collection
systems in addition to treatment plants, we are
going to be looking for this kind of Information
anyway. The sooner we get at it the better prepared
we are going to be to make use of it.
You may recall in the statute it requires
that the EPA conduct a needs assessment every 2
years, and will present a report to Congress every
2 years In the odd numbered years on the magnitude
of the needs that are to be met in the grants
processed. Now, the first odd numbered year to
-------
90
come up is 1973. That report Is supposed to be
submitted to the Congress, I think, in February,
either January or February of each odd-numbered
year. We are having a difficult time trying to
meet that requirement for 1973» I think the
sooner we get at making these kinds of appraisals
the sooner we are going to get the Jump on the
process of meeting that needs inventory and
making the necessary adjustment in State allocations.
ME. WILLIAMS: I think my interest in the
date has a bearing on whether we are looking on
this report as a matter of additional Information,
which I think then makes sense to follow the
communities1 reports to the state. If we are
looking at a study as opposed to a practical
schedule that may relate to the grant program,
I would say if it does relate to the grant program
the date should not only be September 1973 but
sooner than that.
ME. PURDY: When I went through this particular
section I was looking at it as the establishment
of priority needs for the treatment of combined
sewage only and not as the priorities for that
particular problem that might relate to sewage
-------
91
treatment plant construction. At this point in
time I don't feel that we are In a position to
second guess what the construction grant program
requirements might be as they relate to collecting
sewers, combined sewers/ sewage separation and
sewage treatment plants. When we talk about these
needs, we had under our grant statute received
new applications on the 15th of September of each
year. September 15, 1971, those applications
totalled up for projects costing 800 some odd
million dollars. On September 15, 1972, when
we took new applications, this matter of combined
sewers, overflow treatment, storm sewer separation,
eligibility of collecting sewers, the fact that
Congress was considering that, that appeared In
many of our applications, and the grant for the
construction value that we have now on hand In
the way of grant applications went from i year
of 800 some odd million dollars to this year of
one billion 800 some odd million dollars.
MR. McDONALD: Does that Include combined
sewers?
MR. PURDY: It Includes In some cases combined
sewer overflow treatment measures. There are
-------
92
some people that you know, It leaked out from
Congress that storm sewer separation was being
considered* Some of them Included that. We
have one project which was $4,000,000 alone In
collecting sewers in grant applications. We
have enough grant applications on hand today to
take all the money that Michigan would receive
during the 3 years authorized by the new
clean water act if it were totally funded. And
I say if it were totally funded. I make that a
big "if," and I Just see continuing frustration
in this matter of building those things that we
have stated are necessary by statute in the context
of the construction grant program,
MR. MCDONALD: What is the dollar figure of
combined sewers and overflow in Michigan?
MR. PURDY: It hasn»t really been separated.
We have not been able to go through the applications
and separate it out. We have attempted in the
last few weeks to make an assessment of our needs,
and considering storm sewer treatment, collecting
sewers, and so forth, and we feel now to meet the
requirements of the new clean water bill that we
are talking in excess of $3,000,000,000 worth of
-------
93
construction prior to 1980. But this Is Just
priorities for combined sewer overflows as comparing
one project to another, and not comparing that with
sewage treatment plant treatment at all,
MR. WILLIAMS: I have no objection to the
date as stated* We recognized the basis on which
the date was selected* I assumed that this was
a sort of an arbitrary date. There is no objection
to it.
MR. MAYO: Is there any other comment on the
status of compliance?
MR. FETTEROLP: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hert
wishes to ask you about No. 4. He has a
question. He is coming back into the room now.
MR, WILLIAMS: Since I do seem to have a
concern with dates, I suggest February 15 or
some date other than January 1 as the report date
for that.
MR. MAYO: Mr. Hert, do you have a question
about item No. 4 on page 3?
MR. HERTi Yes. The question is I don't
recognize it from earlier communications. I wonder
where it cropped up from and what it refers to.
MR. McDONALD: This was one of your State
-------
delegates redrafting thl»* Mr. Purdy is the one
that redrafted this. We found it acceptable.
MR. PURDY: Well, some of the people that
testified at the last conference expressed concern
that not all of the industrial dischargers that should
be listed and are being reported to the conferees
were receiving the proper attention. I Just
took the new congressional language of nonpublic
waste discharges to identify those industrial waste
discharger^. AS far as I am concerned we have
presented the information on our total discharges
to this conference, and we are ready to again
reassess this, let you evaluate our assessment of
it, determine that we are reporting on those that
should be reported on.
MR. HERT: Me are talking about industrial
source, not point source?
MR. McDONALDt Industrial. I think also
BPI raised .tJaat point at the last session* we had
a man contact each of the state agencies to see
if there were any revisions due in the major
discharger list for permits. I understand that
cooperatively this was worked out, some changes
were made. So now we feel we have all of the major
-------
95
dischargers that contributed to the pollution
problems on an agreed-upon major discharger list
which Is again subject to change if it is
Indicated that somebody ought to be added or
deleted. We have pretty well covered the front
on this with the statement that Mr. Purdy
suggested that really buttons it down all of the
way.
MR. HERT: I agree then to that, but I would
support Wisconsin in asking for at least a month's
delay in that report.
MR. McDONALD: How about February 15?
MR. HERT: All right.
MR. DUMELLE: I wonder, Mr. Mayo, if we can
have a little clarification on what is meant by
adverse impact on the water quality. The problem
is that you could have a discharge which is
diluted by a stream, but at its mouth it is
something different. As you go further from the
mouth of the stream, that will be diluted down
to the water quality of Lake Michigan because of
the amount of the bulk waters. It seems to me
this is too general a term. Everybody has his
own idea of what is an adverse impact. If it is
-------
96
a persistent sort of a thing, it can stay there
forever and not be removed toy some biological
degradation* it seems to me you come back
eventually to the pound loading that goes to
Lake Michigan, get back to the inventory problem.
I don't know whether the Federal EPA is going to
develop this as a tool for the states to use to
Judge their, whatever it is, iron inputs, chloride
inputs, and so on, in terms of the entire mass
balance through the lake* It seems to me that
is a very important tool we ought to have, knowing
what comes in from all of the streams and what
comes In from the rainfall. The data I have seen
are fragmentary. I know how difficult it is to
achieve this thing.
MR. MAYO: This language suggests that the
evaluation should identify both the quality and
quantity of the waste discharged* If the inventory
is that complete, then the assessment of whether
or not there is an adverse impact should be made
on the part of everybody.
MR. DUMELLE: This would be the beginning of
the inventory, each of the states would put this
out, total it, and judge it on those terms?
-------
97
MR. MAYO; Yes.
MR. PURDY: I don't agree It is the beginning.
It has been there from the very beginning. It Is
in the records now. If a person wants to dig
through the records, that Information is there.
It has been part of the reports of all of the
conferees in all of the past conferences.
MR. MAYO: Is there any further discussion
on the status of compliance?
The next item is chlorides.
MR. McDONALD: I did not see much difference
at all in this recommendation, Mr. Mayo. It seems
to be In substantial agreement with what we have
down here.
MR. MAYO: Is there any comment on the chlorides
recommendation?
Phosphorus.
MR. HERT: I have a slight problem with Item
No. l, "Facilities of less than 2500
population equivalent would be exempt from the
requirement." I believe it requires some communities
less than 2500 to provide 80 percent phosphorus
removal, and I think it should be clear that we
are talking about facilities should be exempt
-------
98
from the additional rather than the basic requirement
of 80 percent.
MR. BRYSON: You are suggesting —
MR. HERTs Adding additional, exempt from the
additional requirement.
MR. DUMELLE: I have a question on No. l
too* Why Is It necessary to come up with a cost
estimate on this additional treatment facility
since it is going to be required anyway for
all of the dischargers? Was there some feeling
if the cost is excessive they will take another
look and perhaps go back to the 80 percent?
What Is the reason for doing that?
MR. McDONALD: I think at the last session
Mr. Purdy in particular raised a comment on how
much this is going to cost in terms of sludge
disposal and so forth, so it could be plugged
into the recommendation. We looked at it from
that standpoint. Also he added because of the
possible problems with construction grant levels
of funding, he didn't know If he could come up
with a rational time schedule for doing what had
to be done. Is that right?
MR. PURDY: This is true. Someplace along
-------
99
the line I think we need to analyze where we are
going to accomplish the most with what I view
will be scarce dollars for municipal construction,
and without having this cost information I don't
know how we can make that analysis. I think we
need to know what we are going to accomplish by
a dollar spent on going from 80 to 90 percent
removal versus the dollar spent on combined sewer
overflow. I don't see all of the dollars that
we need in the next few years flowing into all
of these problems* You are going to have to be
selective. We will have to make sure that we did
the most for our money spent. Among other things,
I think the new Act requires in many Instances
where you go to certain levels of treatment,
something different than may be best available,
that one has to give consideration to the added-
on cost versus the benefits, and so I think this
Is in line with the requirements of the clean
water act.
MR. MCDONALD: How does this compare with
the U. S. - Canadian agreement? Is it inconsistent?
MR. MAYO: It is not grossly inconsistent. The
only thing that would be lacking here would be the
-------
100
target date that is recited in the U. S. - Canadian
agreement, 1975 for the boundary waters. I
haven't seen the gross Inconsistency between this
and the language in the Canadian group*
MR. McDONALD: Except this is open-ended.
MR. PURDY: With respect to that date, we
may meet it and we may not. I think it is time
that we start telling our audience that we will
not meet it when we can assess it and realistically
appraise the fact that we are not going to make
it in view of the other requirements that are
placed upon municipalities and the resources to
move in that direction. It is easy to say that
a waste treatment requirement for a public source,
the correction of that problem is not dependent
on what is received in State and Federal grants.
From the real live world, It may not be dependant
upon it, but it sure is a lot easier if they do.
If they don't receive it, it will be a long hard
struggle through the courts to require it to be
done. I am not sure it is going to be required
even then. I just think that we need to get these
things out in the open and no longer say that
something is going to be done in 1975, and then
-------
101
wait until 1975 and say we cannot meet it.
MR. McDONALD: I cannot disagree with that
logic. I think again that is disturbing. Here
the Congress has set brand new deadlines of 1977,
for example, for best practicable control technology
for industrial and municipal waste, and a State
that has all of the applications, such as you have,
$1.3 billion, already utilizing the full funding
available from the Federal Government, you won't
have anything left to do these things anyway even if
you made the listing. Is that your point?
MR. PURDY: That is right.
MR. DUMELLE: Mr. Purdy, do you have a cost
benefit analysis that you use on your projects?
If you do, what is your rule of thumb, if you have
one, for Justifying additional treatment*/
MR. PURDY: The cost/benefit does not come
into play in our priority scheme. The cose/
benefit must be considered in the Interim Jrfasin
plans required under the Federal regulations as
It relates, say, regional facilities of one plant,
two plants, or what. There is no set cost/benefit
ratio that I know of.
MR. BRYSON: Recently I saw copiea of a letter
-------
102
that you sent that showed cost per capita for
phosphorus removal * In each of the letters that
I saw, you said the cost is $3.25 per capita,
is not excessive, therefore you are ordered to
go ahead. Bo you have some fixed figure in mind
where it becomes excessive in the Commission's
eyes?
MR* PURDY? Well, the Commission reviewed
the cost of providing interim facilities for a
number of plants, along with the cost that had
been incurred by municipalities that have moved
ahead with grant programs and some that have
moved ahead in the absence of grant programs.
That figure of something less than $4 per capita
seemed to fit into the pattern of those that we
are moving ahead at the present time. By requiring
these additional ones to move in that direction,
we were not asking them to do anything more than
some others in the state. Now, the Commission
did not fix a fixed dollar as to where that break-
point would be because we assumed, if we fixed that,
someone would try to get above it.
MR. HERT: Mr. Mayo, I think a part of the
thing that we are talking about here is not the
-------
103
initial phosphorus reduction. The point is that you can-
not get the 1 mg/1 objective without the extensive plant
enlargement. Even plants that have adequate capacity
have to provide additional settling capacity to get
rid of the phosphorus.
MR. MAYO: That is essentially the point Mr.
Purdy raised.
MR. HERT: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would suggest, Mr. Mayo, language
"as soon as possible" for the preparation of reports is
rather vague. You are familiar, of course, because of
the clean water law, with the X number of reporting dates
that your Agency now has, and certainly the document we
are dealing with here talks about several report dates
for the States. Since the experience, the actual online
experience with phosphorus control is that most of the
States' reports are going to be obtained after December
31, 1972, I would suggest at least 1 year for that evalua-
tion and study, perhaps making January 197^ or December 31,
1973> a choice as a target date for that evaluation.
-------
104
I think, again, to give you a meaningful report
we will have to rely on the experience and the
results that we are obtaining from plants that
go on line within the next several weeks.
MR. MCDONALD: What about",,,as soon as possible
but no later than December 31* 1973"?
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments on
the phosphorus Issue?
MR. DUMELLE: On page 2, Item 3, I realize
you are talking about phosphorus, but I don't
know where to put it. Number 3, page 2, I
think after the phrase "nutrient inputs," I would
like to see a phrase something like this, "or
other limiting elements" and the reason I say
that is because we did have some evidence in
the phosphorus committee that there would be
something else which would limit algae and no
one quite knows what that element is or what
quantities are going into the lake* I am still
worried that perhaps we may not be able to control
the eutrophloatlon of Lake Michigan with the
phosphorus inputs. We will have another string
in our bow. If the other limiting element is
something like cobalt, vanadium, selenium, that
-------
105
perhaps comes in from one or two sources in the
basin, then we may want to be looking at that
sort of control. I suggest that as a research
item there. That will not Just constitute
phosphorus, look at the next limiting element
and see if that needs control also.
MR. MAYO: Any objection? Are there any
other comments?
Let1B move on to pesticides*
MR. WILLIAMS: We have no problem with
pesticides, but you might strike "it is
recommended that."
MR* MAYO: The second sentence in Item 1
does not read complete.
MR. BRYSON: SPA will coordinate with them.
It might be an awkward sentence. Nothing is left
out*
MR. MAYO: The rest of it says "and will
report to the States," and so forth.
MR. BRYSON: "On the basis of the monitoring
findings by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
EPA will report on what program is in operation."
MR. MAYO: Reporting what program is in
operation may not mean a lot. It: is the results
-------
106
of the findings that would be submitted.
MR. BRY30N: "Shall report to the states on
July 1 of each year the results of the monitoring
program."
MR. MAYO: Period.
MR. PURDYi On item No. 2, I Just hope
that you recognize that the states, in attempting
to secure the passage of this type of legislation
that is recommended here, may run into the same
difficulties that took place at the Federal level
this last year --that a pesticide bill was passed
by Congress* Congress had an opportunity to do
this on a national level and didn't> and that we
may run into the same sort of problems in the
states.
MR. MAYO: Due process will be served.
Is there anything else on pesticides?
The next item is polychlorinated blphenyls.
MR. WILLIAMS: I seem to have a hangup on
dates here. The date of June 30, 1973* is suggested
for the progress report. Conferring with our
laboratory people, they recommend October 1, 1973,
on the basis that our water quality sampling and
analysis program is run through the summer months
-------
107
primarily, and that an October 1st reporting date
is much more feasible for them. They would have
precious little to report by June 30.
MR* MAYO: Any objection?
MR. McDONALD: October 1st?
MR. MAYO: October 1st or the end of October.
MR. WILLIAMS: October 1st they thought they
would have a meaningful report.
MR. FETTEROLF: Mr. Chairman, Recommendation
No. 2, "Upon Identification of any source of
PCB In the Basin/ the State within which the source
is located shall take Immediate steps to eliminate,
or if this is not practicable, to reduce each such
discharge to an absolute minimum." The industries
which have the greatest losses of PCB's will have
to substitute other compounds to do the job that
PCB's are doing. I cannot think of the name right
now of one of the substitutes, but I believe they
are phosphate esters or something like this. It
is a very unknown quantity as to what environmental
effects It will have. I think that if the states
are to agree to this recommendation that there
ought to be a companion recommendation that the
EPA place emphasis on evaluating and approving
-------
108
of substitutes for the PCB's. Ralph just said
they have no authority to approve them. But I
think we are getting into a situation which will
be comparable with the detergents* When the
detergent Industry spent millions of dollars
gearing up to go to NTA, then it was decided NTA
was an Inappropriate substitute. I think some
emphasis should be placed on evaluation of the
substitute which will be used for FOB.
MR. BRYSON: Are you saying it is on the
national level it should be done?
MR. FETTEROLF: I think Michigan has already
urged this at the national level. I would think
since Region V and the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference has now taken the hardest enforcement
line on the PCB's, they ought to assume some
responsibility for making very sure that the
substitute is going to be environmentally benign.
MR. McDONALD: That is a good suggestion. I
think Mr. Bryson has a comment on how we can
accomplish that.
MR. BRYSON: One of the recommendations that
you will be coming to shortly, the Toxic substances
committee, the last series of recommendations,
-------
109
deals with setting up a committee to look at those
types of questions In the Lake Michigan Basin
headed by Dr. Mount. Such efforts that you are
describing would come under Dr, Mount's mission
with his laboratory in Duluth. That might be the
proper place to Include that charge. Dr. Mount's
laboratory is the principal arm of the Environmental
Protection Agency that looks into that type of
substitute chemical.
MR. FETTEROLFx If I am not mistaken, that
committee is scheduled to meet in the very near
future. Is that correct?
A VOICE: I don't know.
MR. FETTEROLF: It would seem that would
certainly be a charge to them to get hot on this
right away.
MR. BRYSON: I would agree.
MR. WILLIAMS: In light of the change of the
report date, is Recommendation No. 3 really
necessary? Do you have something else in mind?
MR. PURDY: Number 3 Is somewhat along
a similar line of what we are doing in the matter
of DDT, and that is to say what our control efforts
-------
110
are accomplishing. This, again, will see what
our control efforts accomplish*
MR. WILLIAMS: It could be Incorporated
In the October report?
MR. PURDls Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: I have no objection to It
from the standpoint of the document, it struck
me as being a restatement of what we had said.
MR. MAYO: Are there any further comments
on the FOB Issue?
We have discussed phthalates.
MR. WILLIAMS: Could we get a restatement
of what the phthalates recommendation is now?
I know that Dale has changed some language. I
am not certain how It reads.
MR. McDONALB: Item NO. 3, deleting
the item written and substituting, "As toxiclty
data becomes available, the states should institute
the necessary control programs."
MR. WILLIAMS: How do you anticipate that this
language squares with the new permit program?
MR. McDONALD: There is a specific section
under the new Act, Section 307, dealing with toxicity
and pretreatment. That deals fairly specifically
-------
Ill
on a statutory basis of what has to be done by
the administration, the month and year ahead on
this particular problem, Identifying the list
of toxic substances, coming out with standards
that would have to be followed to control the
toxic substances. This Is plugged In very well.
In effect, It doesn't really mean too much even
putting this In. It would be advisory In terms
of the legislation. It puts It out front that
as soon as we do know more about It, what we ought
to do. I think It will be controlled somewhat
automatically once Section 307 runs its course
by plugging this into the permit process.
MR. BRYSONs I think it gives us a handle
to open it back up under the permit program. We
may not be specifying all of the levels that we
need In some of these permits. This triggers
one that we ought to be aware of.
MR. McDONALD: This is a good point. This
identification of the actual levels probably
is going to be subject to some debate, public
hearings, comment, until we shake down what the
actual numbers ought to be on toxlcity of a
particular substance.
-------
112
MR. WILLIAMS: Before we leave the subject,
I did raise the question earlier about the matter
of evaluation of accumulation of fish. I again
would restate that as a request, that that be
incorporated, and in fact In a restatement of
these recommendations that our Department drafted,
we did attempt to tie it in in the area of the
recommendations, We can do fish analysis and
do it for mercury and other things. It is
not the analysis that troubles us, it is the
collection, collection., if it Is being done for
one purpose,just simplifies the procedure, if you
don't duplicate.
ME. MAYO: Do you have some specific language
that you want to suggest?
MR. WILLIAMS: I cannot recall whether it
was pesticides where we talked earlier about the
responsibility for monitoring.
MR. PETTEROLP: That would rest with the
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr.
Williams, I thought earlier when you were mentioning
this you were hopeful that you might bring the
Food and Drug Administration In on this inasmuch as
they would be sampling certain fish for this.
-------
113
MR. BRYSON: That is in -No. 4.
MR. FETTEROLF: The programs that the United
States Sports Fisheries and Wildlife run to
determine trends of pesticides in Lake Michigan
fish, and the programs that the Food and Drug
Administration and our Department of Agriculture
run to determine whether guideline levels are
being exceeded, are aimed one way, on the fish
that are being consumed by humans. Or in the
case of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries, they are
selecting certain species of fish in which they
can take certain small samples and with a minimum
effort determine trends. When you are concerned
with something such as phthalates, an environmental
contaminant, you want to be going in and sampling
different fish in the food chain, different fish
in the environment that might not have any use
as human food. I think you would be requesting
these other agencies to take on quite an extra
burden. Unless you were equipped to finance this
investigation, I think they would be very reluctant
to do it unless you could trade some other service
off with them. It seems for our specific purposes
we are going to be looking in Podunk Creek below
-------
114
a discharge that we are suspicious of having
a large amount of phthalates in it, and I don't
think the Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife are
going to be interested. Maybe we ought to leave
it open, if we could work out a cooperative agreement
it would be desirable. I am afraid the individual
State will have to assume the responsibility here.
MR. BRYSON: Mr. Williams, do you have some
substitute language or did Carlos put that in the
rest of his comment?
MR. WILLIAMS: As you do this type of work,
would it be appropriate for EPA to assume that
function? I believe you are in fish collection
and analytical business.
MR. BRYSON: Not along the lines you are
thinking of. EPA does not have a program where
they are on the Great Lakes analyzing them. That
does fall in the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and
Wildlife.
MR. WILLIAMS: If it is the consensus of
the other States they want to undertake the fish
sampling, I am sure that we can gear up to do It.
MR. MAYO: Can we move to the selected trace
metals?
-------
115
MR, BLASER: Mr, Chairman, may I inquire about
the testing of fish, toxicity and such, Is there
a mechanism by which the total task is divided
up among the States, or is there, does each one
go Independently and have a duplication of each
other*s work, gaps, and so on? Who does the
coordination, if any?
MR. BRYSON: Fish in the lake or streams?
MR. BLASER: Take the last, toxicity. I am
sure that it relates to the stream. Who does this?
Who coordinates all of the fishery testing to make
sure there is not duplication and gaps in the whole
project? You have 50 States working on it, plus
the Federal Government. It would seem there would
be some coordinating mechanism necessary.
MR. MAYO: You are talking to Item 1?
MR. BLASER: Item 1
MR. BRYSON: Generally within EPA this is
set aside for certain laboratories to go into this
aspect. Dr, Mount's laboratory is one of the prime
laboratories in EPA. There are certain areas in
the research and development program to get close
communication between the States, between the
Federal agencies. EPA has a fairly extensive program
-------
116
of asking people what are the research needs,
what type parameters should SPA be looking at In
their research program.
In answer to your question, I think there
are mechanisms available to prevent the duplication
of research. Whether these are always used, who
can say?
MR. BLASER: If this is the recommendation
of the conference, who would be expected to lead
them? Would you in effect take the lead to
communicate with the state or are we expected to
do it or how?
MR. BRYSON: What this is saying, the state
agency should take a look at its research
program. If there are some areas where
-------
117
MR. BLASER: I know It is a bit tedious. I
have seen so often a program start out with good
intentions and then fall down because of lack
of coordination. I am going to assume -~ the
Illinois Natural History survey does such testing*
I am going to assume that this decision, the outline
of the testing to be done will be initiated
and coordinated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, passing the assignment down to
the Illinois Natural History survey. I, myself,
will alert them that it is coming,, but I assume
that is the best channel, is it not?
MR. BRYSON: I would prefer to see you contact
the appropriate state agency saying we have a
recommendation on selected trace metals. Are
there some research program needs that we have.?
Let's communicate them to the Environmental Protection
Agency, get in touch with the Administrator to see
that your thoughts are ground into future budgetary
efforts of Dr. Mount, and so on.
MR. BLASER: I guess I am skeptical it will
work well on that basis. Someone has to set out
the total project, what metals to be tested for,
what fish to be tested, parcel them out. I will
-------
118
be glad to pass that on to the Illinois Natural
History survey. My experience tells me this is
likely to have awkward gaps* I think the United
States Environmental Protection Agency should take
the test.
MR. BRYSON: You have certain needs within
Illinois in terms of toxicants. These may not
necessarily match the needs Mr. Purdy has; hence
the recommendation establishing priorities on these
needs. Dr. Mount and the Environmental Protection
Agency do not have an unlimited budget to look
at all toxicants. They have to come up with some
mechanism for rating these because the Lake Michigan
States, 10 or 12 other States say we want you
to look at this. I think what does come out of
this, EPA gets a number of Inputs on who wants
what toxicants looked at. We can take a certain
slice of those. Again the communication goes
back, that is it. We have looked at the priorities
all the States have submitted, plus other people;
we can do these. The others will have to be put
off. We suggest that you do them or we will add
them at some point in the future.
MR. FETTEROLF: Mr. Blaser, I think if you
-------
119
will notice one of the requirements Is that these
bioassays be done with Lake Michigan water. This
will mean getting a tank truck to take water to
the Illinois Natural History survey. In evaluating
the recommendation, it seems to me the Environmental
Protection Agency should contract this to some
laboratory which has Lake Michigan water available
to it. Secondarily, some committee will have to
lay down the ground rules on how the bioassays
are done because the wording Is "acute toxicity,"
and the objective in securing acute toxicity
information is so that it is applicable to a
longterm chronic toxicity. Someone has to
decide in the case of the Lake Michigan organism
how that toxicity is run so we can determine the
safe level of these toxicants in Lake Michigan.
It ought to be on the agenda of the next meeting
of this Toxicity Committee.
MR. BRYSONi Put your mind at ease. I will
be in touch with Dr. Mount immediately to make
sure that will work. You can expect a letter
from him.
MR. BLASER: Thank you.
-------
120
MR. DUMELLE: Mr. Mayo, I have a comment on
Point No. 2 if we are ready for that. It
leads off by talking about the states determining
the Input of metals to the basin but the remainder
of the language seems to indicate purely a measurement
of the aquatic discharges, and I would suggest that
we perhaps pin the responsibility for determining
the metal content of rainfall. I would suggest
that it be put with the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency. The Phosphorus committee's
testimony, for example, showed—Fred Lee, for
example, feels a million pounds of phosphorus
goes into the lake from rainfall. Another witness
from the State Water Survey put it at 50,000
pounds a year. The methods are not the same.
That is an Important figure. Mr. Copeland in an
article showed the buildup of selenium in decreasing
concentrations as you get away from Chicago and
attributed it to the fossil fuel plant fallout.
We have heard about mercury coming from fossil
plant fallout. It might be better to have the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency taking the
responsibility for coordinating with the States
or being a lead agency on that particular aspect
-------
121
of it to make sure it is not forgotten.
MR. NAYOs Maybe this is another one of those
items, Mr. Dumelle, to be put in the research
category in terms of development of capability
to do that. I don't know that we have a capability
at the present time to even adequately estimate
what the fallout might be of these metals as a
consequence of rainfall or as a consequence of
natural draft of partioulate matter, power plant
emission. if we are going down that road, very
likely we ought to take the step of identifying
the research needs, seeing what we can do to
develop a technology that will permit us to make
estimates on a credible basis.
MR. DUMELLE: I have no objection. It should
be covered in some fashion, whatever the best
fashion is,
MR. MAYO: We will develop some language and
include that as item No. 4. is that
acceptable? Do you have some specific language
there?
MR. DUMELLEs I just wrote this out /'EPA
shall initiate a program and determine input from
rainfall."
-------
122
MR. MAYO: Let's put It In the context of
identifying research needs and see what we can
do.
MR. DUMELLE: Fine.
MR. BRYSON: "The Environmental Protection
Agency shall coordinate the program to identify
research needs, to assess inputs into Lake
Michigan of any selected trace metals from rainfall."
MR. MAYO: Is that acceptable?
Are there any comments on taste and
odor problems and the associated recommendations?
MR. WILLIAMS: I have an editorial comment.
The words should say "...water which Is drawn or
taken from Lake Michigan." Beyond that, I am
pleased to see that the focus, research emphasis is
on the problems in the Green Bay area. I think
it is important to point out that one of the most
significant taste and odor problems we have in
Wisconsin is in the city of Green Bay. It draws
its water through a pipeline arrangement from
Lake Michigan well down the coastline from any
presumed influence from Green Bay proper. I am
not certain whether the vicinity of Green Bay is
perhaps too restricted. The concerns here are
really broader than that, although fortunately
-------
123
to date they have been in perhaps from Shebo^gan
north.
MR. BRYSON: If I remember the report prepared
by Michigan and also the Environmental Protection
Agency at the September session, the prevalence
of taste and odor problems occurred when there
were northeast winds that were pushing the current
down the shore. I think the EPA and Michigan
felt the most likely culprit would be the Green
Bay vicinity. I think that is broad enough that
it allows some flexibility. I would hate to tackle
taste and odor problems in Lake Michigan.
MR. WILLIAMS: We have some report from
Manitowoc, Two Rivers. The critical report we
have had is from Green Bay which takes water from
near Two Rivers.
MR. McDONALDs Which is out of Green Bay.
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know of any communities
actually taking water out of the Bay per se.
Manitowoc and Menor&inee. I guess.
MR. FETTEROLF: Marlnette takes water from
Green Bay.
MR. MCDONALD: Why don't we do It geographically,
in the vicintly of the Green Bay peninsula? Okay?
-------
124
MR, WILLIAMS: In the sense that It focuses
attention and research In that area, we are
very pleased by that.
MR, McDONALD: Strike Green Bay, call It
the Door Peninsula, Door County.
MR, MAYO: Are there any further comments
on the taste and odor problems?
MR. BRYSON: Make sure that It does not
limit Michigan too much. Are you going to get
In trouble trying to research In Wisconsin waters?
MR. PKTTEROLP: We were just discussing that.
We don't think the language will stop us at all.
We have an ongoing program that extends Into
Wisconsin waters, up to the northern tip of Green
Bay, The taste and odor problems are In the
northern tip of Green Bay as well as In the southern
tip of Green Bay.
MR. McDONALD: Furthermore, Mr. Bryson, I am
surprised you asked that question. If this language
was offensive to Michigan, you would have heard.
You wouldn't have to bring that up unilaterally.
(Laughter). I think somebody ought to enter an
objection on general principles.
MR. MAYO: How about the Toxic Substances
-------
125
Committee, the recommendation for an activity?
MR. PURDYt Mr* Chairman, following the
latter part of that statement, starting with*
"The committee will develop semiannual reports
commencing July 1, 1973* wherein the committee's
progress* findings, needs, recommended control
programs, and necessary implementing actions are
discussed," I really don't think that the charge
to this committee ought to include those necessary
implementing actions. Further down, "The chairman
of the committee will advise the administrators as
to appropriate regulatory followup on suggested
control programs." In both oases, I don1:; think
that ought to be his function,, I think the first
sentence ought to delete the "necessary implementing
actions," and then that sentence next to the last
sentence would be deleted in its entirety. I
believe the type of regulatory followvp that Is
necessary should be developed by others., not
necessarily that committee. Outside of that, no
problem.
MR. MAYO: Any further comments?
MR. McDONALD: I have one comment. With all
the corrections that we have on this, Mr. Clinton
-------
126
Braddock has been getting a master copy here which
will be put together and distributed to each of
the conferees. You have the master copy of the
corrected version of the recommendation, Mr.
Braddock. You will put them together and see
that we get them to each of the conferees in the
next couple of days, and that will be the final
version of the recommendation. If anyone in
attendance would like a copy also of the final
version, sign your name or tell Mrs. £a«et
Mason in the rear of the room that you would like
a copy and we will see that you get a copy mailed
to you personally. If you don't want to do that,
give us a call at the office and we will see that
you get one in the mail.
MR. PURDYi Just in case somebody wasn*t here
when Mr. Mayo gave his opening statement, or at
least we forgot, these recommendations that you
are talking about are now in a different context
than recommendations issued by prior gatherings?
MR. BRYSON: That is correct. That is why
everything was so blessed.
MR. MAYO: Are there any further comments on
-------
127
the material that we have gone over?
MR. BRYSON: Yes. The keeper of the master
copy and I are in disagreement on what we decided
on Toxic Substances Committee. Mr, Purdy, which
language did you want stricken,, where we are talking
about necessary committee actions?
MR. MAYO: The words following "recommended
control programs."
MR. BRYSON: Strike the words "and necessary
implementing actions are discussed."
MR. MAYO: Then the other deletion was the
next to the last sentence.
If there are no other comments on the
part of the state or Federal representatives at
the head table, as we indicated this morning we
are available to take the time to hear comments
from those of you in the audience who have been
staying with us this afternoon, and it is now
5 minutes until 3- I would suggest that
we take time on the comments to the extent that
you wish, to make them until about 3-30 p.m., and
we then adjourn.
MRS. LOUISE ROME: In your presentation this
-------
128
morning on thermal, you had a recommendation for
a technical panel on monitoring in thermal situations
to include "members of the environmental and other
citizen groups." The League of Women Voters, the
League has a recommendation and wishes to get it
on the books here now. It is in this letter. We
consider we have a highly qualified person to serve.
I have a copy for Mr. Blaser since she is an Illinois
person. The sooner you start, the happier we
will be.
MR. MAYO: Would you like to read the letter?
MRS, ROME: We are recommending one of our
members who is qualified as a biologist to serve
on our behalf on this committee, and I think unless
you accept it there is no point in putting the
name in the record. (Discussion off the record)
MR. MAYO: Are there any other statements?
Please give your name and your affiliation if you
have one*
MR. BONNER: My name is Hal Bonner. Regarding
the list of dischargers submitted to the enforcement
office earlier last month, as I understand it Mr,
Purdy had indicated he was going to discuss the
entrance of these into the list of dischargers.
-------
129
I understand also Mr. McDonald has compiled a
new list of dischargers. I am curious as to the
status now of the enforcement Qivision on these
dischargers.
The second point I would like to make is
in regard to taste and odor problems, Mr. Richard
Vaughn, formerly as I understand it of the city
of Chicago, the water supply department, has
repeatedly before this enforcement conference
indicated that there are increasing costs in
activated carbon usage at Chicago water filtration
plants due to the necessity of removing elements
which cause taste and odor. However, the city of
Chicago and Illinois are not included in the
section or the study committee regarding taste
and odor. We would recommend they be so included.
MR. McDONALD: Do you want to stay there?
Maybe we can answer some of these questions from
the Federal standpoint. The list of names of
industries that Mr. Komi of BPI entered the last
time were entered in the record and distributed
to the conferees. Also as I indicated, the names
of these companies, some couple of dozen, 30 or
40, whatever the number was, were reviewed by the
-------
130
head of our permit program in EPA with the
individual State agencies to Indicate whether
additional names of dischargers ought to be
added on the major discharger list. I have a
brief statement here that I would like to enter
into the record dated November 3 on this subject.
I would like to read this. That will be the most
economical way.
"At the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference here in September, I was asked to
review the subject report, coordinate with the
states and determine whether those dichargers
identified in the BPI report not on the EPA
State permit program major discharger list should
be in» All but 23 of the dischargers identified
in the report were already included on the major
discharger list. I have discussed the report with
the following State representatives, Mr. Carl
Blomgren, Illinois; Oliver Williams, Wisconsin;
Francis B. Frost, Michigan. We have Jointly
agreed that only those dischargers identified in
category l in the attached list should be added
to the EPA State permit program major discharger
list at this time. Dischargers identified in
-------
131
Category t£ of the attached list of state-
approved treatment facilities either are already
constructed or nearing completion or have a lesser
impact on the water than the major dischargers
already identified*"
On list one, Category 1, dischargers
that should be added to the major list, admittedly
there is a subjective way of doing business,
whether they should be added or not, whether they
are added or not they are subject to permit
application. It is a question of how much sooner
they will get processed. They all will be processed.
They all will be subject to the process. These are
added to it: Illinois, Allied Chemical Corporation,
Industrial Chemical Division, Chicago. In Michigan,
the Du-Well Metal Products, Inc., Bangor, Michigan,
and the Mead Corporation, Paperboard Products
Division at Seco, Michigan. In Wisconsin we would
add the Anaconda American Brass Company at Kenosha;
Niagara, Wisconsin Paper Company at Niagara,
Wisconsin; Wisconsin Power and Light Company,
the Pulliam Plant; and the Wisconsin Power and
Light Company, Edgewater Plant. That is seven.
The other 17 that were not on the major discharger
-------
132
list were by our judgment as the regulatory agent
thought not to be as of high priority as the
others. These will be taken care of in due course.
I would invite any evidence or anything further
that you feel should be evaluated, we will consider
that in due course, if you want to come to the
office and have further discussion. My own feeling
at this point is as far as worrying about whether
they are going to be taken care of or not, under
this new permit program, the question of dischargers,
discharging into the Lake Michigan Basin, all will
be taken care of. In the inception of this
enforcement conference, first in 19&5* later in
1968, when extended to include the whole basin
there was a very limited jurisdiction. There was
no permit program. Now since the last session of
the conference we have an industrial and new
municipal permit program. So I think we could beat
this to death. I think the point is, though, that
nobody is trying to keep anybody from doing what
they have to do, and they are going to have to do
it. That is where we stand.
I think on the other question, on this
recommendation on assessing the Impact on Lake
-------
133
Michigan, I think we did discuss that. The
quality and quantity of wastes will be assessed.
It will be taken care of. There isn't any
question of this with regard to the Federal EPA.
With reference to taste and odor, we
did not think at the last conference in the terms
of setting up a special research project in the
Chicago area. AS I understand it* the way we
have attacked the problem here, the Chicago area
serves a water supply to some millions of people.
The question of attacking the sources of taste
and odor is an ongoing program that again under
the permit program would be intensified. Also
if I remember Mr. Vaughn's last testimony, I
thought the use of activated carbon was going
down in the city of Chicago. AS I recall, he
reported the same at the session in March of
1971* that it was going down. I stand subject
to correction on this. I cannot remember. Bale
Bryson thinks I am right. If Dale says it is
right, it must be right. But in any event, this
program—Chicago was singled out by the very presence
of Mr. Vaughn at the conference—must be monitored
very carefully.
-------
I think again this is ongoing although
very very Importanti It Is not a special or
peculiar problem. In the Green Bay area, they
don't know where It Is coming from. We have an
excellent Idea In Chicago where It Is coming from.
We are attacking that source.
MR. BONNER: Thank you very much. We will
certainly be looking with great Interest for your
letter and be prepared to come In shortly.
MR. PURDY; Prom the standpoint of the list
being Identical, there Is no way two lists
serving different purposes can be alike In any
degree. This Is what I was trying to explain*
Some people fall to recognize the very limited
jurisdiction of the enforcement conference. In
one case those industries listed In that, it made
no difference whether they are minor or major
dischargers, it had no relationship to the
enforcement conference. The enforcement conference
dealt with those things identified as a problem
of Interstate interest. The list that we are
talking about now as being major dischargers
represents something for an entirely different
purpose, and there is no way that the two of them
-------
135
will ever Jibe. The first list, Congress gave
us a new water law, so we don't have to worry
about that.
MR. McDONALD: The question is, it is a
matter of concern to the extent that I think they
felt there was some perhaps attempt on behalf of
the conference to not include those industries
that ought to be Included. I think it is very
clear that no attempt has been made as far as
we are concerned, and no attempt will be made.
Even if an attempt were made by the permit process
that we now have,, everybody is covered, has to
do the same thing.
MR. PURDY: Again I want to point out, if
a person wants to take the time and go through
the many volumes of records of these past
enforcement conferences, at various times the
several states involved have presented full
information on all of the industrial dischargers
within the State, including many more than have
been on the list that has been prepared by various
people and the quantity and the quality of those
discharges have been disclosed to all conference
members.
-------
136
MR. McDONALD: When we get volumes and
volumes of testimony, a lot of this conference
business becomes quite sophisticated— why we
don't have something in the conference, why It
was out of the conference. This becomes a
pretty intricate business at times* So this
extended comment on where we stand I hope clears
up the record. There is no attempt to keep
anything out of the conference if It rightly
belongs In It. If it doesn't, we will pick it
up some other place.
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments?
MR. ROY PORTERS: My name is Roy Porters.
I work with the Lake Michigan Federation. I
would like to ask Mr. McDonald one question. We
have had a very thorough discussion of how to
control waste from point sources. Would you care
to comment on some of your plans for controlling
waste from nonpoint sources?
MR. McDONALD: Again that is a question — as
we get closer, and Identify how to control point
sources—it is a question that is going to be of
Increasing concern. There is really at the present
time in the Federal establishment no good amount
-------
137
of effort being spent on controlling nonpalnt
sources of pollution* We are taking and have
been using over the years—we see this for the
immediate future also— a concerted effort to get
those sources that we oan most quickly get under
control. This is true in the states also. If
you can get large quantities of waste under
control because it is a point source, goes out
of a particular pipe versus land runoff from
various sources, obviously you are going to try
to pursue that first* At the same time, as the
point sources come into control, the significance
of the nonpoint sources comes into increasing
importance in magnitude. In the new statute,
it will start addressing this problem not only in a
general way but a more specific way with men and
resources that will be made available, that will
really start coming to grips with this problem.
If we get all the point sources under control in
the next dozen years or so, and you still have
a significant pollution problem, that doesn't
make too much sense. That is what the legislation
is going to correct in the years ahead. By no
means is the point source versus nonpoint source
-------
138
attack in balance at this point. A lot more has
to be clone on nonpoint source control of pollution*
MR. MAYO: One of the key recommendations
that was contained in the recent United States -
Canadian agreement is a reference agreed to by
the two governments to study the relationship
between land runoff and water quality in the
Great Lakes. Now, the International Joint
Commission is in the process of designating very
soon a working group to follow up on that reference.
That work group will be expected to develop a
plan of study I think sometime between now and
the end of January. The Environmental Protection
Agency has in its budget for Region V for this
fiscal year, I believe it is $200,000 to get
started on that study effort, to develop information
on the relationship of water quality to land
drainage in the Great Lakes. Some things are in
process to help us establish what those relationships
are, and having established them, to again then
develop some programs for corrective action*
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments?
MR. McDONALD: I would like to make one comment
before you close. I think that the end of an
-------
139
era In water pollution control Is occurring at
the termination of this meeting today. In 1965—
I hear some cheering from some of the States —
but the first Federal entry into the water pollution
picture here in the Chicago area was in the Calumet
Enforcement Conference called in 1965* I remember
when that conference opened, to show you how the
cast of characters has changed, possibly nobody,
with the possible exception of Ralph Purdy and
perhaps Oral Hert, was a principal participant
in the discussions that took place at that initial
conference in 1965 over at McCormick Place. I
remember very clearly when that conference opened
it was before a jampaeked audience of 500 or 600
people looking for great expectations about what
would happen in pollution control in this area.
Part of the Job has been done. There is a lot
more to do. I notice the paucity of attendance
here today. It looks like maybe we have come
pretty much full cycle on the pollution problems
that everybody has been considering for a number
of years, I see hard core followers. As I look
around, I don't see all of the hard core that
used to follow these conferences. We are going
-------
140
Into a whole new stage with the enforcement
conference going out of business, to go more
specifically to the point source pollution In
an attempt to pin down the polluters point by-
point as opposed to this conference technique
which In many cases had broad general areas.
But we think a very redeeming feature will be
lost In many respects, being able to get together
and discuss problems that beg for solution on a
baslnwide basis. Getting them to have the
opportunity to sit down publicly and do this
technique, unless someone takes the Initiative
to approach these things on a baslnwide basis,
this technique Is going to be lost. It has been
a very valuable thing, I think.
MR, MAYO: Do any of you gentlemen wish to
make a comment?
MR. HERT: I think very often It Is noted
that these conferences show the things that
haven't been done yet. If you look back through
the record of what has been done since 1965 to
reduce the amount of pollutants that are discharged
in the Lake Michigan Basin, you will see there has
-------
141
been tremendous progress made. Even though
this may be the end of the conference proceedings,
much of the direction that has come from the
conference is continuing within the states* and
I am sure with the permit program that some of
the loose ends will be tied up that we have yet
to do*
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments,
gentlemen? If not, we will stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the
meeting was adjourned.)
-------
REBUTTAL COMMENTS BY D. W. PRITCHARD
ON M. A. SHIRAZI'S REVIEW OF THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SINKING PLUME PHENOMENA
1. Mr. Shirazi's treatment of the winter sinking plume
is unfortunately a case of the apparent application of numerical
principle without considering the basic physics of the phenomena.
Mr, Shirazi has apparently heard that proper scaling of a process
from model to prototype requires the use of non-dimensional
ratios. What Mr. Shirazi did not do was to examine the physics
of the process being considered in order to determine which of
a large number of possible non-dimensional ratios are appropri-
ate for scaling of the sinking plume phenomena. His approach
as contained in the EPA document of October 11, 1972 clearly
violates basic physical principles.
2. Before proceeding with the question of the appropriate
non-dimensional ratio to use in this case, I would like to re-
state some basic facts about the winter sinking plume phenomena.
(a) Water has its maximum density at 4° C (39.2° F) .
The density decreases as the temperature decreases from. 39.2° F
to 32° F (the freezing point) and also decreases as the tempera-
ture increases above 39.2° F.
(b) In the absence of horizontal motion, a column of
water which is denser than the surrounding water will sink and
spread along the bottom, regardless of how small the density
-------
-2-
difference is between the column and the surrounding water.
(c) Thus, for the February observations of the
Waukegan plume, when the ambient temperature of the surrounding
water was 33° F, the thermal plume would have sunk when its
temperature had been reduced to just slightly less than 45.6° F
if the plume had not had excess horizontal momentum, since the
density of the thermal plume would be the same as the density
of the surrounding water at that temperature. Likewise, for
the March observations of the Waukegan plume, when the ambient
temperature of the surrounding water was 32.5° F, the plume
would have sunk when its temperature had been reduced to just
slightly less than 46.0° F if the plume had not had excess
horizontal momentum.
(d) The fact that the plume did not sink in February
until its temperature had been reduced to 37° F indicates that
the excess horizontal momentum of the plume delayed the initiation
of a sinking plume through an interval in which the density of
the plume was greater than that of the surrounding water, and
actually through rhe point of maximum density (39,2° F) . The
same comment can be made about the March observations at Waukegan.
(e) Thus the greater the excess horizontal momentum of
the thermal plume at the point at which the density of the plume
just becomes equal to the density of the surrounding water, the
greater will be the additional dilution required before a sinking
plume will develop.
-------
—3 —
3. It is true that I used a somewhat simplified approach
to scaling the sinking thermal plume observations from Waukegan
to Zion, though the primary physical principles applicable to
this phenomena were included. My approach as reported to the
Four State Enforcement Conference on Lake Michigan was to equate
the point of sinking of the thermal plume with the point at which
the excess momentum of the plume had been reduced to some critical
value. This approach is conservative; i.e., gives a higher
temperature of sinking for the Zion plume than does the more
rigorous approach outlined below.
4. The physically appropriate non-dimensional ratio for
scaling the sinking plume phenomena is the ratio of the hori-
zontal inertial forces to the buoyant forces; i.e., the local
dsnsimetric Froude number of the thermal plume. This ratio is
given by:
For the February measurements, when the ambient temperature
F, and the plume temperature at sinking was 37° F, the
local densimetric Froude number of the plume at sinking was 3.49.
For the March measurements, when the ambient temperature was
32.5° F and the plume temperature at sinking was 39° F, the
-------
local densimetric Froude number at sinking was 5.00.
Solving the above equation for J /f> I , and putting in
the appropriate values of the known parameters for the February
Waukegan observations/ gives
n i ,, ~H -
H MO a
But, using the similarity relationship
%c =
we have for the density difference ratio at the point of the
sinking plume for Zion
From tables of density of water as a function of temperature,
values of the actual ratio I /e>\
-------
-5-
- P 'flcr
40 18,08 x 10~4 0.98 x 10~4 0.054
39 13.28 x 10~4 1.00 x 10~4 0.075
38 9.22 x 10~4 0.97 x 10~4 0.105
37 5.90 x 10~4 0.86 x 10~4 0.145
36 3,32 x 10~4 0,75 x 10~4 0.225
35 1.48 x 10~4 0.54 x 10~4 0.365
34 0,37 x 10~4 0.32 x 10~4 0.865
33.5 0.092 x 10~4 0.16 x 10~4 1.739
The last column of the table is the ratio of the actual
to the value computed from the sinking plume
similarity equation. Note that this ratio departs signifi-
cantly from unity for all temperatures except the interval
Between 34° F and 33.5° F. The interpolated value of the
temperature at which the Zion thermal plume would sink for
::™ibient conditions corresponding to the February 1972 Waukegan
observations is 33.9° F, or at an excess temperature compared
to ambient of only 0.9° F.
A similar calculation for the March 1972 observations
gives a temperature for the Zion sinking plume of 34.3° F, or
an excess temperature compared to Zion of only 1.8° F.
5. Thus, it is clear that the less rigorous approach I
used for the testimony I gave previously resulted in overly
-------
-6-
conservative (i.e., high) temperatures for the sinking plume
to be expected at Zion.
D. W. Pritchard
Consultant
5 November 1972
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
October 25. 1972
Mr. William L. Blaser, Director
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Mr. Dlaser:
The attached review of testimony at the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference by the EPA National Thermal Pollution Research Program
is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely yours,
ORICIHAL SIGHED BY DALE S, BRYSOfl
Dale S. Bryson, Chief
E"« 4? r».*»y»^ *-*/"»»'*$• O v*->nr»K
&*• ( I t VM WJiw* I V *~>l VAUXvij
Attachment
IDENTICAL LETTERS TO:
D. Currie
R. Purdy
T. Frangos
0. Hert
cc: F. Rainwater - Itr. only
Bryon Lee w/ltr & attachments
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Pacific NW Environmental Research Lab, NERC-Corvallis
REPLY TO
ATTNOF:
SUBJECT:
TO:
Research Sanitary Engineer
National Thermal Pollution Research Program
DATE: October 11, 1972
Reviews of Presentations to the September 21, 1972, Session of the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
Dale S. Bryson, Deputy Director
Enforcement Division
Region V
As requested by your memorandum of September 25, 1972, members
of the National Thermal Pollution Research Program staff have reviewed
three of the subject presentations:
Presentation by
O.D. Butler
D.W. Pritchard
G.F. Lee
Reviewed by
B. A. Tichenor
M. A. Shirazi
G. R. Nelson
The following comments are submitted for inclusion
of the Conference and for possible presentation to
Conference session on thermal discharges.
Statement of O.D. Butler
into the record
the upcoming
Mr. Butler's statement contains essentially the same information
and data as his previous statement of November 5, 1970, presented to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board. Review comments on that statement
were prepared by Tichenor and Shirazi and transmitted to Region V via
memorandum of January 15, 1971. In addition, that memorandum was entered
into the record of the March 23-25, 1971, session of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference. I believe that the comments presented in our
January 15, 1971, memorandum are still valid and pertinent, and a copy
of the memorandum is enclosed. In support of and in addition to our
memorandum, the following comments on Mr. Butler's September 21, 1972,
statement are provided:
1. The cost estimates for dry towers (Exhibit A) are of little
interest, since the backfitting of Zion with dry towers has, to my
knowledge, never been considered a reasonable alternative.
2. As pointed out by Mr. Butler on page 2, our original
September, 1970, data were based on the optima"! design of cooling
systems for new plants. Thus, his comparison of backfitting cost
data with our September, 1970, data is unreasonable.
3. Mr. Butler's contention on page 4 that capability losses at
Zion should be made up by the cost of the Zion plant ($207/KW) is
reasonable', when base loading this extra capacity is planned, but he
EPA Form 1320-6 (11-71)
-------
fails to account for the increased revenues which would result from
this increased capacity during the majority of the annual cycle when
capability losses will not occur. If this added capacity will indeed
be base loaded (as stated by Mr. Butler on page 4), then the additional
revenue resulting from the increased base load capability of Z1on must
be included in the cost estimate (see page 3 of our January 15, 1971,
memorandum). Mr. Butler did not consider this factor, and thus his
cost estimate for capability loss is high by at least a factor of two.
4. Mr. Butler contends on page 4 that his cost estimates have
"... been confirmed by estimates and actual experiences of other utilities
which are in the process of trying to backfit stations on Lake Michigan."
Two problems arise from this statement:
a. To my knowledge, there is no "actual experience" for
backfitted power plants on Lake Michigan. Only the Palisades Plant
is committed to backfitting, but their new cooling system is not
yet completed.
b. Cost estimates on backfitting from other power companies
do not "confirm" Mr. Butler's estimates for Zion. Relevant cost data
contained in the Argonne report "Summary of Recent Technical Information
Concerning Thermal Discharges Into Lake Michigan" (pages 102-109) contain
a wide range of cost estimates. The following table summarizes a portion
of this information and compares it to Mr. Butler's data:
Backfitting (Mechanical^ Draft Towers) Cost Data (Argonnej
Cost Increase* Increased Busbar*
Plant ($/KW) Cost (Mills/KM)
Pulliam 28 0.80
Kewaunee 45 0.95
Point Beach 43 1.15
Waukegan 18 0.56
State Line 39 1.10
D. C. Cook 40 1.15
Zion (Butler)
(Exhibit B) 56 1.63
Note that Mr. Butler's estimate exceeds'the others both in terms of
capital cost ($/KW) and increased busbar cost (Mills/KWH). In fact, Mr.
Butler's estimates for Zion are tv/o and three times higher than similar
estimates for the Pulliam and Waukegan plants, respectively.
*Computed (if necessary) assuming a capacity factor of 72 percent and
an annual fixed charge rate of 18 percent in order to make the estimates
comparable to Mr. Butler's data. (The 18 percent fixed charge rate,
and thus the increase in busbar cost, is higher than normal.)
-------
5. I object to the statement on page 4 where Mr. Butler says
that Tichenor "...has increased his original estimate from 0.2 Mills/
KWH to 0.6 Mills/KWH." Mr. Butler is confusing our original optimal
cost data with data on backfitting cost which I presented at the State
hearings in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana. I have not. increased
my estimates, but I have presented data indicating that backfitting
costs can be three times higher than the costs for optimally designed
cooling systems. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Butler's
estimates are based on a capacity factor of 72 percent and an annual
fixed charge rate of 18 percent; while our data assume values of 82 percent
and 14 percent respectively. Thus taking Mr. Butler's capital cost
data (which I believe to be excessive for the reasons discussed above)
and applying our values for capacity factor and fixed charge rate, we
find the Mr. Butler's increased busbar cost of 1.63 Mills/KWH is reduced
to a value of 1.13 Mills/KWH. Also, subtracting the approximately
$20 million capitalized cost of the gain in revenue from the increased
capacity (see page 3 of January 15, 1971, memorandum), the increase
in busbar cost is further reduced to 0.95 Mills/KWH. Thus, if the
comparisons between EPA estimates of backfitting costs and Mr. Butler's
data are made with similar assumptions, the differences between the
two estimates is reduced considerably. To paraphrase Mr. Butler
(page 5), I am pleased to see that his comparisons can be made more
realistic when uniform criteria are applied.
6. Finally, I noted with interest Mr. Butler's final comment
(page 6) that his data are "...based on real costs to a real -plant."
This is inconsistent with his statement on page 2 where he emphasizes
that his "...cost estimates are still design estimates" and that
"...it is difficult to know the cost of building a one of a kind item
until the project is completed." Thus, Mr. Butler's data are estimates
in the truest sense of the word and not "real costs."
In summary, Mr. Butler presents cost estimates for the Zion plant
which, in my opinion, are high both in terms of capital cost and
increased busbar cost. Comparison with other cost estimates for
backfitting fails to validate Mr. Butler's estimates. The use of
uniform economic critieria to compare costs shows that Mr. Butler's
cost estimates, while high, are not as divergent from other estimates;
as they first appear. Finally, the effect on consumer cost is not
discussed and even using Mr. Butler's capital cost data, I feel that
the consumer's cost would be increased by no more than 4 percent and
would probably be less.
Statement by D. W. Pritchard
The following comments are related to the second portion (pages 7-12)
of Dr. Pritchard's presentation, "Concerning tne Winter Sinking Plume."
-------
The sinking plume phenomenon in a surface jet adds a new
complication to an already mathematically difficult problem. We agree
with Dr. Pritchard that theory is inadequate at the present time to
predict the onset of sinking for surface jets.
In the absence of adequate analysis, one must resort to conjectures
and if, as in this case, some field data are available, maximum use of
such data must be made. Care should be exercised to make appropriate
use of the data for the application to other sites. Unlike generalized
mathematical analyses, field data represent the unique situation under
which they were obtained and extrapolation to other sites will be valid
only with careful scaling.
Dr. Pritchard has used the field data on sinking plumes resulting
from the Waukegan plant discharge to predict the same phenomenon for
the Zion plant discharge. In the following section, we will reproduce
his analysis and show that under reasonable assumptions agreement is
obtained with some of his findings but divergent conclusions are reached
as a consequence of his apparent change in strategy. Details are not
spelled out and results are given too abruptly in the last paragraph
(p. 11) of his September, 1972, statement to enable further scrutiny.
A computer program developed at MIT (Ref) for surface discharge was
run at a typical low Froude number. We found that at some distance from
the source, the excess plume temperature and velocity decay similarly.
We shall use this observation in the scaling process, and we shall see
below that this assumption produces agreement with Dr. Pritchard's
analysis of the Waukegan data.
1. Analysis of Waukegan Data
a. February measurements
Initial excess plume temperature, AT = 17° F
Ambient temperature at location of observed sinking plume,
T = 33° F
a
Sinking plume temperature at above location,
T = 37° F
Excess sinking plume temperature, AT = 4° F
Dimensionless excess temperature ratio at which sinking plume
was observed, AT 4
AT = 17 ~
Initial excess plume velocity, u = Au =3 ft/sec
Excess horizontal velocity of the sinking plume =
Au = 0.235 x 3 = 0.71 ft/sec
(agreement with Dr. Pritchard)
-------
(Note that v- = ^i- by assumption)
o o
b. March measurements
Dimensionless excess temperature ratio at which sinking was
observed AT _ 39-32.5 _
Af0 TO~ =
Excess plume velocity, Au = 0.394 x 3 = 1.18 ft/sec (agreement
with Dr. Pritchard)
2. Scaling Procedure
Excess temperature and velocity ratios are functions of plume
characteristics which are determined by local and upstream forces
exerted on the plume. We assume that field data, while accounting for all
these factors, exhibit their total influence in the dimensionless excess
temperature and velocity ratios and cannot be characterized by the
absolute magnitudes of temperature and velocity as implied in Dr.
Pritchard's analyses. Based on this assumption, we continue to apply
Waukegan's data to Zion.
3. Application to Zion Discharge
Initial excess temperature, AT = 20° F
Initial velocity, u = Au =9.3 ft/sec
a. Sinking plume under February conditions:
Temperature of sinking plume, AT = 0.235 x 20 = 4.7°
Horizontal velocity of sinking plume,
Au = 0.235 x 9.3 = 2.19 ft/sec
b. Sinking plume under March conditions:
Temperature of sinking plume, AT = 0.394 x 20 = 7.9° F
Velocity of sinking plume, Au = 0.394 x 9.3 = 3.66 ft/sec
We conclude, therefore, that the Zion ph 2 sinks at a higher
temperature than the Waukegan plume, both und=:•• March and February
conditions. The excess temperatures of 4.7°F ;;d 7.9°F have been
predicted based on Waukegan data. These contr.ilict Dr. Pritchard's
3°F maximum excess temperature of the sinking iunie predicted under
February conditions. We believe that the reas for this discrepancy
is the use of 1.2 ft/sec absolute excess veloc ,' as a universal
scaling parameter in contrast to our use of cr. insionless velocity ratios.
-------
Statement by G. F. Lee
Dr. Lee's presentation attempts to show that the blowdown from
cooling towers at the Zion Plant would be unacceptable from the
standpoint of water quality degradation. While Dr. Lee presents
information in an attempt to support this contention, we do not
believe that his conclusions are justified. The following comments
are provided on specific points within Dr. Lee's paper:
1. The statement uses a drift level of 0.1 percent of the total
circulation rate (page 3). This is very excessive. The state-of-the
art provides for drift levels of 0.002 percent and 0.005 percent from
natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, respectively.
2. Throughout Dr. Lee's comments he compares the chemical
concentration of cooling tower blowdown with the lake standards. It
should be pointed out that a chemical concentration in the blowdown
can exceed the lake standard and still be well below the effluent
standard.
3. The discussion on the influence of ammonia is misleading
(page 9). The study on which the statement is based is (1) undocumented
and (2) may not allow for process leakage, which is not a problem
in power plant cooling towers.
4. The effects of chemicals added to the lake due to water
treatment will be minimal:
a. Chlorine (page 11) - power plant operations and math
modeling indicate chlorine feed for biological control in cooling towers
will have less impact on the receiving stream than once-through cooling.
The reference to chlorine feed at Zion is unfounded since the plant
will use mechanical condenser cleaning (Amertap) for fouling control.
b. Corrosion/scale treatments (page 10, 12-17) - modern power
plants are designing out corrosion via alloy heat exchangers, concrete
distribution lines, epoxy coated return linas, etc. Also corrosion and
scaling are less of a problem than in the process industries, due to
(1) steady-state operation, (2) low skin temperature, (3) high velocities
and (4) low delta T's. The net result is the almost complete elimination
of conventional treatment chemicals. The only chemical added in
significant quantities is sulfuric acid for p'4 adjustment.
c. Phosphate contribution (page 14-15) - phosphorus will
come from boiler blowdown - this will be present even with once-through
cooling. For reasons cited in paragraph 4b, ~ne phosphate issue in
power plant cooling towers will be nil in a V:;st majority of the cases.
Where dsposit control chemicals containing pnrsphates are used, they will
be of the organo phosphorus types. These che.icals contribute 80-95 percent
-------
less P when compared with phosphate. This is due to lower feed rates
and chemical structure. Other alternatives such as non-phosphate
anti -scaling agents can be applied.
d. Evaporative effects - Dr. Lee's comments on the increased
concentration of innate chemicals of the lake water due to evaporation
in the cooling towers must be taken in perspective. From the Department
of Interior report Feasibility of Alternative _ Means of Cooling for
Thermal Plants Near Lake Michigan, it can be shown that the evaporation
rate due to once-througn cooling would be approximately 80 percent of
the evaporation rate of cooling towers. This implies that on a lake
wide basis, the concentration effects due to evaporation from once-
through vs wet cooling towers would closely approximate each other.
In summary, the general characteristics of cooling tower operation
from the present state-of-the-art of the process industries cannot be
used to predict the impact of cooling tower blowdown from future power
plants. The basic reason is that the conditions for cooling water in
the electric utility industry are unique. Power plants do not have -;he
high skin temperatures, high temperature drops, and low flows of the
petroleum/chemical industry, from which a great deal of information has
been taken; nor do they have the complex distribution systems, the
process leaks, the shell side cooling, the hybrid metallic surfaces,
or the uncontrolled discharges of other industrial plants. Power
plant cooling towers operating on Lake Michigan will not increase the
total amount of chemicals in the lake, with the possible exception of
sulfate due to pH control. This contradicts Dr. Lee's tone throughout
his statement, which he summarizes on page 17-20.
A great majority of problems associated with blowdown control from
power plant cooling towers have been approached and solved. The
remaining problems have solutions through the intelligent application
of technology and economics.
I trust the above comments will be useful to you. Please contact
us if further questions arise.
Bruce A. Tichenor
Mostafa A. Shirazi
Reference
Stolzenbach, K. D. and D. R. F. Harleman, "An Analytical and Experimental
Investigation of Surface Discharges of Heated Water," Dept. of Civil Eng., Mil
Report No.l6130DJU 02/71, EPA, Water Pollution Control Research Series, U.S.GPC
Enclosure (1)
-------
UNHT.O STATES GOVLKNMF.NT
Memorandum
TO : Director, Office of Enforcement and Cooperative
Programs, Great Lakes Region, EPA, WQO
THRU : Chief, National Thermal Pollution Research Program
FROM : Chief, Hydrographic Branch and Chief, Controls Branch,
National Thermal Pollution Research Program
SUBJECT: Costs of Backfitting at Zion Nuclear Power Plant
DATE: January 15, 1971
As requested by your memorandum of November 25, 1970, we have evaluated
the comments and data v/hich Mr. 0. D. Butler of Commonwealth Edison
presented to the rlovember 5, 1970 meeting of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board. In addition, Mr. Butler sent us a portion of the "back-
up" material used in deriving their cost estimates. These data are
enclosed for your files.
While admitting the fallacy of comparing cooling system cost data for
optimized plant designs with cost data for back-fitted plants, Mr. Butler
himself does just that. He compares the data contained in our report on
the "Feasibility of Alternative Means of Cooling for Thermal Power Plants
Near Lake Michigan" to the estimates he provides for back-fitting the Zion
plant. In our view this is unjustified.
Limited data on backfitted cooling facilities are available. For example,
EEI presented data to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (Hearings on
Environmental Effects of Producing Electric Power, Part 2, Vol. 1, page
1823) which showed that the cost of providing "thermal effect control"
using wet towers by "retrofitting on an existing plant" is $10 to $12
per kilowatt. In this same reference EEI contends that retrofitting with
dry towers is "probably not possible." In his statement before the
September, 1970 Workshop Session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference, Mr. D. H. Williams, Assistant Vice President and Chief
Mechanical Engineer, American Electric Power Service Corporation,
provided estimates on backfitting the Donald C. Cook:-nuclear power plant.
He suggested that three natural draft towers, each 500 feet tall and 400
feet in diameter would be required for the 2 unit, 2100 M'.-.'e plant at a total
cost of 20 million dollars ($9.5/KW). An additional 12 million dollars
($5. 7/KW) would be required for "the pumping and transport systems through
the cooling towers and back to the plant." In addition, Mr. Williams
estimated that summertime conditions would incn.se turbine back-pressures
from 2.9 inches of mercury to 4.3 inches of mere:,ry".. .causing a load
curtailment of approximately 40 [•!
-------
o it is difficult to compare the specific cost items provided by Mr.
Butler with these more general data, it does appear that the Commonwealth
Edison costs are excessive. For example, excluding special earth work,
the 'otal capital investment costs for Zior.'s wet sj,•-.: .m c.^a's $23/1-'.!
cGRiO.rca to the ,$12/,15/KW figure given uy Mr.
;>n]i i,i!.;s * In terms of capability loss. Commonweal th Edi:-o«. 's estimate
for /"/on of 179 HW is more than tivice as men as uhe bu i-'S1 figure prc.ir;a'•-<•<
for' :no D. C. Cook plant by Mr. Williams, Ihus it see;'S evident tiici
•'Ciii'VMhYiiai th Edison has imposed some ftxtrtii* cot.s trus i^.> ;o cone up witi
MCI'V estimates. It would be impossible to examine' . ;c>; .;e discussed,
(j; Dry Cool ing Tower:
A prime example of an unsound grour.drule is v.hc decision to naxkfit
an existing plant with a dry cooling system. Mr, Butler presents cost Jcto
•or a technically possible but economically unre alls n- dry ~oolino than that ^hov.n in Exhibit. .'
,;e 'vi/'ld agi^ee with i'lr, Wil iains and assert i;sat bcokf':t !:':-j ;,i th d>y (V,).,,;tK;
"owerc. is ",,,totally out of the question."
(2) The Hybrid Wet Mechanical-Natural Draft Cooling Tower
The constraints leading to the selection of a non-ccnvention; 1 .
hybrid'wet cooling tower are examples of other i^id-jly restrictive assumptions.
For example, conventional mechanical draft towers were net selected because
• •" V'-:?'ble ("cr:ging. Khilc- tne potential fr-- fc'} j'-r.r/ .;r; ,x 'Is -:=t
, i - ., trie selection of a unique and untried cooling de1, \LQ costing mi
<„•:' cellars more than conventional units is • asec on si1 >./;i ir ,1 ra^'h
.•'acts. The analysis of fog potential present f.c! -|, c'.ir ,'tasibi 1 I ly
01 t ind^'catPs that meteorological conditions lef.diir '/• ; l'inh pr'Iv'b'il'• i.y
"D; ".-c cccur less than 1 percent of the ti.ne ne.-.r Zio , A more rigrrous
/nal y^'s of tbQ potential for -rpg from convontionr." merh.irn'ca"; draf't
_v <-:,': :/ou"!'.' ™. advisable, esoecially since the ~ost s^/ino-' , ould b"
•*< »/ ,_/
,»ui.r ;,a;Ttial if conventional units were practical.
.fit is found that fog problems are severe enough to cause
. isU'M obstruction on hiciiways or in populated a/c-di, , n 3V 1 atio'i )f f: ,
^cr;trol measures should be made. Since the potential lor fog problems
exists only during a small portion of the year, ;:h? use cf o control devices
at the towers may be practical. Heating the air-w/ater vapor tower effluent
can prevent the formation of an extensive visible -plume. Also, variatiors
in cell loading and number of cells per tower shouild be evaluated.
The capital and intermittent operating costs of fo>g control measures may be
substantially less than the increased costs of the hybrid tower system.
-------
The t>c»e of u ?.['>0 >'oet li.ujl on tc,;or liciyht is based upon the height' a,'
othf" f'bctr'jctior.'1; arc:1'-' the !;."!u!:eruin airport, Thov'o is at the pre-sen'. Lime
an f'AA rcgi'loticr- li;intL,r; the inini;r.!':. altitude appioach 1"; that airport
at 600',, It may be posm'im: tha' FA A would consider tr.odi fying .this
regulation to allow for Jit presence of a natural draft tower in 'o c> ^icv'nty
of \ho airport. Since tv? cverr.ll cost of conventional natural draft tc//, rs
would he millions of do' '»!'•:> less than the hybrid system, such an investiga-
tion would, be prudent.
(3) Capabi'i sty Losses
A major cost i le;u in Lhc data supplied by Mr. Butler is for
capability losses due to 1cv.rrr fff" ciency at high back-pressures and
•wxil.'ry pov/er required '••(-•: pur,.,,:, ,uu! fans. lir. Butler assigns a value--
of $37,142,000 to this 'Mr•:'•>]] i "y loss for the wet mechanical draft tower
sysfy. (1/-5 I'll x l>2G7/is../. fn assigniiiy an equivalent capital invest-
ment figure of $37,142,000 to this capability loss, it is obvious that th;;
economic !>du3fits or < .-.'oriional capacity during the non-critical v/c-athcr
condition? v/ere not evaluaved. Using economic data provided by Common-
wealth Edison anu assunritVj -hat an additional i 50 I':,-! ivoulcl be available:
for distribution 75 percent of 1112 year at the stated 70 percent capacity
factor, we computed ti\u a>: po\v "- Vo'lue of 5 mills/K'.fli the equivalent
capital "gain" over the 30 ytar plant life would ba $23 mil"ion. Thus
the net cost penalty due-- 10 capability loss should be ^14 million (>37
will ion minus $23 iininon;, Ir« the event tha't the extra capability of
the plant is not able tc be sold l.hsn Commonwealth Cdiscn should seriousl;/
consider the use of lowev cost v,'as ;urbine pealciuy units winch would prov.di?
the needed capability durina the relatively short periods of time when
severe summertime weaiisS:- cause excessive capability losses. At SH)0/!','
the use of these units would make the equivalent capital investment for
capability loss $17.9 iiiillion rjlher than $37.1 million. Thus, in either
cases it appears that the value assigned to capability loss is excessive,
(4) Top Charges
Top charges are assigned at a rate of 12-1/2 percent of the total
capital investment costs. Naturally, if these capital costs could be re-
duced by selection of more conventional systems, the top charges would
also be reduced.
(5) Cost to the Consumer
In Exhibit E, data are presented which show the additional
monthly cost to the residential consumer is 6Cc;/ir.onth for the wet mechanical
draft cooling tower system. This occurs when the burden of the total
increase in Zion's production cost is distributed over Commonwealth
Edison's 2.31 million residential consumers.
In our opinion the residential consumer in the Commonwealth Edison service
district is beinq unfairly asked to bear the total burden of cost (see
*]. on Exhibit E), In 1969 residential consumers accounted for 24.5 per-
cent of the total KWH's sold by Commonwealth Edison. Industrial consumers
-------
4
used 39.9 percent and commercial consumers 23.3 percent; the remainder
going to losses. If we assume that the residential consumers of Commonwealth
tdison also consume 100 percent of the goods end services provided by
the industries and commercial establishment in the service district, then
the method used by Mr. Butler to assign the cost increase is correct.
However, it seems highly unlikely that this is the case. Heavy industrial
goods produced in the Chicago area are sold throughout the U.S. and even
the world and any product cost increase due to increases in pov/er cost would
be distributed to these wide ranging customers. Also the Chicago area-
supplies commercial services to large numbers of people which do not buy
residential power from Commonwealth Edison. In addition, one should
evaluate the cost increase on the basis of 1973 consumers rather than 1969.
consumers since Zion will only then be fully "on-line."
Assuming that the residential consumers of Commonwealth Edison purchase 20
percent of the output of industrial goods and 75 percent of the conmerc'al
services of Commonwealth Edison's industrial and commercial customers one
can show that the residential consumer should pay only 24.5 percent + (0.2)
(39.9 percent) •(- (0.75) (23.3 percent) = 50 percent of the cost increase,
whatever that true cost may be. At any rate, the 68£/month or 6.5 percent
cost increase to the residential consumer is unrealistically high.
In conclusion, we believe that Commonwealth Edison's cost estimates for back-
fitting the Zion plant with a closed cycle cooling system reflect excessively
strict design assumptions and are thus too high. While the total plant
cannot be optimised, certainly alternative backfitted systems end operating
techniques could be evaluated to minimize the economic impact of installing
such systems. In this respect, the following evaluations should be made
for conventional wet towers:
1. A more rigorous evaluation of the fogging potential of conventional
wet mechanical draft towers.
2. Feasibility studies and cost estimates for wet mechanical draft
tower fog control during critical meteorological conditions.
3. An evaluation of the cost of raising the minimum approach to
Waukegan airport to allow conventional wet natural draft towers.
4. An evaluation of the economic benefits derived from increasing
the capability of the plant.
5. An evaluation of the use of low cost gas peaking units to be
used during periods of capability loss.
-------
Finally, Coiiwonweal th Edison should provide data which more realistically
reflect the increase in cost which their residential consumers will bear.
In this respect, an evaluation of the portion of industrial load which
will be passed to consumers outside the Commonwealth Edison service district
would be most valuable.
Bruce A. Tichenor
• I
Kostafa A. 'Shirazi
Enclosures
cc: Bartsch
Stein
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
November 8, 1972
Mr. Bart Hoglund
Ar^onn** "at1or>'*»l Laboratory
Center for Environmental Studies
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
Dear Mr. Hoglund:
At the request of Dr. Tokar of your staff we enclose some comments
by our Corvallis laboratory on testimony by Dr. Pritchard and
others at the Lake .Michigan Enforcement Conference.
We understand tnat Comnonwealtb Edison has already contacted you
regarding these canmients.
Sincerely yours,
ORIGIfiAL SIGNED BY BALE S. BHYSOK
Dale S. Bryson, Chief
Enforcement Branch
Enclosure
cc: F. Rainwater / Hr. only
-------
flCPLY TO
ATTN OF.
SUBJECT:
TO:
RONM!~NTAL P^CTHCTION AGENCY
Pacific Hi hnvironmeMtal Research Lab, hliRC-Corvallis
Research Sanitary L'nqineer
fuuiona] Thermal Pollution Research Program
DATE- October 11, 1972
Reviews of Presentations to tine September 21, 1972, Session of the
Lake Michigan Lnforceirent Conference
Dale S. Bryson, Deputy Director
Erif-'rrerent Division
Renion V
fs requested by your rneniorc-rd'.,- of September 25, 1972, me me
of the National ',ncf,,;al Pollution I'.csearcn Program staff have reviewed
thre2 cf the subject presentations;
tion by Reviev.'ed by
0,0. Butler
D.H. Pri Icnard
G.F. Lee
B, A. Tichanor
M. A. Shirazi
G. R. fielson
The follc.-.'ing coirtnents are submitted for inclusion into the record
of the Conference and for possible presentation to die upcoming
Conference session on thermal disc.'iarass.
"Ar, Butler's stateir;ent contains essentially the same information
and data as his previous statement of liovenber 5, 1970, presented 10 the
iilincu Pollution Control Board. Review cor-,-r,cs on that stcte^eic
v/ere prepared by Ticnsnor and Shirazi and transmitted to P.ecvin V via
nierforandui o^c Januarv 15, 1971. In addition. r^at msinorandum v/a^ or, er^
into the record of tne i'-larch 23-2?, 1971, session of the La!'e ill en i ^vi
Enforce'..?nt Conferer:ce. I believe that the co^'en:s presented in r-jr
January 15, 1971, n;e;:iorarid'j,n are still valid a:,;; pertinent, ana a :o;y
of the r;:?vo>\-:nd'j':! is rnclosed. In support of ,""! in addition to c'r
memora.-iuL';^, me following COITUSnts on Mr. 3ut'.er:s Septei;,uer 21, T^'7,Z,
statement are provided:
1. The cost estimates for dry tov/ers (E nbit A) are of little
interest, since tie bad;fitting of lion with dr towers has, to my
knowledge, never been considered a reasonable flternative.
2. As pointed out by ."r. Butler on page ?, our original
September, 1970, data \:ere based on the optima"! desiqn of cooling
systems for ne,v plants. Thus, his comparison c r backfitting cost
data with our-Septei oer, 1970, data is unreaso: ble.
3. Mr. Butler's contention on page 4 that capability losses at
Zion should be made up by the cost of the Zion Mant (S207/K/!) is
reasonable, when base loading this extra capacity is planned, but he
-------
fails to account for the increased revenues which would result from
this increased capacity during the majority of the annual cycle when
capability losses will not occur.. If this added capacity will indeee
be base loao'jd (as stated by Mr. Butler on page 4), then the additioral
revenue resulting from tne increased base load capability of Zion nvjst
be included in the cost estimate (see pc^e 3 Of our January 15, 1971,
memorandum). Mr. Butler did not consider this factor, and thus his
cost estimate for capability loss is high by at least a factor of tv/o.
A. Mr. Cutler contends on p^s 4 that his cost estimates have
"... been confirmed by estimates and actual experiences of other utilities
which are in the process of trying to backfit stations on Lake Michigan. "
Two problems arise from this statement:
a. To my knowledge, there is no "actual experience" for
backfittcd power plants on Lake Michigan. Only the Palisades Plant
is committed to backfitting, but their new cooling system is not
yet completed.
b. Cost estimates on backfitting from other power companies
do not "confirm" fir. Butler's estimates for Zion. Relevant cost data
contained in the Argonne report "Summary of Recent Technical Information
Concerning Thermal Discharges Into Lake Michigan" (pages 102-109) contain
a wide i'ctiKii of cost estimates. The follo,-/ino table su/fuTiarizes a portion
of this information and compares it to Mr. Butler's data:
Backfitting ("echanica-1 Draft Towers) Cost Data (Argonne)
Cost Increase* Increased Busbar*
Plant ($/KU) Cost (:•;• lls/K.-.'H)
Pulliam 28 0.80
Kewaunee 45 0.95
Point Beach 43 1.15
Haukegan 18 0.56
State Line 39 1.10
D. C. Cook 40 1.15
Zion (Butler)
(Exhibit B) 56 1.63
Note that Mr. Butler's estimate exceeds the others both in terms of
capital cost ($/K;'J) and increased busbar cost (.'iills/K'.-/H). In fact, Mr.
Butler's estimates for Zicn are two and three times higher than similar
estimates for-the Pulliam and Haukegan plants, respectively.
*Computed (Tf necessary) assuming a capacity factor of 72 percent and
an annual fixed ciutrne rate of 18 percent in order to make the estimates
comparable to Mr. Butler's data. (The 18 percent fixed charge rate,
and thus the increase in busbar cost, is higher than normal.)
-------
5. I:, object to the statement on ^page 4 v/here Mr. Cutler says
that Tichenor "...has increased his original estimate from 0.2 Mills/
KW.L! to 0.6 Mills/KMi!." Mr. Sutler is confusinn our original optimal
cost data with data on bacicfi tting cost which I presented at the State
hearings in Michigan, '.'isccr.sin, and Irrdiana. I have np_t increased
my estimates, but I have presented data indicating that backfitting
costs can be three times higher than the costs for optimally designed
cooling systems. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Butler's
estimates are bssed on a capacity factor of 72 percent and on annual
fixed charpe rate of 18 nercent; while our data assirne values of %2 percent
and 14 percent respectively. Thus taking Mr. Butler's capital cost
data (which I believe to be excessive for the reasons discussed above)
and applying our values for capacity factor and fixed charge rate, we
find the Mr. Cutler's increased busbar cost of 1.63 Mil1s/K'..'H is reduced
to a value of 1.13 MillsACJH. Also, subtracting the approximately
$20 nnllicr, capitalized cost of the gain in revenue from the increased
capacity (see pace 3 of January 15, 1971, memorandum), the increase
in busbar cost is further reduced to 0.95 Mills/'iC..'H. Thus, if the
comparisons bet/sen EPA estimates of backfitting costs and Mr. Butler's
data ara made v:ith similar assumptions, the differences between the
two estimates is reduced considerably. To paraphrase Mr. Butler
(page 5), I am pleased to see that his comparisons can be made more
realistic when uniform criteria are applied.
6. Finally, I rioted with interest Mr. Butler's final comment
(page 6) that his data are "...based on real costs to a real plant."
This is inconsistent with his statement on page 2 where he emphasizes
that his "...cost estimates are still design estimates" and that
"...it is difficult to know the cost of building a one of a kind item
until the project is completed." Thus, Mr. Butler's data are estimates
in the truest sense of the word and not "real costs."
In summary, Mr. Butler presents cost estimates for the Zion plant
which, in my opinion, are high both in terms of capital cost and
increased busbar cost. Comparison with other cost estimates for
backfitting fails to validate Mr. Butler's estimates. The use of
uniform economic critieria T.O compare costs shc.-/s that Mr. Butler's
cost estimates, wnile high, are not as divergent from other estimates
as they first appear. Finally, the effect on consumer cost is not
discussed and even using Mr. Butler's capital cost data, I feel that
the consumer's cost would be increased by no more than 4 percent and
would probably be less.
Statement by D. VI. Pritchard
The follov/ing consents are related to the second portion (pages 7-12)
of Dr. Pritchard's presentation, "Concerning the Winter Sinking Plume."
-------
The sinking plums phenomenon in a surface jet adds a new
complication to an already mathematically difficult problem. We agree
v/ith Dr. Pritchard that theory is inadequate at the present time to
predict the onset of sinking for surface jets.
In the absence .of adequate analysis, one must resort to conjectures
and if, as in this case, some field data are available, maximum use of
such data must be made. Care should be exercised to make appropriate
use of the data for the application to other sites. Unlike generalized
mathematical analyses, field data represent the unique situation under
winch iney were oot^inad and extrapolation to other siias will oe valid
only with careful scaling.
Dr. Pritchard has used the field data on sinking plumes resulting
from the Waukegan plant discharge to predict the same phenomenon for
the Zion plant discharge. In the follcv.'ing section, v/e will reproduce
his analysis and show that under reasonable assumptions agreement is
obtained v/ith some of his findings but divergent conclusions are readied
as a consequence of his apparent change in strategy. Details are not
spelled out and results are given too abruptly in the last paragraph
(p. 11) of his September, 1972, statement to enable further scrutiny,
A computer program developed at MIT (Rsf) for surface discharge was
run at a typical Inw Frntiri^ nnmher. We found that at some distance frc.r,
the source, the excess plume temperature and veloci Ly decay similarly.
We shall use this observation in the scaling process, and we shall see
below that this assumption produces agreement with Dr. Pritchard's
analysis of the Haukegan data.
1. Analysis of Waukegan Data
a. February measurements
Initial excess plume temperature, AT = 17° F
Ambient temperature at location of observed sinking plume,
T = 33° F
s
Sinking plume temperature at above location,
T = 37° F
Excess sinking plume temperature, AT = 4° F
Dimensionless excess temperature ratio at which sinking plume
was observed, AT 4 _
AT " 17 "
Initial excess plume velocity, u = Lu = 3 ft/sec
Excess horizontal velocity of the sir.'.'nng plu:no =
Au = 0.235 x 3 = 0.71 ft/sec
(agreement with Dr. Pritchard)
-------
(Note that ~ = ^J- by assumption)
AUQ Aroy
b. March measurements
Dimensionless excess temperature ratio at which sinking
observed AT _ 39-32^5 _ n ,Q.
T"T *™ T~/~ t~ "™ ^ « *5** '
AT 16.5
Excess plume velocity, Au - 0.394 x 3 = 1.18 ft/sec (agreement
v/ith Dr. Pritchard)
2. Scaling Procedure
Excess teir.perature and velocity ratios are functions of p\ui;.s
characteristics v/hic'i are determined by local and upstream forces
exerted on i.ne plu.fi?. h'e assume that field cata, while accounting for all
these factors, exhtbit their total influence in the digensjon 1 es s excess
temperature and velocity ratios and cannot be characterized by the
absolute magnitudes of temperature and velocity as implied in Dr.
Pritcnard's analyses. Cased on this assumption, we continue to apply
Waukegan's data to Zion.
3. Application to Zion Discharge
Initial excess temperature, AT = 20° F
Initial velocity-, u = Au =9.3 ft/sec
a. Sinking plume under February conditions:
Temperature of sinking plume, AT = 0.235 x 20 = 4.7°
Horizontal velocity of sinking plume,
Au = 0.235 x 9.3 = 2.19 ft/sec
b. Sinking plume under Harch conditions:
Temperature of sinking plume, AT = 0.394 x 20 = 7.9° f
\ '
Velocity of.sinking plume, Au = 0.394 x 9.3 = 3.66 ft/sec
We conclude, therefore, that the Zion plu • sinks at a higher
temperature than tiie Maukegan plume, both unc'i" .'arch and February
conditions. The excess temperatures of 4.7°F .d 7.9°F have been
predicted based on !Jauke;]an data. These contr ict Dr. Pritchard's
3°F maxii.;uri c~cess te,:;;)crature of tiie sinking ; ;ume predicted under
February coi'-.ii tions. ';.'e believe that the rcas' i for this discrepancy
is the use of 1.2 ft/sec absolute excess veloc :y as a universal
scaling parameter in contrast to our use of di- ,-isionless velocity ratios.
-------
Statement by G. F. Lee
Dr. Lea's presentation attempts to show that the blowdown from
cooling towers at the Zion Plant would bo unacceptable from the
standpoint of water quality degradation, while Dr. Lee presents
information in an attempt to support this contention, we do not
believe that his conclusions are justified. The following comments
are provided on specific points within Dr. Lee's paper:
1. The statement uses a drift level of 0.1 percent of the total
circulation rate (page 3). This is ve_ry_ excessive. The state-of-the
art provides for drift levels of O.OQ2~percent and 0.005 percent from
natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, respectively.
2. Throughout Dr. Lee's comments he compares the chemical
concentration of coonng tower blowuo.vn wiin tne ialce standards. It
should be pointed out that a chemical concentration in the blowdown
can exceed the lake standard and still be well below-the effluent
standard.
3. The discussion on the influence of ammonia is misleading
(page 9). The study on which the statement is based is (1) undocumented
and (2) may not allow for process leakage, wnich is not a problem
r""~-
4. The effects of chemicals added to the lake due to water
treatment will be minimal:
a. Chlorine (page 11) - power plant operations and math
modeling indicate chlorine feed for biological control in cooling towers
will have less impact on the receiving stream than once-through cooling.
The reference to chlorine feed at Zion is unfounded since the plant
will use mechanical condanser cleaning (Amertap) for fouling control.
b. Corrosion/scale treatments (page 10, 12-17) - modern power
plants are designing out corrosion via alloy heat exchangers, concrete
distribution lines, epoxy coated return lines, etc. Also corrosion and
scaling are less of a problem than in the process industries, due tc
(1) stsady-state operation,. (2) low skin temperature, (3) high velocities
and (4) low delta T's. The net result is the almost complete elimination
of conventional treatment chemicals. The only chemical added in
significant quantities is sulfuric acid for pH adjustment.
c. Phosphate contribution (page 14-15) - phosphorus will
come from boiler blowcicwn - this will be present even with once-through
cooling. f"or~Yeasons cited in paragraph 4b, t!,2 phosphate issue in
power plant cooling tcwers will be nil in a vast majority of the cases.
Where deposit control chemicals containing phcs'.hates are used, they will
be of the crgano phosphorus types. These chemicals contribute 80-9L> percent
-------
less P v/hen compared with phosphate. This is due to lower feed rates
and chemical structure. Other alternatives such as non-phosphate
anti -scaling ayeuts can be applied.
d. Evaporative effects - Dr. Lee's comments on the increased
concentration of innate chemicals of the lake water due to evaporation
in the cooling tovers rr.ust be taken in perspective. From the Department
of Interior report Feasj bj 1 j _tv of Al to rna ti ve Xeans of Cool i ng jror
Then. a 1 Plants ..'er.r La..e ..ic.; .^n , it can oe sno.vn that 102 evaporation
rate oi.^ to o.ice-l.iro'j';.! cooling would be approximately SO percent of
the evaporation rate of cooling towers. This implies that on a lake
wide basis, the concentration effects due to evaporation from once-
through vs wet cooling towers would closely approximate each other.
In summary, the general characteristics of cooling tower operation
from the present state-of-tne-art of the process industries cannot be
used to predict the impact of cooling tower blowdc.vn from future power
plants. The basic reason is that the conditions for cooling water in
the electric utility industry are unique. Power plants do not have the
high skin temperatures, high temperature drops, and low flows of the
petroleum/ chemical industry, from which a great deal of information has
been teken; nor do they have the complex distribution systems, the
process leaks, the shell side cooling, the hybrid metallic surfaces,
or trie unco.'itrn] led discharges of other industrial plants. Power
plant cooling towsrs operating on Lake Michigan will not increase the
total amount of chemicals in the lake, with the possible exception of
sulfste due to pM control. This contradicts Dr. Lee's tone throughout
his statement, which he summarizes on page 17-20.
A great majority of problems associated with blowdown control from
power plant cooling towers have been approached and solved. The
remaining problems have solutions through the intelligent application
of technology and economics.
I trust the above comments will be useful to you. Please contact
us if further questions arise.
Bruce A. Tichenor
Mostara A. Shirazi ~}?
0) /? O-' , / '
Ut/fr 6 VZ&«"('
Guy R. Nelson
Reference
btulzenbach, ,'(. D. and D. R. F. Harleman, "An Analytical and Experimenta
Investigation of Surface Discharges of Heated Water," Dept. of Civil Eno., ;;
Report ;:o.!6130DJ'J 02/71, EPA, Water Pollution Control Research Scries, U.iJ.C
Enclosure (1)
-------
MA.T if; I <
-------
2
While it is di"/• '"'< io compare the specific cost items provided by i'.r.
But!or with those? m;,re general data, it door, appear that (ho Commonwealth
Edison cos *_s arc excessive. For example, excluding special earth work,
the total v.apital investment costs for Zion's wot system equals $2o/K!,'
compared k/t;,c rJZ/K1.: Hi:] value and the $15/:'J.-.' figure given by Mr.
Williams. ,-ln tenns of capability loss, Commonweal th I-dison's estimate
for Zion
-------
The use of a 250 feet limit on tower height is based upon the heights of
other (;br.i.ructions around the 1/aukptjan airport. There is at the present time
an FAA regulation ] ir;i tir.p» *-'ie tnini;ui:;i altitude approach to that airport
at 600'. it r:ay bs possible that F/V\ would consider i,;odi vying .this
regulation to allov/ for uie presence of a natural draft tower in the vicinity
of the airport. Since the overall cost of conventional natural draft towers
would be millions of collars less than the hybrid system, such an investiga-
tion would be prudent.
(3) Capabi1i ty Los scs
A major cost item in the data supplied by Mr. Cutler is for
capability losses due to lower efficiency at high back-pressures and
auxilary power required for pir:ipr> and fans. Mr. Dutler assigns a value
of $3/Yi'12,CCO to this capability loss for the wet mechanical draft tower
system (179 i-'..l x S2G7/K1.'). Jn assigning an equivalent capital invest-
ment figure of v37,~i':2,CC3 to this capability loss,"it is obvious that the
economic l:3r,2fits of additional capacity during the non-critical v/eather
conditions were not evaluated. Using cconcinic datn provided by Ccnmon-
v/ealth Edison and assu;:ring that an additional 150 ,'•!:•/ would be availablc-
for distribution 75 percent of the year at the stated 70 percent capacity
factor, \ve computed that at pov/er value of 5 mi Tis/Kl.'M the equivalent
ccpit?.! "caiiv1 over the 30 year plant life v/ould be $23 million. Thus
the net cost penalty due to capability loss should be 314 million ($37
million luii^s 523 Million). In the event thai, the extra capability cf
the plant is not able to be sold.then Coihinonv/ealth Edison should seric'..s"ly
consider the use of lov.-er cost gas turbine peaking units which v/ould provide
the needed capability during the relatively short periods of time v.'hen
severe su:
-------
used 39.9 percent and commercial consumers 23.3 percent; the
going to losses. I f we assume that the residential consumers of Commonwealth
Ldison also consume 100 percent of the goods and services provided by
the industries and co;miercia! establ i shment in the service distri'ct, then
the r.:?ihod used by ','.r. Hutler to ar.sign the cost increase is correct.
However, it secmi highly unlikely that this is tiie case. Heavy industrial
goods produced in Jie Chicago area are sold throughout the U.S. and even
the world end any produce cost increase due to increases in power cost would
be distributed to these wide rouging customers. Also the Chicago area
supplies commercial services to large numbers of people v.'hich do not buy
residential uv.ver from Commonwealth L'dison. In addition, one should
evaluate the cost increase on the basis of 1973 consir.r.srs rather than 1969.
consumers since Zion will only then be fully "on-line."
Assuming that the residential consumers of Conriionv/ealth Edison purchase 20
percent of the output of industrial goods and 75 percent of the coi^ierciai
services of Cc;:.::o:;v;eal th h'dison's industrial and coiv.r.ercial customers one
can shov/ that the residential consuir.er should pay only ?A. 5 percent + (0.2)
(39.9 perceive) •:• (0.75) (23.3 percent) = 50 percent or the cost increase,
whatever that true cost ir.ay be. At any rate, the oSc/month or 6.5 percent
cost increase to the residential consumer is unrealistically high.
»
In cone"! us i en > v/e believe that Commonv/ea! th Edison's cost estimates for back-
f'itfing the /lion plant vrith a closed cycle cooling sys lem reflect excessively
strict design assumptions and are thus too high, t'hile the total plant.
cannot be optimised, certainly alternative backfitted systems and operating
techniques could be evaluated to minimize the economic impact of installing
such systems. In this respect^ the follovnnn evaluations should be made
for conventional wet towers:
1. A more rigorous evaluation of the fogging potential of conventional
wet mechanical draft towe rs.
2. Feasibility studies and cost estimates for wet mechanical draft
tower fog control during critical meteorological conditions.
3. An evaluation of the cost of raising the minimum approach to
K'aukcgan airport to^allow conventional wet natural draft towers.
r'
4. An evaluation of the economic benefits derived from increasing
the capability of the plant.
5. An evaluation of the use of low cost gas peaking units to be
used during periods of capability loss.
-------
5
Fine ily, O,!,r,or,v,'eul th Edison should provide data which r,;oro realistically
reflect the increase in cost which their res identic".! copsi,:,,ers win bear
In this respect, an evaluation of the portion of inous trial load which
vn'1: '•;"> parsed io ccnsii;ner5 outside the C-, ••.,;o/!,vc-al ' :• Edison :;ervico di^r
v/ou kl be niost val uab 1 e.
Enclosures
-"•' 0 '.
Cruce A. Tichcr.or
Kostafa I\. ShirGzi
cc: Bartsch
Stein
-------
The attached messages were received at the
conference while the conference was in progress.
-------
union
Telegram
LLE070 (lK)fcCCEi69(0735)(l-OOU777C3iU>PD 11/09/72 073^
ICS IPMVEIF MVN
9 AM
7 42
2CZC 00152 111 TDVE CHICAGO ILL 100 11-8 1055P CST
PMS FRANCIS MAYOR REGIONAL DIRECTOR DLY 150
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOLD ROOM PICK CONGRESS HOTEL
CHGO
OBJECT TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN POLICY PERMITTING HEATED
DISCHARGES IN LAKE MICHIGAN* PLEASE USE YOUR BEST EFFORT TO PRESERVE
THE LAKE
HAROLD GRAHAM
union
LLD1U (10)CCC220(1113)(1-009406C3HOPD 11/09/72 1113
ICS IPMVEIC MVN
ZCZC 00146 TDVE CHICAGO ILL 19 11-09 1005A CST
PMS FRANCIS MAYO DLR DONT FONE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGCY
GOLDROOM PICK CONGRESS HOTEL 520 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVE
CHGO
DO NOT COMPROMISE WATER STANDARDS IN LAKE MICHIGAN INSIST
ON COOLING POWERS FOR ALL POWER PLANTS ON THE LAKE
DR AND MRS CHARLES FRAHM
SF-1201 (R5-69)
-------
western union
Telegram
9
LLD101 (16)CCD199(1019)(1-007586C314)PD 11/09/72 1019 ,
ICS IPMVEIA MVN
ZCZC 00097 TDVE CHICAGO ILL 18 11-09 910A CST
PMS FRACIS MAYO DLY 150
REGNL DIR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GOLD ROOM
PICK CONGRESS OTEL
CHGO
MR MAYOJ
WE MUST HAVE COOLING TOWERS AT COOK NUCLEAR CENTER TO SAVE OUR LAKE
MRS C H SMILEY PROPERTY OWNER DUNEWOOD BRIDGEMAN MICHIGAN
912
Cpl)CCG36lU33G>U-016MOC3i4)PD 11/09/72 1328
MVN
ZCZC 00140 TDVE CHICAGO ILL 12 11-09 1130A CST
PMS FRANCIS MAYL DLY 150
REGL DIR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THE PICK CONGRESS HOTEL
CHGO
PROTECT LAKES. SCRAPPING ADOPTED POLICY DERELICTED. IF CONGRESS
LOCK, APPEAL TO PUBLIC
FRANCES K WILSON
SF-1201 (R5-69)
-------
western union
Telegram
LLF017 (23 )CCH002 (0107) (1-000783 C3 14) PD 11/09/72 0048
ICS IPMVEIB MVN
ZCZC 00009 TDVt CHICAGO ILL 27 11-08 1127P CsT
PMS MR FRANCES MAYO DLR 1,50 DLR EARLY AM
•""?. 5'OV 9 AM S2 40
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
ENVIRONfCNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GOLD ROOK
PICK CONGRESS HOTEL
CHGO
TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF COOLING TOWERS ON THE
SM201 (RS-69)
LA}£ MICHIGAN POWER PLANT IS A BREECH OF FAITH
AND A NEEDLESS RISK TO NEM AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS
RICHARD W BURKE
8F-1201 (RS-69)
-------
western union
Telegram
LLCQ34 C42)CCDOl5(02iPD 11/09/72 0214
IC3 IPM^EIB MVN
2SC2C 00036 NL TDVE CHICAGO ILL 100 11-09 1201A CST'*i? W 9 AM 3 42
PMS FRANCIS MAYO REGIONAL DIRECTOR ENVIROMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY DLH DONT FONE
520 SOlfTH MICHIGAN AVE GOLD ROOM PICK CONGRESS HOTEL
CHGO
EPA OBLIGATIONS TO THE PEOPLE IS TO BE SURE
THERMAL POLLUTION IS NO THREAT TO THE
SF- 201 (R5-69)
ENVIROMENT DONT LET UP ON THE POWER COMPANY
PHILLIP AND DEMISE GARDNER
SF-1201 (R5-69)
-------
The finalized joint recommendations of
the Lake Michigan States and EPA for thermal
and non-thermal issues, formulated at the
Public Session held on November 9, 1972,
follow in their entirety.
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT CONCERNING
LAKE MICHIGAN THERMAL PROBLEM
PUBLIC SESSION OF THE
LAKE MICHIGAN STATES AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
November 9, 1972
The questions raised by the construction of several large power
plants on the shores of Lake Michigan have been a matter of urgent
concern to and have occupied countless hours of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference. In briefest summary I shall attempt to outline
the facts underlying the problem. Six nuclear electric generating
stations are in various stages of construction in the four Lake Michigan
states; several of the plants are scheduled to be in full operation at
various dates in 1973.
At the third session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
(March 23-25, 1971) EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus proposed to the state
conferees for their adoption a water quality standard whose implementation
would require the installation of auxiliary cooling facilities at the
nuclear power plants under construction. The essence of Administrator
-------
-2-
Ruckelshaus* recommendation was that waste heat discharges located on
Lake Michigan in excess of 1/2 billion BTU/hr which had not begun
operation as of March 1, 1971 shall have closed cycle cooling facilities
associated with their operation.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended through
1970, water quality standards consisted of three elements: criteria,
uses, and an implementation plan geared to attain the criteria and tses.
The new FWPCA states that best practicable control technology shall be
achieved not later than July 1, 1977. However, if the application of
best practicable control technology does not attain water quality
standards then more stringent limitations will be required. It should
be noted that the water quality standards which will be considered by
the Environmental Protection Agency for approval or disapproval, will
consist only of criteria and use designations. Implementation plans
are no longer subject to approval by EPA as part of water quality standards.
In place of implementation plans incorporated in the standards, the new
Act imposes a continuing planning process requirement on each state which
requires the state to have comprehensive control plans including imple-
mentation plans for all navigable waters within the state.
At the March 23-25, 1971 session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference, the conferees made certain findings and recommendations.
Most of these findings and recommendations were approved by Administrator
Ruckelshaus on May 14, 1971 and forwarded to the states for implementation.
-------
-3-
Subsequent to the Issuance of the approved findings and recom-
mendations, the four Lake Michigan states took certain actions relating
to implementing the conference recommendations. Basically these actions
were consummated in the adoption by the states of thermal water quality
standards. The principal elements of the adopted conference recommen-
dations and those elements considered by the states for adoption as
water quality standards were as follows: maximum temperature limits,
specific definition of mixing zones, implementation schedules, and
guides on restrictions on intake mechanisms, discharge plumes, and
monitoring. The conference specifically adopted a recommendation which
required closed cycle cooling systems on all new thermal waste dis-
chargers above a certain size.
Recognizing the risk of summarizing what each state adopted, I have
attempted to do that. The summary is as follows:
INDIANA: Essentially adopted all of the conference recommendations,
ILLINOIS: Essentially adopted all of the conference recommendations
with the exception of the closed cycle cooling require-
ments on all plants not under construction as of March 1,
1971 and the plan of implementation on bringing older
sources into compliance with the general conference
recommendations.
-------
-4-
MICHJGAN: Essentially adopted all of the conference recommen-
dations with the exception of the closed cycle cooling
requirements on new sources and the plan of implementa-
tion on bringing older sources into compliance with the
general conference recommendations. The state did not
adopt the mixing zone definition, leaving that deter-
mination to a case-by-case basis.
WISCONSIN: Adopted the monthly maximum criteria exempting certain
areas from the requirements. Other requirements,
including mixing zone and installation of closed cycle
cooling, were not adopted.
Under the new Act the standards submitted to EPA by the four states
must be approved or rejected by January 18, 1973. If EPA fails to take
action by January 18, 1973, the standards submitted by the states will
automatically be approved. It is EPA's intention to review and act on
all of the Lake Michigan thermal standards by the required date. At
this time it would appear that much of what is in the submitted standards
is approvable.
This disposition of the pending thermal water quality standards will
not, however, resolve the Lake Michigan thermal problem which faced the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference in each of its sessions. We kno\i
that the thermal question is not readily resolvable not only from our
own experience but from a reading of the new Federal Water Pollution
Control Amendments of 1972.
-------
-5-
Congress considered voluminous testimony in their deliberations on
the new bill. On the basis of the evidence they concluded that best
practicable control technology would be required for all municipalities
and industries by July 1, 1977 and best available technology by July 1,
1983. Congress obviously felt on the basis of the testimony they heard
that all of the answers were not in on the question of thermal pollution.
While they recognized it as a pollutant and a problem, they saw fit to
address the question in a special way in various sections of the Act.
Specifically, Congress provided for the establishment of a program
to start to get some asnwers on the thermal problem. The new Act requires
the Administrator, in cooperation with State, Federal, and public and
private organizations, to conduct comprehensive studies on the effects
and methods of controlling thermal discharges. In evaluating alternative
methods of control, the studies are required to consider the state of the
art, economic feasibility, including cost-effectiveness, and the total
impact on the environment. The studies will consider methods of minimizing
adverse effects and maximizing beneficial effects of thermal discharges.
The results of the studies are to be reported not later than 270 days
after October 18, 1972 and will be generally available. The results of
the studies will be considered in the permit issuing process set up by
the Act in developing thermal water quality standards. [See Sec. 104(t)].
Basically, to control all municipal and industrial discharges, the
Act establishes a national permit system superseding the program set up
-------
As-
the Refuse Act. EPA is to determine what best practicable
control technology is for various industries, and is to set effluent
limitations within one year. EPA is to administer the permit program
until such time as a state satisfies the Administrator that it has the
statutory capability to manage the program, at which time the program
will be transferred by EPA to the state. [See Sec. 402].
With regard to thermal pollution a special section provides that
thermal discharges will be subject to the requirements of best practi-
cable control technology (existing sources and those under construction)
and best available control technology (new sources). [See Sec. 301 and
306]. If the thermal discharger can prove at a public hearing to the
satisfaction of the Administrator (or a state if the permit authority
has been transferred to the state) that the prescribed effluent limitation
is not necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, then the Adminis-
trator may impose a less stringent effluent limitation. [See Sec. 3160.
A problem of great concern during past Enforcement Conference
discussions has been the entrainment and destruction of aquatic biota
during cooling water usage. The new statute provides that cooling water
intake structures, unlike heated effluents, must immediately reflect the
best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
[See Sec. 316(b)].
-------
-7-
On the basis of the new Act, the control of thermal discharges
will be handled by the permit process. There are presently 27 Lake
Michigan power plants in the pre-operational and operational stage.
Additionally, there are numerous other lesser thermal discharges to
the lake. The Act provides for the issuance of permits in the interim
before final effluent limitations are promulgated by EPA, subject to
such conditions as the Administrator determines to be necessary to
carry out the provisions of the Act. However desirable it may be to
make an early interim decision on what the statutory requirement of
best practicable control technology is, we must fully appreciate the
consequences. As regards significant thermal discharges, determination
of best practicable control technology should be one meant to last for
a number of years since the undertaking of most thermal control programs
are usually long term projects. Construction of facilities and the
engineering attendant to such construction is usually extended over years
rather than months.
Until the promulgation of effluent limitations required by the
statute has been effected, Lake Michigan power plant permit applications
will be processed in the following manner:
1. Each permit application will initially be processed on the
basis of compliance with Federally approved water quality
standards. Under the statute if it is determined that best
practicable control technology for thermal discharges requires
-------
-8-
more than the achievement of water quality standards such as
off stream cooling, the discharger will be required to install
such facilities unless the discharger can demonstrate that a
less stringent effluent limitation will assure the protection
and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife.
2. During the term of the permit a comprehensive monitoring program
will be undertaken to evaluate the effects of the thermal
discharges upon the environment.
3. The permit will be issued for a relatively short period (not
to exceed three years). However, the permit shall be terminated
whenever either of the following occurs: (1) a finding that the
effluent being discharged does not assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, or (2) the promulgation of final effluent
limitations defining best practicable control technology for
thermal discharges.
We must proceed to see that other questions related to cooling water
usage are addressed promptly. First on this list is the requirement to
have cooling water intake facilities reflecting best technology available.
To develop the necessary data base on this question, EPA is suggesting the
formation of a technical committee to undertake the evaluation of existing
data and to make appropriate recommendations to EPA and the Lake Michigan
-------
-9-
states. It is our suggestion that the committee should consist of two
representatives named by each of the states and two persons named by EPA.
It is my suggestion that Dr. Robert J. Zeller, Director, Region V EPA
Surveillance and Analysis Division, chair this committee.
On another and more general problem, the EPA and the States have
in the past discussed the need for adequate monitoring of programs to
assess damage to the aquatic environment attributable to existing and
planned cooling water uses. As required under the licensing procedures
of the Atomic Energy Commission and under certain state requirements,
a number of studies have been conducted to assess damage. As was
discussed at the September session, it appears that criteria do not
exist to trigger the installation of appropriate corrective measures
should damage become evident. A mechanism is also lacking to make an
overall assessment of the damage that may occur to the lake's eco-system
from waste discharges scattered at various points around the lake.
This lack exists because present studies are geared toward a local, or
at best regional assessment of a problem and not to the impact on the
overall lake. Both monitoring elements, i.e., local and lakewide are
important to assess damage to the lake. To address this problem, I
suggest the formation of a technical panel to be composed of at least
three representatives from each Lake Michigan state and three representa-
tives from the EPA. The state representatives may be other than state
-------
-10-
employees and should be members of the academic community, persons
employed by utilities, and members of environmental and other citizens'
groups. It would be my suggestion to have Dr. Andrew McErlean, Senior
Staff Biologist in the Office of Enforcement and General Counsel in
Washington, to chair this technical panel. Dr. McErlean is eminently
qualified to head this most important group. The charge of this panel
would be
to review background information dealing with past,
present and future studies relating to thermal
discharges to Lake Michigan;
to make assessments as to whether the individual
studies concerning thermal discharges will
adequately assess damage attributable to that
cooling water use;
to assess the pertinence of individual localized
studies to monitor changes in the overall lake
eco-system;
and to recommend, as necessary, additional efforts
that should be expended to assess environmental
effects of the use of Lake Michigan water for
cooling.
I am prepared to lend such assistance as I can to fashion the kind of
a program which will collect and evaluate the facts and to assure
maximum protection to the public resource, as well as fair play for
the industry.
-------
PUBLIC SESSION
OF THE
LAKE MICHIGAN STATES AND
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOVEMBER 9, 1972
JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE
Assessment of status of compliance is the foundation of any
pollution abatement program. Without appropriate monitoring of
status of compliance, there can be no measure of abatement progress.
On the basis of reports presented at the last session of the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference, the following was revealed:
Phosphorus Removal
Review of up-dated status of compliance information submitted at
the Conference indicates that waste treatment facilities serving over
three-fourths of the population in the basin subject to the phosphorus
removal requirement are anticipated to reach compliance by the
December 1972 deadline. When this prediction is confirmed, sub-
stantial compliance with the Conference requirements will have
occurred. The Lake Michigan States and EPA believe that all reasonable
methods should be utilized to meet the December 1972 deadline.
Industrial Waste Control
Three-fourths of the industrial waste sources listed on the
existing compliance schedule meet Conference requirements. The current;
listing of industrial waste sources should be reviewed to determine if
all sources of pollutants which may have an adverse impact on Lake
Michigan are covered.
Combined Sewers
Basin-wide progress in meeting this requirement has been un-
satisfactory. It should be recognized that the final date for
compliance under approved Federal-State water quality standards is
1977 for each of the States.
-------
-2-
Disinfection
Only three dischargers out of 160 subject to this requirement are
not presently in compliance. The provision of this basic health pro-
tection for the Lake Michigan Basin is a significant accomplishment.
Recommendations
In view of the present status of compliance with the Conference
requirements outlined above, the following is recommended:
1. All point sources of phosphorus input to Lake Michigan subject
to the phosphorus removal deadline of December 1972 which are
now behind schedule should be reviewed and where feasible should
be required to utilize interim facilities to effect the maximum
phosphorus reduction by the deadline date.
2. Industrial waste sources which are behind Lake Michigan clean-
up schedules and which have not been subjected to enforcement
action resulting in an acceptable program should be given high
priority in issuance of discharge permits.
3. Each State should* by April 1, 1973, prepare a detailed listing
of municipalities subject to the combined sewer control
recommendation. Each State agency should inititate a program
which would require each municipality with a combined sewer
overflow problem to prepare, by December 31, 1973, a report
which should contain the following as a minimum:
A. A delineation of the areas involved in the problem.
B. Identification of specific engineering solutions to
control or treat combined sewer overflows.
C. Estimate of the cost.
-------
-3-
Each State should, by September 1, 1973, prepare a ranking of the
combined sewer overflow problems in order of priority needs for
correction. The existing Conference recommendation and water
quality standards deadline for establishment of control or
treatment of combined sewer overflows is July 1977.
4. By February 15, 1973, the States shall prepare an evaluation of
the non-public waste discharges to surface waters in the Lake
Michigan Basin. The evaluation should identify the quality and
quantity of wastes discharged and whether such a discharge has
an adverse impact on the water quality of Lake Michigan.
-------
CHLORIDES
Present knowledge has not firmly established that existing chloride
levels in Lake Michigan are interfering with the beneficial uses pre-
scribed by Federal-State water quality standards. However, 1n view of
the fact that chlorides are oersistent, the States and EPA believe
controls above those presently in progress on discharges of chloride waste
should be established. It is recommended that:
1. The States in cooperation with EPA, through existing or future
permit programs, endeavor to limit the loading rate for each
State to the minimum feasible level.
2. The States should initiate detailed studies to examine chloride
contributions from land run-off.
-------
PHOSPHORUS
The Serious adverse impact of present phosphorus discharges upon
Lake Michigan is well established. It is recognized that the 80%
basin-wide restriction adapted in 1968 was a positive step towards correct-
ing this problem. However, it is agreed that additional measures
are necessary.
It is therefore recommended that:
1. The existing 80% phosphorus requirement of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference should be supplemented by a 1 mg/1
total phosphorus objective for municipal effluents. However,
where present reductions already exceed this level, or where
more stringent levels are feasible, they should be sought and
maintained. Facilities of less than 2500 population equiva-
lent would be exempt from the additional requirement. Each
state should prepare, as soon as possible, an evaluation of the
additional treatment facilities necessary and cost of same to
upgrade treatment form the 80% present phosphorus removal
requirement to the 1 mg/1 objective; such information to be
evaluated by the States and EPA as soon as possible but no later
than December 31, 1973, and an appropriate schedule developed
for obtaining the 1 mg/1 objective shortly thereafter.
2. The States and Federal Government should endevor to promote
the utilization of effective soil conservation techniques in
order to reduce the amounts of phosphorus reaching the Lake
from non-point sources.
-------
-2-
3. Additional research and monitoring regarding the trophic
status of Lake Michigan and the basic relationship between
nutrient inputs or other limiting elements and eutrophication
should be conducted to provide a basis for controls beyond
those thus far recommended.
-------
PESTICIDES
DOT, a chlorinated hydrocarbon, has been found at unacceptable levels
in some fish used for human consumption, Reductions in DDT use
•5nitiated in 1969 are to culminate in a complete ban in the Lake
Michigan Basin on January 1, 1973. It is important to obtain further
evidence of reductions in DDT levels in Lake Michigan fish already
noted by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Ann Arbor
Laboratory. It is recommended that:
1. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife continue and
intensify fish sampling for the purpose of establishing
trends in pesticide residues. The EPA will coordinate
with the BSF and W in monitoring findings and will report
to the States on July 1 or each year the results of
monitoring program.
2. The States should endeavor to secure passage of adequate
legislation to record usage of clorinated nydrocarbons
and other pesticides.
-------
POLVCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB)
The States and EPA believe that PCB is a significant pollutant in
the Lake Michigan Basin and that it is imperative that present PCB levels
ba reduced if not eliminated, It is therefore recommended that:
1, All significant sources of PCB within Jhe basin shall be
promptly identified through State-managed surveys, comparable
to those now in effect in Michigan and Wisconsin, and each
State shall prepare a progress report by October 1, 1973 as
to the location of the identified sources.
2, Upon identification of any source of PCB in the basin, the
State within which the source is located shall take immediate
steps to eliminate, or if this in not practicable, to reduce
each such discharge to an absolute minimum. Each State shall
prepare a report by December 31, 1973.
3. Each State will institute by January 1, 1973 a surveillance and
monitoring program on the tributaries and nearshore waters for
the purpose of determining PCB trends in the aquatic environment
and to gauge the effectiveness of the program for reducing if
not totally eliminating man-made PCB discharges. The results
of such surveillance and monitoring shall be prepared by the end
of the calendar year.
-------
PHTHALATES
The occurrence of phthalate residues has been established in the
Lake Michigan Basin, principally in samples of water9 sediment, and
aquatic organisms. Though research data are presently limited, the
States and EPA are concerned with phthalate contamination of the
environment. It is therefore recommended that:
1. Comprehensive State surveillance of municipal sewage treatment
plants, industries, domestic water intakes and fish be
initiated to determine phthalate trends in the aquatic
environment. Such a program should be instituted by March
1973, and an outline of each program should be prepared at
that time. A progress report should be prepared by the States
by December 31, 1972.
2. EPA accelerate its present research program to determine the
levels that are toxic to aquatic organisms.
3. As toxicity data becomes available, the States should institute
the necessary control programs.
4. The Federal Food and Drug Administration be requested to
further evaluate the phthalate problem to determine whether
an action level for fish-for human consumption presently needs
to be set.
-------
SELECTED TRACE METALS
Selected tracainetals are found in the water-•dwd particularly in
the sediment of Lake Michigan and many of its tributaries.
Although some data are now available with respect to heavy metals
concentrations, there is not a sufficient base at this time upon which
to predicate a precise control program. It is therefore recommended
that:
1. EPA and the State agencies should establish high priorities
within their research programs to develop acute toxicity levels
(TLm) for selected metals using Lake Michigan water and various
life stages of Lake Michigan fish.
2. The States should survey and report commencing July 1973 on
the inputs of metals to the Lake Michigan Basin, based on
information obtained from industrial permit and monitoring
programs. Sewage treatment plant effluent should also be
monitored to determine the input of metals from this source.
The report should delineate the source and level of discharge.
The extent and frequency of monitoring should be determined after
a case-by-case review.
3. Each State shall endeavor through a control program to decrease to
the maximum extent practicable the input of selected trace
metals into the Lake Michigan Basin whether from industrial or
municipal sources.
4. The EPA shall determine research needs relative to coordinating
a program to determine the input of selected trace metals from
rainfall.
-------
TASTE AND ODOR PROBLEMS
There has been an increasing problem of taste and odor due to
fungi and/or algae in water supplies drawn from Lake Michigan, particu-
larly in the vicinity of the Door County Peninsula. This problem has
reached significant proportions. It is therefore recommended that;
1. The offensive taste and odor problem in the Green Bay Area
of Lake Michigan should be further investigated to confirm the
source. State and Federal investigations have laid important
groundwork in this area and should be expanded. A joint
EPA-Wisconsin-Michigan task force should be appointed to
serve as a coordinating body for this expanded effort.
2. Research on water treatment methods for removal of taste and
odor producing compounds should be expanded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
The work of the Pesticide Committee has broadened its studies over
recent time to include investigation of toxic substances other than
pesticides that find their way into Lake Michigan Basin receiving waters
and hence Lake Michigan. It is, therefore, desirable to create a new
study group which has as its main objectives the continued and intensive
evaluation of the nature, extent and relative toxicities resulting from
the use and subsequent discharge of any and all toxic substances. The
States and EPA thereby recommend that a Toxic Substances Committee be
established to be under the chairmanship of Dr. Donald I. Mount. The
new Committee will be composed of technical expertise from each Lake
Michigan basin state with overall technical guidance provided by the
Chairman. The Committee will develop semi-annual reports, commencing
July I, 1973, wherein the Committee's progress, findings, needs, and
recommended control programs are discussed. Upon completion, such
reports shall be provided to each of the State water pollution control
Administrators and the EPA Regional Administrator. The work of the
Pesticide Committee will be incorporated into the efforts of the Toxic
Substances Committee.
au.s.Government Printing Office: 1974-751-197
------- |