UNITED STATES
                       STATEMENT CONCERNING
                       PUBLIC SESSION OF THE
                         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

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,
uses, and an implementation plan geared to attain the criteria and uses.
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.

     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

     MICHIGAN:   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 1s EPA's intention to review and act on
all of the Lake Michigan thermal standards by the required date.  At
this time 1t 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 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 1n 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

under 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. 316],
     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)],

     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

         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 shellflshi
         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 quest .-H, 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
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
1n 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

 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
           and to recommend, as necessary, additional efforts
           that should be expended to assess environmental
           effects of the use of Lake Michigan water for
 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.