PROCEEDINGS
 ILLINOIS
                                  ••slon
                                  24, 28, 1971
                                 go, Illinois
                                    2
CONFERENCE


    In the Matter off Pollution off Lake

    Michigan and its Tributary Basin

   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE

-------
RECONVENING OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE
CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF
LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN IN
   THE STATES OF WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS,
  INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN 	 VOLUME  II
            Grand Ballroom
             Sherman House
           Chicago, Illinois
             March 24,  1971

-------
                                                               11
 1                          CONTENTS
                                                            Page
 2
      Opening Statement - Murray Stein                       26?
 3
      Hon. Carl L. Klein                                     26S
 4
      David D. Comey                                         282
 5
      Mrs. Catherine T. Quigg                                291
 6
      Mrs. Jay Heyman                                        294
 7
      Mrs. J. Barton Kalish                                  297
 a
      Harry V. Bierma                                        301
 9
      Paul S. Goodman  (Read by Charles Riefstahl)           303
10
      Mrs. Eileen L. Johnston                                310
11
      Miss Edith M. McKee                                    324
12
      Dr. John K. Langum                                     354
13
      Enrico F. Conti                                        421
14
      Michael E. Bialas                                      423
15
      Mrs. Miriam G. Dahl                                    431
16
      Mrs. Claire L. Palmer                                  43$
17
      Mrs. Robert Erickson                                   440
18
      Mrs. Carole Magnus  (Read by Mrs. Lee Botts)           457
19
      Mrs. Kathleen Nixon   (Read by Mrs. Lee Botts)          463
20
      Thomas B. Roos                                         4^0
21
      Mrs. Mary Helen  Dunlop                                 4&3
22
      Alexander Polikoff                                     4#4
23
      Priscilla Zlatoff-Mirsky                               4#7a
24
      Charles A.  Bane                                        4$9
25
      Sol Burstein                                           522

-------
                                                               iii
     CONTENTS,  Continued
                                                            Page
 2
     John R.  Brough (Read by Robert  G. Mowers)                539
 3
     Robert M.  Kopper                                        548
 4
     T.  A. Miskimen                                          563
 5
     James B. Henry                                          573
 6
     0.  K. Petersen                                          582
 7
     Paul Keshishian                                         600
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------
                                                             IV
                  Reconvening of the  Third  Session of the


 2   Conference  in the Matter of Pollution  of  Lake Michigan  and


 3   Its Tributary Basin,  in the States  of  Wisconsin, Illinois,


     Indiana,  and Michigan,  held in the  Grand  Ballroom  of  the


 5   Sherman House, Chicago, Illinois, on Wednesday, March 24,


 6   1971,  at 9:30 a.m.


 7


 8
                  PRESIDING:

 9

                  Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner  for
10

                  Enforcement and  Standards Compliance, Water


                  Quality Office,  U.S. Environmental Protection


                  Agency,  Washington, B.C.



14


                  CONFEREES:

16
                  RALPH  W. PURDY,  Executive Secretary,  Michigan

17
                  Water  Resources  Commission,  Lansing,  Michigan,


                  PERRY  A. MILLER, Assistant Director,  Stream


                  Pollution Control Board,  Indiana  State Board
20

                  of Health, Indianapolis,  Indiana.
21

22                FRANCIS T. MAYO, Regional Director, Water


23                Quality Office,  U.S. Environmental Protection


24                Agency,  Region V, Chicago, Illinois,


25

-------
" 1                CONFEREES, Continued


" 2                WILLIAM L. BLASER, Director, Illinois Environ-

                  mental Protection Agency, Springfield, Illinois.

 4
                  DAVID P. CURRIE, Chairman, Illinois Pollution
 5
                  Control Board, Chicago, Illinois,
 6

                  THOMAS G. FRANCOS, Administrator, Division of

                  Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Department

 -                of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.

10

11                ALTERNATE CONFEREES:


12                CARLOS FETTEROLF, Water Quality Standards

                  Appraisal, Michigan Water Resources Commission,

                  Lansing, Michigan.

15
                  ORAL H. HERT, Director, Division of Water
16
                  Pollution Control, Indianapolis, Indiana.
17
                  ROBERT P. HARTLEY, Regional  Water Quality

                  Standards Coordinator,  Water Quality Office,

20                u»s» Environmental Protection Agency,  Region  V,

                  Chicago, Illinois.


22                DALE S. BRYSON,  Deputy  Director, Office  of

23                Regulatory Programs,  Water Quality Office,

                  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,

                  Chicago, Illinois.

-------
 1               ALTERNATE  CONFEREES,  Continued

 2               JACOB  D. DUMELLE, Member, Illinois Pollution

 3               Control Board,  Chicago,  Illinois.
 4
                 DONALD J.  MACKIE, Assistant  Secretary, Division
 5
                 of Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Department
 6
                 of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin,
 7

 8
                 PARTICIPANTS:

10               Hon.  Carl  L.  Klein,  Former Assistant  Secretary

11      of the Interior, Chicago, Illinois.

12               David D. Comey, Director, Environmental  Research,

13      Businessmen for the  Public Interest, Chicago, Illinois.

14               Mrs.  Catherine  T.  Quigg, Pollution and Environ-

15      mental Problems, Palatine, Illinois.

16               Mrs.  Jay Heyman, Citizen, Highland Park, Illinois

17               Mrs.  J.  Barton  Kalish,  Citizen,  Highland Park,

18      Illinois.

19                Harry V. Bierma, Director and Chairman,  Clean

 20      Streams Committee,  Illinois  Audubon Society, Berwyn,

 21      Illinois.

 22                Paul S.  Goodman, Committee on Lake Michigan

 23      Pollution,  Wilmette, Illinois.

 24                Mrs.  Eileen L.  Johnston, Citizen, Wilmette,

 25      Illinois.

-------
                                                               Vll
 1                PARTICIPANTS,  Continued




 2                Miss  Edith M.  McKee,  C.P.G.,  Chief Geologist,



 3      Theodore S.  Leviton Associates,  Chicago,  Illinois.



                  Dr.  John K. Langura,  Economic  Consultant,



 5      President of Business Economics,  Inc.,  Chicago,  Illinois.



 "                Enrico F. Conti,  Assistant to the Manager for



        Environmental  Activities, Atomic  Energy Commission,


 rt

 0      Chicago, Illinois.



                  Michael E. Bialas,  Chairman,  Committee on



        Environment, Chicago Area Council of Liberal Churches,



        Chicago, Illinois.



                  Mrs.  Miriam G. Dahl,  State Division Chairman,



        Water Committee, Izaac Walton  League, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,



                  Mrs.  Claire L. Palmer,  Citizen,  Racine League



15      Of Women Voters, Racine, Wisconsin.



                  Mrs.  Robert Erickson,  North Central Audubon



        Council, Racine, Wisconsin.


1 a

•"•                 Mrs.  Carole Magnus,  Secretary,  Manistee County



        Anti-Pollution  Organization, Michigan.


20
                  Mrs.  Kathleen  Nixon,  Secretary,  Mason  County


21
        Anti-Pollution  Action Council,  Michigan.


22
                  Thomas B. Roos, Associate  Professor, Dartmouth



        College, Hanover, New Hampshire.



                  Steven E. Keane,  Attorney, Wisconsin Public



 '      Service Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

-------
                                                            Vlll






                  PARTICIPANTS,  Continued





 2                Mrs.  Mary Helen  Dunlop,  Chairman,  Committee  on




 3      Lake Michigan Pollution, Wilmette,  Illinois




                  Alexander Polikoff,  Executive  Director,  Business-



 5      men for Public Interest, Chicago,  Illinois.




 6                Charles A. Bane, law firm of Isham,  Lincoln  and




 7      Beale,  Counsel for Commonwealth Edison,  Chicago,  Illinois.




                  Sol Burstein,  Senior Vice-President, Wisconsin



        Electric Power Company,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin.




                  John R. Brough,  Northwest Indiana  Industrial




11      Committee on Thermal Standards for Lake  Michigan,  Indiana




12                Robert M. Kopper, Executive Vice-President and




13      Chief Operating Officer, Indiana and Michigan  Electric




        Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana.




15                Thomas A. Miskimen,  Senior Engineer  of the



        Environmental Engineering  Division, American Electric




17      Power Service Corporation, New York City, New  York.



                  James B. Henry,  Vice-President and General



        Counsel of American Electric Power Service Corporation,




20      New York City, New York




21                0. K. Petersen,  Attorney, Consumers  Power




22      Company, Jackson, Michigan.




23                Paul Keshishian, Director of Power Production,




        Wisconsin Power and Light  Company, Wisconsin



25

-------
                                                               26?
                                                             ~~
-1 j                          Murray Stein
J2
 3
 4
 5              MR. STEIN:  Let's reconvene.  We stand reconvened.
 6              I have an announcement or two.  One, Mr, Gonti,
 7    the representative of the Atomic Energy Commission, asked
      me to correct the record in response to a question of mine.
 9    I asked him if he believed that the present or proposed
10    plans for nuclear power should be built with once-through
11    cooling, and then they would have a study.  His answer to
12    that question was yes, they should be built with once-
      through cooling.
                He advises me that the position of the AEG, as
15    contained in the statement, is that the determination would
      have to be made on a case-by-case basis, and I would like
17    the record to show that Mr, Conti indicated that.
                We also have a petition from several citizens in
19    Racine, and I would like this to be made a part of the recorc
20    without objection.
                (The above-referred to petition follows.)
22
23              MR. STEIN:  As we start this morning, it is a
24    distinct pleasure for me to call on my former boss, the
25    Honorable Carl L. Klein, former Assistant Secretary of the

-------
                                                                                     267 a
          TO THE  CONFEREES AT THE FOUR_STATE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
                        HELD AT CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS.  /.ARCH 23, 24, 1971.

      We  the undersigned deplore the introduction of nuclear power plants to the Lakes.
 We  consider these plants a critical threat to our Lake in the form of thermal pollution.

      Adoption of minimal thermal standards and closed cooling systems are potential
 answers.

      In  addition we urge the adoption of effective monitoring proceedures which should
 be made  at the expense of the polluters.  Data should be collected daily and should be
 public.

      As  a further check, an agency,independent from the power company, should have access
 to  the instruments and reports.  Qualified scientists and biologists should evaluate the
 d-ta quarterly and forward these reports and evaluations to the Four-State Lake Michigan
 Enforcement Conference for quarterly review.
*„  ,. Plefs! r!uur!i ai1 Petltlons no later than March 20, 1971.  Committee must have then
,°,?,J?sent to the Conference on March 23rd.  Send than to:  CCM1ITTEE ON LAKE MICHIGAN
K;LJLUTION, P.O. BOX 583, WILMETTE ILLIIVIOIS 60091

-------
                                                              268
 1 !!                         Hon. C. L. Klein
   ii
   I
 2 |   Interior, Mr.  Klein.
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
      with the problems arising out of saving Lake Michigan.
23
24
25
        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARL L* KLEIN,
       FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
                     CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
          MR. KLEIN:  Thank you very much, Murray.
          I come to you today as the former Assistant
Secretary of the Interior who believed that his first job
was to save Lake Michigan in the matter of priorities.
Now I am a private citizen addressing you on the basis of
my previous position and my knowledge therein.
          There has been a great deal said in the past
several years with testimony, scientific diagrams,
arguments pro and con on the question of the addition of
waste heat into Lake Michigan.
          Too many people have been concerned about every-
thing but the future condition of Lake Michigan.  This
panel, above all other items, must first concern itself
with saving Lake Michigan and thereafter concern itself
          We have been hearing the words "cooling towers"
and "cooling ponds" and other ways of dispersing waste
heat.  Very few people have said, very few people consider

-------
                                                              269





.  1                          Hon.  C.  L.  Klein



      that waste  heat  like all  other wastes is  and can  be  a  resource



      used for good by proper utilization.  We  have already  put  the



      distillation wastes from  the Peoria distillery into  the



      resource category as animal food; we have turned  the waste



      whey from cheese factories  into salable usable products  —



      we can do the same with waste  heat.



                I believe that  the best example of utilization of



      waste product was given at  the December 1970 meeting of  the



10    American Association of Advancement of  Science in Chicago.



11              Take a city of  389,000 people,  next to  a nuclear



12    generating plant, such as the  one at Indian Point, New York,




13    or Zion, Illinois.



14              The scientist from our Oak Ridge Laboratories  statee



15    that the waste heat from  the reactor  could be used:  1)  60



      percent of it to heat the homes of the  3^9,000 people  in



      winter; and to cool those same homes  in summer; 2) send  a



      small portion of the remaining 40 percent to the  sewage



      treatment plant, where the  addition of a  small amount  of



20    heated water will increase  the efficiency of the  plant;  3)



21    the remainder of the 40 percent would go to a 200 acre



22    hothouse which could raise:  a) all the fresh vegetables;




23    b) all the chicken and eggs;  c) all the pork needed by a




2lr    city of 3^9,000  people.



2 5              Last year Assistant  Secretary Glasgow — he's

-------
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	270

                      Hon. C» L. Klein
 now former assistant also — and I issued a policy
 recommendation  for thermal pollution in Lake Michigan on a
 1°  increase basis.  We were concerned with the total discharge
 of  60,000,000,000 gallons a day of 20° heated water, from
 20  new nuclear  plants.  Recirculation with use of cooling
 towers or cooling ponds with a slight "escape hatch" was
 the idea.  The  purpose was to protect Lake Michigan and
 its waters, so  vital to all of us.  And the roof fell in.
          "Lake Michigan did not need protection." —
 "Heat  doesn't hurt." — "Let's try it and if something goes
 wrong, maybe we can correct it." — "The cost to the
 consumer will go up 25 percent."  Ladies and Gentlemen,
 Interior had heard all the arguments in a preliminary
 injunction hearing on the protection of Biscayne Bay from
 Florida Power & Light Companys1 new generating stations,
 and several months after that preliminary hearing, the
 scientists for  the utilities admitted that their main
 premises, data  and conclusions were wrong.
          Both  Secretary Hickel and I have said from time
 to  time that the Nation's waters belong to the people and
 and are usable  only on the public's terms.
          Lake  Michigan  should  be usable only on the terms
 that are  certain to protect  it.  I  for one,  either  in my
 former official capacity or  as  a private  citizen,  cannot

-------
         	                                               271
   T
    |
, 1  I                       Ron, C. L. Klein

     tolerate any attitude other than solid protection of that

     body of water.

 4  |           Let me lay one ghost to rest.

 5  |           Proper planning for cooling in advance would

     increase utility bills only 1 percent; proper installation

     at a completed plant — without advance planning — would

     increase the costs to 2 percent.  The 25 percent figure is

     a scarecrow raised as a bugaboo by those who put their

10   interests before the welfare of Lake Michigan,

11             But even our best scientific minds do not have

12   all the answers.  We have been planning, and executing

13   without full data, without a full realization of the total

14   impact of our actions on our environment.

15 !            Lately a new tool — the data computer — has
   i
16   put into our hands the mathematical model.  It has been used

17   to  chart airline timetables, to put a man on the moon, to

     make industrial production more efficient.  The mathematical

     model  can also be used to set up  present water quality and

20   ^0  project  changes from  planned installations.

21             With the help  of my Deputy Assistant for Science,

22   Dr.  S.  Fred Singer,  and  Interior's  Science  Advisor,  Dr.  Don

     Dunlop, we  held  conferences with  Illinois  Institute  of

     Technology's Dr.  Morton  Klein  —  no relation  —  FWQA's

25    Jaworski  and with representatives from University of

-------
                                                             272





 1                         Hon. C. L. Klein



 2   Oklahoma, Harvard, Cornell, University of California, and



 3   others.



 4             The Illinois Institute of Technology research



 5   institute project is especially noteworthy since it deals



 6   with Lake Michigan locally.



 7             The following data is fed into the data computer:



 g             1)  Depth and temperature variants.



 9             2)  Current factors.



10             3)  Wind and wave action.



11             4)  Input from natural sources, such as rivers.



12             5)  Flow from the lake.



13             6)  Evaporation.



14             7)  Artificial inputs from industrial, agricul-



15   tural and sewage treatment sources.



16             S)  Shipping and boating disposals.



17             9)  Miscellaneous items from Federal, state and



1#   local data banks.



19             And you should know that, from time to time, there



20   are thermal bars out in the lake at about 3 miles distance




21   that make the inshore waters a river to be treated



22   separately, and you cannot count on the rest of the lake to



23   take care of your pollution problems from the inshore waters.



24             At this point, preliminary charts or mathematical




2 5   models are printed out, checked and verified against standing

-------
     	273





                           Hon. C. L. Klein




     verified data, to ensure the accuracy of the model.



               Refinements follow so as to give a clear picture



     in the parameters desired:  dissolved oxygen, coliforms,




     phenols, oils, chlorides, etc.



               In the past, after determining the presence of



     pollution, the engineers took over and planned, designed and



     built waste treatment plants, at a cost of hundreds of



 9   millions of dollars and then tested the waters after the



10   plants were in operation, several years later.



               The use of data computer doej-this better and at




12   less cost.  In a short space of weeks or less after a basic



13   model has been created, the data computer can give the



     results in advance of construction, in advance of the obliga-



15   tion or expenditure of millions of dollars.  For a cost of



16 j1  thousands, dependent upon the variables used, the data



17   computer can  turn out model after model to determine



1&   comparative results in advance.



19             For instance, Dr. Singer ran off a simple model



20   on Dissolved  Oxygens  Here is the graph on a city like this



21   (indicating)  and on a factory like this (indicating) and if



22   you  put in secondary  treatment  it flattens it out  (indicating



23   so that you  know in advance  from the  data  computer exactly




24   what will happen from putting the plants  in.



25             Before any  expenditi.ire of  funds  for  planning,

-------
10
11
12
13



14



15



16
17
19
21
22
2 ^
    	274





                           Hon,  C,  L,  Klein



     designing,  engineering and  construction  we  can  know,  we can



     foresee  what  a treatment  plant will  do,  and  if its  proposed



     placement will not  do  the job  properly,  we can try  it  in a



     different location  for a  better result.  If  the  type of treat-



     ment is  not adequate,  we  will  know before it is  designed, and



     we can design and build the type of  plant the computer shows



     is needed.



              These mathematical models  can  be and will be a most



     useful tool in planning our environmental future to get



     the best possible environment, to get the most for  our tax



     dollar.   And  the time  for the  use of the mathematical  model




     for water quality is now.



              We  are about to spend an additional $12 billion



     of the taxpayers' money for needed additional sewage



     treatment and additional  billions for industrial and



     'kgribusinesij'1 treatment without knowing  positively what the




     results will  be.



               We  must build all these treatment  plants, we must
20    clean up our waters, but we also must know in advance that the
     money  poured  into this  construction will produce the



     necessary  results.   And only these types of mathematical



     models will give us  the answer  as to whether  or not we  will
 *    get  the  job  done  properly,
                As said too often, "this is not  my problem

-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Id
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                             275
i                        Hon.  C.  L.  Klein
'I
\  is what most people say —  "It is the other fellow's problem."
t
            "Am I my brother's keeper?" — is the question,
  and too often we get the answer,  "Not if he is downstream
  from me."
            I note that this  Conference has not taken up the
  schedule of implementation  of all waste treatment plant
  construction.  I think this is a  mistake.  One year ago
  we had everybody slated to  complete all necessary work by
  December 31, 1972, with many dates for completion falling
  before that date.  It is with dismay that I see no report
  to the public on these vital schedules.  The public is
  entitled to know and this panel should from their records
  make public the present status of all these construction
  schedules.
            I believe that certain questions should be
  answered:
            1)  Why is the North Shore Sanitary District in an
  affluent area about two years or more behind its schedule?
  What is being done about it?
            2)  Why is Milwaukee behind its chlorination
  schedule?  And why does it now want to use a second-rate
  type of chlorination?
            3)  What is the status of the  Indiana Harbor
  Canal  discharges which go directly into  the lake?

-------
                                                            2?6

 1                         Hon.  C.  L,  Klein
 2             4)  What is the status  of the paper company waste
 3   treatment on the Fox River and Green Bay?
 4             5)  What is the status  of the industries and the
 5   cities, such as Grand Rapids,  that have been dragging their
 6   feet on the Michigan side?  And here I talked to Mr. Purdy
 7   and he said it is not Grand Rapids — they have a pilot plant
 8   project — but Battle Creek that  has been dragging their
 9   feet.  Gentlemen, I am very much interested in that because
10   I was instrumental in getting you the money to run these
11   tests*
12             6)  What is the status of the tests that the
13   various states have been running on the accumulation of
14   DDT in critical areas?
15             Gentlemen:  The public deserves a public answer,
16   a full answer, with no punches pulled as to the status of
17   items on Lake Michigan and the steps you gentlemen are
13   taking to preserve and save Lake Michigan for future
19   generations.
20             Thank you<>
21             MR.  STEIN:  Thank you, Mr.  Klein.
22             I would point  out that  I  certainly agree with you
23   that  the holding  of  a Conference  without  checking on  the
     schedules may be  a mistake, but  the agenda  shows  for  item 6,
25   Status of  Compliance with  Conference recommendations  and,

-------
     	277


 1                         Hon. C. L. Klein
   I
 2 \   as I understand it, Mr. Mayo, we do intend to get to this

 3    after we complete the thermal.
   i
 4 !             MR. KLEIN:  I am pleased to hear it.
   !
 5 I             MR. MAYO:  Yes, it is on the agenda following the

 6    thermal issues and the presentation of the pesticide

 7    committee report.

 g              MR. KLEIN:  Thank you very much.  I know that.

 9    That is why I asked about the DDT and the clams.

10              MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions or

11    comments?

12              MR. KLEIN:  Thank you very much, Mr. Stein.  I

13    appreciate your courtesy.

14              MR. STEIN:  You know, I appreciated, Mr, Klein,

15    your statements about that computer.  I know it is used to

16    get a man on the moon, to set up timetables for airlines,

17    and I guess in the midwest it is also used — as I read in

lg    the paper — to program what railroad cars go to certain

19    sidings.  (Laughter)

20 I             MR. KLEIN:  Obviously, somebody used it wrong-

21    fully to get it to the wrong sidings, as I understand from

22    the paper»

23              Mr. Stein, I might say that IITRI has invited

24    about fifteen of the conservation groups, such as the Izaac

25    Walton League, League of Women Voters, CAP, SAVE, and the

-------
    -	278





 1 I                        Hon. C. L. Klein




 2 !   Illinois Federation, and the Isaac Walton League I have




 3 j   said already, on April 19, for a demonstration of how




 4    this works, and we hope and trust that they will give us




 5    their support.  I think it is necessary to get the job done.




 6    It is a very, very effective tool for the south and western




 7    portions of Lake Michigan, which are the critical portions,




 $    as you know.




 9              MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much.




10              MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman.




11              MR. STEIN:  Yes.



12              MR. CURRIE:  I am glad that Mr. Klein has raised




13    the question of compliance schedules because I too believe




14    that is the most important business of this Conference.  He



15    has also raised specifically the question of the North Shore




16    Sanitary District, which is a  question with which our Board



17    is deeply  concerned.  There is a case before us now, Mr.



1#    Klein, involving the  Sanitary  District, and we will decide




19    it next week.



20              MR. KLEIN:  I  know.  I stopped in at the hearings




21    up there.   I just happened to  be in Lake County on a




22    Probate matter, and I joined Mrs. Rome for lunch and  she




2-3    was telling me about  it.



24               However,  I  will go one step farther.  I don't




25    think  that  your Board should be burdened with these kinds

-------
                                                               279





 1                         Hon. C. L, Klein




 2    of cases.  I think that any citizen should be allowed to go

•
    I

 3  I  into any Court to abate pollution; not to get damages but to




 4    abate pollution.



 5              MR. CURRIE:  That is, Mr. Klein, so in Illinois.




 6              MR. KLEIN:  And I think the sooner it is done the




 7    sooner we will get our waters cleaned up, because government




 8    just cannot handle the ramifications.



 9              There are 300,000 industrial plants in the United




10    States,  and between the Federal Government and the State




11    Government they probably have only touched on about 1,000




12    of them.



13              MR. CURRIE:  The  suit that is pending before us,




14    Mr. Klein, is,  in  fact, a citizen's suit.



15              MR. KLEIN:   I know, but  it's being put through




16    administrative  instead of being directly  in the courts,



17    and I  as a lawyer  would rather not have it in administra-



lg    tion,  I would rather have it  in the  courts because it is



19    going  to wind up there anyway, but it will be a year or




20    two  delay before  it gets there.



21               MR. STEIN:   Any  other  comments  or  questions?




22               MR. PURDY:   One  other  comment,  Mr.  Stein.



23               I  note  with interest Mr. Klein's remarks about




24     the spending of $12 billion of taxpayers' money for  needed




25     additional sewage treatment plants.   And, in going on,  he

-------
                                                              230
   i	————	—	~~~	


 1                         Hon.  C.  L. Klein


 2    stated we must build all these treatment plants,  we must


 3    clean up our waters, but we must know in advance  that the


 4    money poured into this construction will produce  the


 5    necessary results.


 6              I feel that he is speaking that we ought to make


 7    certain that the money that we spend first goes into


 8    treatment plants that will, in fact,  produce a measurable


 9    betterment in the receiving body of water.  And I can't


10 !   help but comment on this because I fear that the  way that


11    we are moving, and the proposed new legislation to set


12    effluent standards on a uniform country-wide basis does


13    not lead toward this type of activity; that it tends to


14    dilute our resources and that we will be putting money into


1$    some situations that could be used in other more critical


16    areas.


17              MR. KLEIN:  If I may answer Mr. Purdy,  I have


1$    never been in favor of effluent controls on a standard basis


19    nationwide, but I think we should have the data on every bit


20    of effluent that goes into every creek, every river, and


21    every lake, such as North Carolina has had since 1957 and


22    1961. And on the basis of that we can project our mathe-


23    matical models and  coire up with the answers of what  should


24    be done in each and every place in order to get the  desired


25    parameters that we need in each and every place.

-------
                                                               281
   i                   —   •  — •           	 •——	~~• •
   i

 1 li                        Hon. G. L. Klein


 2              MR. PURDY:  Agreed.
 *-

 3              MR. KLEIN:  And I think that the sooner we get


      to these effluent controls the better, and that is the basis


 5    of the bills that Mr. Stein and I drew a year ago for the


 5    President and that have now been resubmitted to Congress,,


 y    They are the bills that Mr. Muskie gave us at our hearing


      last year and the House of Representatives didn't even have


 9    a hearing, and if we are going to get them out we are


10    S°ing to have to get Congress to do  some action on them.


11    Thank you«


12 I             Mo STEIN:  Thank you.


                And I just say this, for clarification for the


      record — Mr. Purdy may want to answer it — as I under-


15    stand the legislation, it does not call for effluent stan-


15    dards — and this is the key point — on a uniform National


iy    basis.  It calls for the establishment of effluent stan-


1$    dards.


19              MR. PURDY:  It calls for the establishment of


20    effluent standards in accordance with industrial cate-


2i    gories to be adopted by the various  States upon the


22    recommendations of the Administrator of EPA.


23              MR. STEIN:  Again, this is a question of fact,


24    Mr. Purdy.


25              MR. PURDY:   Well, it appeared at Senator Muskie's

-------
       • "•	2S2





 1                            D.  D.  Comey



 2   hearing on March 16 at which he testified,



 3             MR. STEIN:  All right.  Are there any other



 4   comments or questions?



 5             Mr. Blaser.




 6             MR, BLASER:   We have  a number of  people who asked



 7   to speak yesterday. We want to give everyone the chance



 &   to be heard.  Many of  these  people have asked only for two



 9   minutes or even as little as a  minute to speak.  There are



10   a total of fifteen yet to go.  The next one is David Comey,



11   Director of Environmental Research, Businessmen for the




12   Public Interest.



13             Mr. Comey.




14



15             STATEMENT OF DAVID DINSMORE COMEY, DIRECTOR OF



16        ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC



17                   INTEREST, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS



18



19             I wish to commend  Mr. Ruckelshaus for the



20   responsible position he has  taken in his letter delivered



21   yesterday at this Enforcement Conference.  I especially



22   approve of the part B, discharge standards  applicable to all



23   new waste heat discharges exceeding 500 million B.t.u./hour,



24   which have not begun as of March 1, 1971*



25             I have some doubts about the part A standards

-------
    	283



. 1 ||                          D. D. Comey


 2   applicable to present waste heat discharges, but in view
m

 3   of the restrictions involved, I will not burden the conferees


 1+   at this time with the details.  I request permission from the


 5 |  Chairman to submit a written statement spelling out these


 6   doubts within two weeks.


 7             I have distributed to each of the conferees a  copy


 $   of the Palisades Agreement reached between the Intervenors


 9   and Consumers Power Company.  Many of the conferees have


10   already received copies last Tuesday, but since extra copies


11   seem to be in demand, I am making more available.


12             You will note that we agreed to let Consumers  operatje


13   the Palisades Plant during installation of the cooling towers.


14   They have 32 months to install mechanical draft towers or


15   42 months to install natural draft towers from the signing


16   of the agreement.  In view of Mr. Currie's questions yesterday


17   morning, I think these figures represent a realistic retro-


13   fitting time for all nuclear plants presently under construc-


19   tion around the lake.  I would not encourage any time schedule


20   shorter than this, because I believe Consumers' engineers


21   have been completely honest and candid with us  about the


22   problems and time schedule involved.


23             We also commend Northern Indiana Public Service


24   Company for its decision to build a cooling tower at Bailly.


25   Although we have been their adversary and are opposing their

-------
                                                              234





 1                            Do  D.  Comey



 2 !  plans to build two new fossil fired facilities on the lake



 3   at Michigan City and Gary, because we feel no new powerplants



     ought to be built on the shores of Lake Michigan, we do



 5   applaud their decision as a courageous one.



 5             Businessmen for the Public Interest hopes that the



 7   Federal government will not waver in its determination to



     stick by the standards proposed today, despite the position



     taken by the States,  If State agreement is not reached



10   within a few weeks, we respectfully suggest that the thermal



11   standard problem be declared unresolved, that it be lifted



12   out of the Enforcement Conference procedure, and that these



13   Federal standards be promulgated after appropriate hearings



     have been held.



               Businessmen for the Public Interest believes that



16   closed cycle cooling systems should be required at all nuclear



17   plants presently under construction on Lake Michigan.  If



     this Enforcement Conference fails to adopt the proposed



19   Federal standards, B.P.I, is prepared to intervene in the



20   AEC hearings for each plant to oppose issuance of the



21   operating license unless closed cycle cooling systems are



22   installed.  We are currently drafting the intervention



23   papers for Point Beach Unit 2, and we will do the same for



24   all the other plants as they come up for licensing.



25             I would like to note that we will not be able to

-------
                                                             285




                              D. D. Comey


     raise thermal pollution problems at these AEG hearings,


     because of the convoluted interpretation that the AEG has


     given to the National Environmental Policy Act in its


     Appendix D to 10 CFR50.  The AEG argues that it has no


     jurisdiction over thermal pollution, and indeed the Commission


     Regulatory Staff argued at the Palisades hearing that the


     Commission had no expertise in this field.  (I also refer


     you to the Commission's statement at the bottom of page


10   70 in the Palisades Agreement. )


11             In view of this position, were this a judicial
   i

12   hearing today, I would make a formal motion to strike all of
   I

13   Mr. Conti's testimony yesterday morning on the ground that

   I
14   it is an affront to justice to parade before this Conference

   I

15   as an expert and then hide behind legalisms in one's own


16   forums and proceedings.  Since this is not a judicial


17   hearing, I merely enter my strenuous objection for the record.


lg             I have  one further  comment:  Yesterday Mr. Currie


19   asked  if there was any  evidence as  to whether or not the


20   retrofitting  of  cooling towers  on Zion was worth $20 to


21   million.


22             I would like  to ask Mr. Currie  if he has any


23   evidence to show that it would not  be worth $20 to $40 million,


24             MR.  CURRIE:   That is my assessment of the record,


25   yes, Mr. Comey.
s

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                             2S6
                         D.  D.  Comey
          MR, STEIN:   Does that complete your statement?
          MR. COMEY:   Yes, it does.
          MR* STEIM:   Are there any comments or questions?
          Mr. Dumelle.
          MR. DUMELLE:  Mr.  Stein and Mr. Comey, I take
with a great deal of interest Mr. Comey's proposal to lift
the thermal standards from this Conference and to put it
in the hands of the standard-setting action.  And I think
we have a precedent in process which I participated in,
in April of 1969.  This involved setting basically
secondary treatment criteria for the States of Iowa, and
to my knowledge it has not yet been resolved even though
it has gone through the hearing stage — of which Mr.
Stein was the Chairman — and the Governor has requested
16    a 5-man  hearing  board,  and  I would like just the chairman
to put on the record the present status of the Iowa
situation and the prospects for its solution.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, Mr. Mayo has been closer than —
          MR. MAYO:  We expect that at the Iowa Water Pollution
Control Commission meeting tomorrow morning that there will
be a series of actions taken by the Commission that will
respond in a very positive way to the proposed Department
of Interior position as it was then put forth in the pro-
mulgation of standards.  And that with the completion

-------
                                                                237
.1                          D. D. Comey

       of that action by the Commission tomorrow we should have

  3     resolved any remaining differences with the State of Iowa,

  4  i   outside of the forum of the hearing process.

  5               MR. DUMELLE:  Does this involve secondary treat-
    i
  6  j   ment for Burlington?

  7               MR. MAYO:  It specifically identifies secondary

  g     treatment requirements for the municipalities discharging

  9     into the Mississippi, and defers a decision on Burlington

 10     until about the first of July 1971o

 11               MR. DUMELLE:  Thank you.

 12  i             MR. STEIN:  Are there any further questions?

 13               MR. PURDY:  Yes, Mr. Stein.

 14               Mr. Comey, yesterday in the statement made by Mr,

 15     Frangos for Governor Lucey, he mentioned having cooling

 16     facilities in operation by early 1973.  The conferees dis-

 17     cussed also yesterday this matter of when these facilities

 lg     should be in operation in accordance with the Federal

 19     recommendations, something that we would have to explore.

 20               Now, I know in the material that you have sub-

 2i     mitted to the conferees, you have noted a 32-month agree—

 22     ment with Consumers with respect to their Palisades plant

 23     if the forced draft wet cooling towers are used.  You also

 24    indicated a 42-month period  if the natural draft wet

 25     cooling towers are used.

-------
   	233

   |


 1 ji                          D. D. Comey

   jl

 ? |j             This is a much longer period of time now than
 "* ' I
   i
   ii

 3 {   what Governor Lucey has recommended.  Do you think that in

   i

 L \   view of your experience in negotiations with Consumers that



 5    the 1973 date is a reasonable date?



                MR. COMEI:  Well, possibly in late 1973, if



      Governor Lucey knows of a. pump manufacturer who is willing



      to deliver pumps within the current deadlines of possibly



 Q    24 months, perhaps he can meet his own deadline.  But the



10    industry seems to be having problems with getting pumps



11     out of their suppliers,



12              MR. PURDY:  Well, I gather that the intervenors



13    felt that Consumers Power had made a bona fide effort to



14    get pumps from available suppliers, and that as such

   i

15    pumps  are not available within this time span.



                MR. COMEY:  That  is correct.



                We believe that Consumers1 engineers, as I  said



      in my  statement, were completely  candid, and I did a  little



19    checking on  my own, and  I have found that the industry is



20    at the present time in a state where there  is such a  backlog



2i    of orders for pumps that it is simply  impossible  to get a



22    firm  deadline of anything  less than 24 months for the type



23    of pumps that are  required.



24              I  might  add that  there  is also a  forced measure



25    or  clause in the agreement  with Consumers  so  that if  they

-------
                                                               239
                                D.  D.  Comey




            unable for bona fide reasons,  the usual act-of-God type



        of causes, it could extend  the 32  months to the 42 months




        beyond that,  and I certainly think that that sort of consid--



 c      oration ought to be given to the other utilities around the




 5      lake.




 n                MR. PURDY:  Now,  you mention that because of the




        backlog of orders — now, what would you venture might



        hapoon if it  is determined  by the  various States that we



        should go into backfitting,  and then there is again a much



        greater demand for this same type  of equipment?  It would




        seem that possibly the backlog might even grow larger, and




T~ I     that the time period for delivery  could stretch out.




                  MR. COMEY:  I think that is possible, but I have




,c      enough faith  in U.S. capitalism to believe that the companies



. /•      will do everything they can. to meet the market,




,„                MR. PURDY:  Thank you.



                  MR. STEIN:  I don't  want to prolong this, but



,Q      I think several questions were raised, and one that



        perhaps in a  sense goes to  the heart of the matter on the



        way the conference works and the alternatives.



                  First of all, this conference has been called on




        the basis of  a written reouest of  the Governor of Illinois.




        Under law, once we get a request from a Governor for a





25

-------
                                                               290
 1                             D.  D.  Comey




 2      conference  of this  type,  the action  on  the  part  of  the




 3      Federal  agency,  as  I  read the  law  and I think  everyone




 4      else  does,  is mandatory,  and we  have to follow the  procedur*




 5      through. I am not  sure with the legal  obligations  that we




 6      have  with their Governor's  request that there  can be  any




 7      lifting  to  another  body.



 8               The second  thing  that  I  would like to  point out



 9      — and I am not taking an issue  with any of Mr.  Comey's re-



10      marks and Mr. Dumelle's questions  — is this.  If you go



11      to another  forum, I sense there  may  be  a little  dis-




12      satisfaction with the time  that  the  other forum  takes



13      the procedures in the other forum,




1^               What I am suggesting here  is  that in this forum




15      all you  people have a full  opportunity  to express your




16      views.  I think you should  look  at other forums. I haven't



17      seen  any universal  satisfaction  with another  forum, not



lg      that  they couldn't  be used  concurrently as they  often are,



19               MR. COMEY:   Mr. Stein, I would agree that the




20      public is always dissatisfied  when government  does  not




21      move  swiftly.




22               MR. STEIN:   Well, I'll tell you,  I  spent  a  good.



23      portion  of  my life  — 4 years  to be  exact in  the Army



        during the  war. One  of the objections  that I  had at  that




25      time, and the reason  why  I  was supposed to go  there and giv

-------
                                                                291
•  1                           Mrs.  C. T. Quigg
         my  life  for  it,  if necessary, was that we were fighting a
         government that  I think moved a little too swiftly.
         (Applause)
  5               Are there  any other comments or questions?  If
  6      not,  thank you very  much.
  7               Mr, Blaser.
                  MR. BLASER:  The  next speaker on the list is
         Ruth  Collins, International Representative of the United
         Auto  Workers.  Miss  Collins.
                  MRS. BOTTS:  Mr.  Stein, she was called yesterday
 12      by  Michigan  and  her  statement has already been submitted.
                  MR. STEIN:  Right.  Thank you very much.
                  MR. BLASER:  Next is Catherine Quigg representing
         the Pollution and Environmental Problems.  Catherine Quigg?
         If  not here, she left her statement with me which I will
         have  entered in  the  record  if acceptable.
                  MR, STEIN:  Without objection that statement will
 •JQ      be  received  as if read.

 20
                     STATEMENT OF CATHERINE T. QUIGG,
 22              POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS,
                          PALATINE, ILLINOIS

 24
 25

-------
                                                              292




 1                          Mrs. C. T. Quigg



 2             I represent PEP (Pollution and Environmental Prob-



     lems) with over 300 members in twenty-four suburbs of Chicago,



 4   We urge the Federal Government to require closed cycle cooling



 5   systems now on all proposed and existing nuclear powerplants



     — not in 1975 or later when the damage is done.



               Today the power industry is using 8 percent of



     Nation's total supply of freshwater flow for cooling.  If



 9   closed circuit cooling towers are not used — 100 percent
    i

10   of the freshwater would be needed for the electric power



11   industry alone by the year 2005.



12             Closed cycle cooling towers use the same water



13   over and over again.  The only water needed is enough to



14   replace the water that evaporates during the cooling process<,



15             That's why a powerplant with a cooling tower needs
    i


16   only 5 percent as much water as it would with a no-tower



17   system.  No water — hot or cold — is returned to the


     waterway when cooling towers are used.


19             Utility representatives tell us these towers



20   aren't aesthetically desirable on our scenic lakes and



21   rivers.  I suggest that with closed cycle cooling towers,



22   large rivers and lakes aren't needed at all.  Plants could



23   be hidden in the hinterlands.


24             Still other power industry officials say cooling



25   towers  create dangerous banks of fog in the surrounding

-------
   ^_	293





• 1                          Mrs.  C.  T.  Quigg




^2    areas.  However,  most evidence is contrary to this claim.



 3    Cincinnati Gas and Electric's  project engineer William




 4    Murray said,  "For some reason  natural towers  do not create




 5    significant fog,  even though the  law of physics indicate



 6    they should.   I wish I could say  otherwise.11




 7              In  opposing cooling  towers some  utility officials




 $    point to their cost and say that  the utility  doesn't want




 9    to pass "unnecessary expenses."




10              The Zimmer tower  for Cincinnati  Gas & Electric



11    will account  for  about $11  million of the  $300 million




12    project cost.




13              How much will Cincinnati electric bill payers  be




14    paying for the cooling towers? According  to  the Edison




15    Electric Institute in New York City and CG&E  it works




16    this way:   Construction cost is about 24 percent of the




17    over-all bill,  and towers add  about 5 percent to the



IS    construction  cost.  So towers  add about 1  percent to the bill,




19              The average residential bill for CG&E customers



20    in 1970 was $14.73 a month. Therefore, the cost of electri-



21    city would go up  about 13 cents a month, or $1.56 a year,




22              Let's done with the  self-serving arguments of




23    industry.   The public is depending on t^e  State and Federal




24    governments to set strict "no  heat, no radioactivity" dis-




25    charge standards  for Lake Michigan.  We ask that you set

-------
                                                              294

 1                           Mrs, J» Heyman
 2   these standards now — before it is too late for the lake,
 3             MR. BLASER:  The next speaker is Mrs. Pearl of
 4   Highland Park.  Mrs. Pearl.
 5             Mrs. Botts, you might just sit up forward and keep
 6   us informed of who is here and who is not.
 7             MRS. BOTTS:  The four ladies from Highland Park
 g   asked me to say that they had submitted a petition with
 9   5,000 signatures and a written statement on behalf of a
10   women's study group of Highland Park which has 150 members
11   which has concluded that waste heat from the nuclear plant
12   should be kept out of the lake.  Their statement had been
13   submitted in writing.  They were here yesterday all day.
14             MR. BLASER:  All right, that will cover Mrs. Pearl,
15   Mrs. Heyman and Mrs. Kalish?
16             MRS. BOTTS:  Yes.
17
18                    STATEMENT OF MRS. JAY HEYMAN,
19                      HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
20
21             MRS. HEYMAN:  One of Commonwealth Edison's
22   scientific consultants has said many times, "I am convinced
23   that one of the highest and best uses of some water from
24   Lake Michigan would be as cooling water for large nuclear
25   powerplants."

-------
                                                             295





 1                           Mrs.  J,  Heyman



 •2              I am speaking for  150 women  from Highland  Park



 3    who have  intensively studied the  increasing problem  of



 4    electric  powerplant pollution.  We  have  discussed, debated



 5    and agonized over our decision,



 6              We have decidedthat Lake  Michigan is  our lake, not



 7    Commonwealth Edison's, not the  electric  utilities,,   We think



 g    the highest and best use of  Lake  Michigan  is to preserve



 9    it  as  a resource for ourselves, our children and future



10    generations.  We are unwilling  to gamble with the future



11    of  the lake.  In the light of conflicting  scientific



12    evaluations of probable damage  to the  lake,  we  demand  that



13    our Government,  representing us,  adopt a no heat standard



14    for the lake.   A cautious policy  of maximum protection, rathe]}*



15    than treating damage after it occurs,  is the only sensible



16    answer.



17              Over 2000 people agreed with us.   We  got 2200



18    signatures on petitions,  which  we turned over to SAVE,



19    asking that no heat be allowed  into the  lake.  We have



20    written your offices,  we have flooded  our  Congressmen,  we



21    have written to the newspapers, we  have  spoken  before  local



22    groups, with the same message:  No  discharges from electric




23    powerplants, be they heat or radiation,  are acceptable.



24              We have many concerns about  future electric  power-




2 5    plants.  1)  We believe there should be  a  ban on future

-------
                                                             296





 1                          Mrs. J. Heyman



 2   nuclear plants on Lake Michigan.  We believe long term



 3   ecological effects will be difficult to assess in 5 years.



     The lake is already dirty; it recirculates once every 100



 5   years; keep new pollutants (heat and radiation) out of the



 6   lake.  2)  We're not buying the necessity of either fossil



 7   fuel or nuclear plants at this moment.  There is a crying



     need for th** Government to take a real, overall look at



 9   planning, siting, funding for research, developing alternate



10   sources of energy.  If we had put the more than $2 billion



11   our Government has put into nuclear power into researching



12   alternate sources, who knows what alternatives might now



13   be available.  We are willing to do whatever is necessary,



14   in terms of active support, to get immediate priority and



15   attention to the entire energy problem.  We would like an



16   honest, realistic answer about the problem of the storage



17   of radioactive wastes, for instance.  We will fight a blind



     commitment to fantastically increasing electric power



19   demands, unless planning and research is done first.



20             We strongly suggest that public members be



21   included on the committee that will monitor the lake.  If,



     as reported in some newspapers, the Four-State Enforcement



     Conferences will be disbanded, and decisions made by the



     Federal EPA, we ask that there be regular, mandatory public




     hearings required, to guarantee the public's right to

-------
   	297

 1 !                         Mrs. J. Heyman
 2   participate.  Our fact sheet is attached. (See pp. 29#, 299.)
 3             Thank you.
 4
 5                STATEMENT OF MRS. J. BARTON KALISH
 6                     HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
 7
               We live along a part of Lake Michigan where the
 9   water, and particularly the inshore waters are already
10   tainted by sewage, sent out after primary or secondary
11   treatment into the lake — and after heavy rains often
12   without any treatment at all.
13             Besides the bacteria and solid waste, industrial an
                                                                  •
14    chemical wastes are also discharged into the inshore waters
15    of Lake Michigan, near the present site of the Zion nuclear
16    plant and other places along the lake front.
17             "All the effects of waste heat are not documented
      but we do know that heat decreases the oxygen dissolving
19    capacity of water; and heat mixed with water containing
20    nutrients produces increased algae growth and eutrophication.
21    Furthermore, rapid changes in heat affect plankton, the life
22    at the beginning of the food chain."
23             To allow powerplants  to operate along Lake Michigan
24    without cooling facilities for  dealing with waste heat and
      an advanced radioactive waste control system, is taking

-------
                                                                              293
                                   Mrs. J.  Heyman
                  SAVE LAKE MICHIGAN FROM THERMAL POLLUTION
                How Much of Tour Time is Lake Michigan Worth?

     By 1975, nine nuclear electric power  plants will be operating around the
shores of Lake Michigan, with many more planned for the  future.  Nuclear plants
generate enormous quantities of heated water that must be put  somewhere.  The
electric companies are planning to put it  into  Lake Michigan.
THE CRISIS:  By Betmaffy Tt&% 1971 »  the U-State Enforcement  Conference  will  set
             a thermal (hot water)  discharge standard for Lake Michigan.  The
             technical committee of the Conference has just recommended what
          what amounts to a green light for unlimited thermal discharges  from
          electric power plants. The report says that utilities  should either
          install cooling systems or prove that their discharges  are harmless,
          but it fails to set a date by which such systems  must be  installed.

2 VIEWS:  Mrs. Samuel Rome, Environmental Quality Chairman  of the Illinois
          League of Women Voters:  "It could be 1995 before cooling systems are
          installed.  They threw caution to the winds.  There is  no restriction
          on construction (of power plants).  As many plants as can be built
          will be built."

          Robert Hartley, Committee Chairman:  "We have to  have power."

WHAT YOU  RIGHT NOW is the time to  take action.  Write the  following men, ask-
CAN DO:   ing that no heated discharges be allowed into Lake Michigan. Send
          telegrams.  Ask your Congressmen for an appointment to  discuss  this
          vital issue.  Spread the  word to as many others as possible! Get at
          least 5 other people to write.  Write letters to  the newspapers.  Cir-
          culate petitions* demanding no discharges.  Attend the  Conference
          when it meets.
William D. Ruckleshaus, Director
Environment Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20U60

Senator Adlai Stevenson
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

David Currie, Chairman
Pollution Control Board
189 W. Madison
Chicago, 111. 60602

Make these points in your letters:
Senator Charles Percy
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Representative Robert McClory
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Clarence Klassen, Director
Environment Protection Agency
535 W. Jefferson
Springfield, 111. 62706
1)  No heated discharges should be allowed.  Cooling devices are used by many
electric power plants in this country; are technically feasible, and are rela-
tively inexpensive (particularly so when compared to the possible dollar loss
from recreational uses of Lake Michigan due to thermal pollution.)  The effects
of heated water are well known: oxygen depletion of water with harmful effects
on aquatic life, increase in blue-green

-------
                                                                             299
                                    Mrs* J.  Heyman



                                                    Action  page 2

   algae, and rapid aging of the Lake.  Lake Michigan flushes out only pnge.
   e_yerv I00 years.  Pollution to the Lake will cause irreversible damage.
   The technical report says it is necessary to deal with damage after it
   occurs rather than try to present, it. Conservationists say the opposite:
   WE MUST NOT  USE LAKE IUCHIGA.N AS A TEST TUBE.

2) A technical  committee will monitor to see if there is any damage from
   the nuclear  plants.  Only government and industry spokesmen are to serve.
   There must be representatives of the PUBLIC on this committee.  Also the
   federal government has neither the money or the staff to monitor and has
   not monitored   the Lake since 19$3«  There must be adequate funding, and
   sufficient staff.

3) There must be long-range planning for total environmental impact of
   electric power plants on the Great Lakes.  An unlimited discharge standard
   has dire implications for the many other electric power plants that will
   locate on Lake lachigan.  Funding for research should be substantially
   increased.   Priority must be given to developing other sources of power
   besides fossil fuel and nuclear.  We have committed ourselves too early
   to nuclear electric power.

4) There must be mandatory public hearings when standards are set, when a
   land site is purchased, and pre-construction. and pre-operation.  An
   operating license should be renewed every 2 years, at public hearings.

5) Power companies should bear the costs of their own monitoring and should
   publish their results,

     REMEMBER.  THIS IS YOUR CHAKCE TO SAVE LAKE UCHIGA.F FROL" THERi'AL
POLLUTION!  Urite!  Spread the word.  Contact at least 5 others to write.
1 Trite letters to the editors yourselfG  How much of your time is Lake
Michigan worth??????????????????

-------
                                                             300





                            Mrs. J, Kalish



     unnecessary risks, especially with the inshore waters which



     are most visible and extremely sensitive biologically as well



     as very valuable recreationally.



               Zion 1 and Zion 2, now planned with no cooling



     facilities would discharge 2,000,000,000 gallons of heated




     water directly into the lake.



 3              Zion  is  located  almost adjacent to the only State



     park in the area.  A park whose beachfront has already felt



10   the effects of the construction.  Zion is also located



11   only about 4 miles from another powerplant also discharging



12   a thermal plume into the lake,



13             There are a great many of us  who firmly believe



14   that as long as there are alternative means of dealing with



15   waste heat, alternatives to once-through cooling which are



16   successfully used by powerplants now in operation, we must



17   use those mean-  and set standards to protect Lake Michigan.



18             It makes no difference whether heat discharge from



19   powerplants is the sole, provable cause of over-nutrification



20   or changes in lake plant life and fish life.  If heat is  one



21   factor which in combination with other pollutants, hastens



22   damage to the lake (and this has been shown) then heat



23   discharges in the  quantities projected by the Zion plant



24   and other  powerplants are  unacceptable without  cooling




25   facilities.

-------
                                                               301
                                                               •—~

 1                           H.  V.  Bierma
   I
 2 i            It is up to this  Conference to protect the public

 3   interest in Lake Michigan as a natural resource too valuable

 4   to risk.
   i
 5             Thank you.

 6             MR. BLASER:  We are  moving on pretty rapidly.   Next

 7   is Mr. Bierma representing  the Illinois Audubon Society and

     Chairman of their Clean Streams Committee*

 9             Mr. Bierma.

10

11             STATEMENT OF HARRY V. BIERMA, DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN,

12            CLEAN STREAMS COMMITTEE,  ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY,

13                          BERWYN, ILLINOIS

14

15             I am Harry V. Bierma, a  director and Chairman  of

16   the Clean Streams Committee of the Illinois Audubon Society.

17             There are many facets to thermal pollution.   The

     following, I believe, have  not been emphasized.

19             The costs of waste disposition cannot be avoided.

20   With a privately^owned enterprise  operated for gain, such as

21   a utility, these must be a  direct  cost of production;  not

22   a hidden cost to be foisted upon society in general in the

23   form of present and future  environmental degradation.   The

24   thermal discharge of a powerplant  is a waste by-product.

     Relative to it, these facts are known:

-------
                                                             302
   i
 1                           H. V. Bierma
 2             1)  Discharge to a body of water will have a

 3   deleterious effect upon that body.

 4             2)  Natural ecosystems, such as a lake, are highly

 5   complex with many aspects not clearly understood; the long

 6   range subtle effects which may not be reversible, are not

 7   known nor can they be predicted from our present state of

 8   knowledge .

 9             3)  Present technology permits sophisticated

10   treatment at reasonable costs that would minimize environ-

11   mental degradation.

12             4)  The construction of marginal facilities with

13   later upgrading is costly; it is less costly to construct

14   for minimal pollution initially even without considering the

1$   costs to correct environmental degradation where this may

16   be possible.
17             For these  reasons it would appear that closed

13   cycle cooling systems should be required for all thermal

19   electric power generating  facilities using or  planning to use

20   Lake Michigan as a heat  sink with variations only where it

21   can be  demonstrated  that ecological damage will not result.

22             MR. STEIN: Thank you  very mucho  Any  comments

23   or questions?
24             MR. BLASER:   The next  was to  be Mr.  Paul  Goodman,

25   Committee  on  Lake Michigan Pollution,   His  presentation will

-------
                                                              303
 3
 4
 7
 8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                       P. S. Goodman
be made by Mr. Riefstahl.
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  I have a petition.  I will leave
it with the secretary.
          MR. STEIN:  If it is agreeable with you, we will
accept that petition as an exhibit,
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Thank you.
          (The petition above referred to will be on file
 9   in Hq EPA and Region V, EPA Office, Chicago, Illinois.)
10
          STATEMENT OF PAUL S, GOODMAN, COMMITTEE
      ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION, WILMETTE, ILLINOIS
              (READ BY CHARLES F. RIEFSTAHL)
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  My name is Charles Riefstahl and
 I  am representing Paul Goodman to read his presentation.
          My name is  Paul S. Goodman.  I am representing
 the Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution, Wilmette,  Illinois.
 The Committee is a  citizens organization representing
 members in  the  10  North Shore suburbs in Illinois.  The
 principal goal  of the organization  is to preserve  and
 enhance the great natural resources of Lake Michigan.
          Our organization with  the assistance of the  Lake
 Michigan Federation and the Illinois Wildlife Federation and
 some 50 other organizations present to  you,  the conferees

-------
                                                              304
   i	•  -



 1                           P.  S.  Goodman



 2 !  of this Conference,  the following petition:



 3                            PETITION



 4 I            "We the undersigned  deplore  the  introduction of



 5   nuclear powerplants  to the  lakes.  We  consider these plants



 6   a critical threat to our lake  in the form of thermal pollution



 7   Adoption of minimal  thermal standards  and closed cooling



 8   systems are potential answers.  In addition we urge the



 9 !  adoption of effective monitoring procedures which should be



10   made at the expense  of the  polluters.   Data should be



11   collected daily and should be  public.   As a further check,



12   an agency independent from the power company should have



13   access to the instruments and reports.  Qualified scientists



14   and biologists should evaluate the data quarterly and forward



15   these reports and evaluation to the Four-State Lake Michigan



16   Enforcement Conference for quarterly review."



17             This petition represents the sentiments of more



IS   than 10,545 citizens  in the States of Illinois, Wisconsin,



19   Indiana and Michigan.  More important it represents the



20   position of more than fifty organizations which represent



21   a much larger citizenry concerned with Lake Michigan.  We



22   asked  each organization to sample only a representative



23   portion of their membership.  Therefore, the  petition



24   represents a  large  constituency.



25             The basic theme  of  the  petition  is  for  action.

-------
                                                              305
   r	
   t

 1                           P. S. Goodman


 2   There are many unknowns about the effects of powerplants


     on our lake and it is advisable to err on the conservative


     side by setting low thermal standards and to assess, the


 5   effect of existing plants and those under construction prior


 6   to introducing new plants.  Most critical, however, is the


 7   effective monitoring procedures as a way to determine the


     impact of nuclear plants on Lake Michigan.  We see the


 9   monitoring procedure as a way to provide data on the


10   suitability of thermal standards.


11             Requirements for effective monitoring include:


12   1)  continuous data collection; 2)  by an agency independent


13   of the power company and not under direct contract to that


     company; 3)  review of that data by qualified individuals


     not in the employment of the company; and 4)  access of data


16   and evaluation to interested members of the public.  We


17   believe monitoring provides a way to reducing the uncertainty


     about the effects of powerplants by providing empirical data


19   on ecological effects.


20             Respectfully submitted.  Paul S. Goodman.


21             MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Goodman,


22             Any comments or questions?  If not —


23             MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Mr. Stein, if I might request


24   permission to insert a page in the pesticide portion as


25   part of the Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution —

-------
    	306
   I
 1 j                        C.  F.  Riefstahl
 2              MR. STEIN:  Are you going to leave now?
 3              MR. RIEFSTAHL: Yes.  I will leave this with the
 4    -secretary.
 5              MR. STEIN:  Okay,  And when that comes up —
 6    are you going to be here for the rest of the morning?
 7              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  For the rest of the day, yes.
 8              MR. STEIN:  Why don't you wait and come up with
 9    that?
10              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Okay.
11              MR. PURDY:  I have a question there.
12              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Righto
13              MR. PURDY:  Mr. Riefstahl, in your petition, you
14    asked that an agency independent from the power  companies
15    should have  access  to the instruments and reports.  Do you
16 I   also believe this should be,  say, an agency independent
17    from the  State water pollution control agency, or  do you
18    feel that the State water pollution control agency can fill
19    that role?
20              MR. RIEFSTAHL:   They feel it should be in addition
21    to the  State.  These nuclear plants have a 4-stage
22    backup  system.   Perhaps it  would be well to have at least
23    a  2-stage  backup  system  on the monitoring.
24              MR. STEIN:  I didn't  quite  understand your  answer.
25     Go ahead.

-------
     	307
   r   ——

• 1                            C.  F.  Riefstahl

 2 i              MR.  PURDY:   You  asked for an agency independent
   I
 3     from the power company should have access to  instruments and

 4     reports on the monitoring  of  their effluent to the  lake.
   i
 5 |              Now, do you feel that the various State water
   |l
 6 i    pollution control agencies can fill that  role, be the  agency

 7     that is independent from the  power company?  Are you saying

 8     that some separate citizens group or some university group

 9     or something separate from the State water pollution control

10     agency should  have access  to  the reports?

11               MR.  RIEFSTAHL:  The thought was to  have someone

12     with no political and no monetary gain in that respect,

13               MR.  STEIN:   Are  you through?

14               MR0  PURDY:   That raises another question.

15               Are  you saying that the State agencies have  mone-

16     tary gain and  political gain?

17               MR.  RIEFSTAHL:  Well,  I think there is a  separa-
   I
1#     tion there in  the State ——
   I
19               MR.  PURDY:   Because if you are  I object to it,

20               MR.  RIEFSTAHL:  —  agency,

21               MR.  STEIN:   Let  me  raise this question because

22     what you have  stated  here  is  something that I have  been

23     advocating for awhile,  and I  think I got  the  idea from a

24 j    power company.

25               You  know, if they can put a little  meter  in  my

-------
                                                        	303
   -	,	,	.  .-   i
   !

 1 ii                        C. F, Riefstahl


 2 j   house and check it when I can't change it, I figure we
   i
 3 j   might turn the tables and put a meter in their place and


 4    come in and  check it, too, and that could work with all
   i

 5 i|   industry not just the power company,
   i

 6 |j             But to get to your next point, I believe, at least
   Ii
 7    in the proposal that I have made, that the State and Federal


      Government should do it.

 9              Now, the point is, if you are going to have an


10    independent  agency,  somebody is going to have to pay them.
   i
11    You are  saying "free of monetary or political considera-

12    tions* — in our  society, where do you find  that?   Someone

13    is going to  have  to put up the scratch, and  if this is a


14    public agency, it is going to have to come from the State


1$ j|   or the Federal Government in this field, isn't it?


16              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  That is the way it looks.

17              MR. STEIN:  All right.

1&              MR« RIEFSTAHL:  But perhaps the State could be


19    one group and the Federal another.

20              MR. STEIN:   Some of the people here have  been


21     saying we are not too  independent of each other,


22              I  have  read  the  stuff about the Conference where


23     people have  discovered after almost 200 years of  our


24     history  that the  State and the  Federal Government  in  effect
   I
25     are an interlocking director.

-------
    	309
    11
    ;i
  1  !!                          C.  F.  Riefstahl
    i
  2  |             MR.  RIEFSTAHL:   I think we have an awakening of
•    !
  3  ||   environmentalists and of  the  general people, as would be
    ii
  4  !   evidenced with the petition.   This petition actually was
    11
  5  i|   not forced and not sold and  still comes up in a very short
    I!
  6  ![   time with over 10,000 signatures, and I hope that the people

  7  !   who signed it  are now more dedicated and a little more
    i
  8  \   educated about the necessity  for some controls.
    !i
  9  j|             MR.  STEIN:   Mr.  Riefstahl, may I make just this

10  ji   as a suggestion to you since  listening to your stuff,
    I
11  |             I think you are onto something here with this
    i
12  !   independent monitoring*  What I am saying, I think that
    i
13     this independent automatic monitoring is so important that

14  !   I hope your group will think this thing through, and to
    j
1$     make it a really viable operating proposal, where we can

16     get an agency and pay for that agency, wherever it may be

17     constituted to do it.

18  ;             Now, if there is another way of getting the money
    i
19     than through public sources — and I don't think we can
    I
20     really depend on foundations for this — I hope you would

21  I   come up with that so you would have a proposal that we
    j
22     could take and go with.

23               MR. RIEFSTAHL:   Well, we are planning on pursuing

24  i   this.  I do know that there is a private engineering firm
    f
25     that has been doing some work around the Big Rock Point

-------
                                                               310
 1                        Mrs, £• L* Johnston
 2    plant, and we haven't been in touch with them yet, but we
 3    certainly hope to get in touch with them,
                MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much,
 5              MR, RIEFSTAHL:  Thank you.
 5              MR. PURDY:  I have one other comment and this
 7    doesn't  call for any response.
                Mr, Fetterolf, our biologist, poked me in the ribs
 o,    on this  qualified scientist and biologist, where apparently
10    a biologist is not  a qualified scientist,  (Laughter)
11              MR, BLASER:  My next request is from Eileen
12    Johnston, who is Environmental Chairman for the League of
13    Women Voters,
                MRS. JOHNSTON:  No, no.  I am but I am not now,
15              MR. BLASER:  Oh, you were, but you are not now.
16              MRS. JOHNSTON:  I am here just as a citizen.
17              MR. BLASER:   She is speaking as a citizen,
                MRS, JOHNSTON:  I will lose my job.  I am here
19    just as  Eileen Johnston, a citizen.
20              MR. STEIN:  Well, I should point out that Mrs,
      Johnston has been — if she is just a citizen, she has
22    been a most loyal citizen. If anyone is talking about
23    monitoring, Mrs. Johnston  has monitored us from the very
24    beginning.
25              MRS, JOHNSTON:   You are  not kidding, and I  loved

-------
                                                               311
 1
 2 l   it all.
 3



 4
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13



14



15



16
17
19
20
21
22
23



24
25
                            Mrs* E. L. Johnston
                MR, STEIN:  You talk about impartial monitors
      without getting paid, that is the living example of that.
 5 |!   But, Mrs, Johnston, you are the only saint I know,  I don't
      think there are many more like you.   We love you.



                MRS.  JOHNSTON:  Oh,  Murray  Stein.   I love him,
                  STATEMENT OF MRS.  EILEEN L,  JOHNSTON,



                          WILMETTE,  ILLINOIS
                MRS. JOHNSTON:   Before I start,  I would like to



      submit a statement by a high school student group that is



      very active since their Earth Day last year, and they, in



      essence, support the position of the Committee on Lake



      Michigan Pollution that Charlie Riefstahl  just read and,



      Carlos, I apologize for that statement. We consider



      biologists as scientists.



                And I don't know — do you want  this read, Mr.



      Stein?  Would you want to read it?  No other student has
      spoken,
                MR. STEIN:  How long —



                MRS, JOHNSTON:  It's just a page.



                MR, STEIN:  Do you want to read it?



                MRS, JOHNSTON:  Well, I am going to say a lot of

-------
    	312





 1 [|                         Mrs. E. L. Johnston
   i
   i

 2 i   other things.

   I
   I

 3              MR. STEIN:  All right.  Why donft you just put

   i

 4 i   that into the record.



 5              MRS. JOHNSTON:  I will give this to Mrs. Hall,



 6    then.



 7              Well, I will wait until later.  I have another



 3    statement that I would like to submit for another student.



 9              Mr. Stein and conferees, thank you for the



10    opportunity of meeting with you again at this very impor-



11    tant Conference.  My name is Eileen L. Johnston and I live



12    in Wilmette, Illinois.



13              Mr. Stein, I was told in a letter I received from



14    Mr.  Teeter in a reply to one I had written to Mr.



15    Ruckelshaus that the Calumet Enforcement Conference had



16    been combined with the Four-State Conference.  Is this



17    true?  Are we at a Calumet Enforcement Conference?



lg              MR. STEIN:  No, this is the Lake Michigan



19    Enforcement Conference, but if you want to bring anything



20    up about the Calumet, feel free to do so.



21              MRS. JOHNSTON:  Well, I wish Mr. Teeter hadn't



22    told me that because I was anticipating that also.



23              Anyway, I am here to tell you that in my humble



24    opinion the Four-State Enforcement Conference must continue,



25    Citizens need a time to review the progress being made by

-------
    	313

   i
   I

 "l                          Mrs, Eo L, Johnston


 •2     industry and municipalities, to meet them face to face,


 3     We need to be informed of new breakthroughs in research


 4     in pollution control equipment, biological studies, virus


 5     control, studies of the causes of eutrophication and how


 6 '    to combat them.  We want to know how technology is being


 7 i'    used in the cleanup of Lake Michigan,  I do feel that the


       Lake Michigan Conference has accomplished a great deal,


 9     And believe me I get to all of them,  I don't know what

   i

10 !    condition Lake Michigan would be in if we hadn*t had them,

   i
11     It is obvious that standards could have been set more


12     stringent and that a shorter timetable for compliance


13     would have been wise,
   i

14              I have great confidence in the conferees and Mr,

   i
15 j    Stein and also appreciate the work that the Technical


16 I    Committee has done.  I think that if citizens had the
   i;

17 |j    opportunity of serving on some of these committees, maybe

   |!
13 j    they might appreciate the problems that they have •— per-


19 !    sonnel is one, and financing — and if citizens really want
   i

20 i    to do something, get rolling on getting some money for the

   i
21 \    EPA to deal with the personnel problem.  That is one of

   II
22 ji    the big ones,

   ||
23 ||             Sometime  ago, the Illinois Pollution Control
   i
   j
24 j    Board sent a letter of proposed recommendations for modify-
   Ii
   i

25 I    ing the Conference,  I believe there were included a number

-------
                                                               314
 1 ij                         Mrs.  E,  L<»  Johnston
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of very good suggestions that would lead to a better
Conference and speed up the lake cleanup by accelerating
dates of compliance and give us specific pollutants with
sources and polluters to concentrate on.
          And I will not go into that because I believe
that will be taken up later0
          Now, I also want to state that I back up the
Illinois Pollution Control Board in their tentative —
underlined — position in regard to thermal discharges to
the lake and any final draft they come up with, although
I do not always completely agree with their decisions.
I have the highest regard for this capable Board and
appreciate what they are doing to clean up the deplorable
mess that we are in,
          And, again, I think if more citizens came to
their meetings and hearings, they would understand better
why some of the decisions they make are made.
          At the first  Four-State Conference, I stated that
Lake Michigan was not the Four-State Dump, but it is  still
being used as such by industries, municipalities, farmers,
boaters, and by people  in general.  Isn't  it  time that
we really take final and drastic steps  to  put a stop  to
this gross  contamination of our water supply?
          Down in the  strip mine area of southern Illinois

-------
                                                               315





                         Mrs. E, L. Johnston



 2     there  is an interesting sign that reads:  No Fishing, No

   i

 3 i    Swimming, No Hunting, No Anything.  The last mentioned



 4     expresses my feelings about the lake.  And I would like a



 5     nice big sign out in the middle of the lake:  No Phosphates,



 6     No Nitrates, No Chlorides — the rest of them — No Pesti-



 7     cides, No Heat by Thermal Input, No Radioactivity, and no



       anything that is uncontrollable.



 9              And in answer to Carl Klein — I don't know



10     whether he is still here — the reason the North Shore



11     Sanitary District is still dumping into the lake is because



12     of citizens.  It is a very sad tale and I think that the
   i


13     meeting on the 31st of March is going to be very helpful



14     in regard to this.  But they have held up this construction



15     for 2  years, I believe, and at considerable cost.



16              So the above-mentioned means better agricultural



17     practices to control runoff of phosphates, nitrates, and



18     pesticides — I am afraid I am losing a friend here in the



19     audience.  The Agriculture Department has been sleeping



20     for the last 100 years.  Letfs give them a jab«  Urban



21     people can use less fertilizer and pesticides and  use



22     better methods of containing runoff.  We can eliminate the



23     use of phosphates in detergents.  And I will submit a paper

   i


24     later  on that for a student group.



25              Of course, this means a huge amount of closed

-------
effluent.  But they dump 11°  of water —  it's heated 11°
                                                              316


                          Mrs*  E.  L.  Johnston

 2    cycling for industry and power  companies*   We have the

 3    technology, so let's use it» In my opinion this is the

      only way we can clean up the southern end  of Lake Michigan

 5    and the Calumet River which flows intermittently into the
   i
 6    lake.  Industry has no more right than power to dump heated

 7    effluent*  A certain very well  known steel company — the

      one that gets the most publicity and starts with U.S.

 9    (Laughter) — has no more right than power to dump heated

10

11    before returning it to the lake.  And, Mr. Stein, do you

12    remember the trip we had down there in 1963.  This was a

13    brand new plant.

                I have a  question for John Q. Public out there.

15    Are you willing to  live a less affluent life?  Are you

16    willing to live without air conditioners?  They seemed to

17    be the main cause of possible power shortage in our area

      this summer.  Now,  I attended a meeting, a hearing before

19    the Pollution Control Board Monday of this week, and I

20    came away  fighting  mad and I still am.

2i              Now, I wasn't as mad at Commonwealth Edison, of

22    course, but the citizens who were buying the darned air

23    conditioners, and the newspapers — and I told Casey

24    Butler this morning the first time I  see an ad on air  con-

25    ditioners, I  cancel my  subscription, and I write a letter

-------
                                          	317


 1                           Mrs, E» L, Johnston
 JL.

 2    to the editor, and I think all of you and all concerned

      citizens should do the sameo

                Here we are complaining about thermal pollution

 5    from powerplants, at the same time we insist on having

 5    more power with all of the electrical gadgets, power mowers,

 7    and so forth, that we use.  So, citizens have not accepted

      responsibility they should.  All of the bad guys are not with

 a    the power companies and industryj there are just as many in

10    the citizens, and I am probably at fault in many ways also,

11    But I try,

12 I             Well, Mr, Stein, I sort of don't stick to the

      subject, as you well know all of these years.  But synergism

      is to me the most important word in our vocabulary.  Due to

      the synergistic effects of all the pollutants in our water

16    and air, I find it impossible to speak of thermal pollution

17    alone.  It is just one big package deal,

                I have great concern for the radioactive wastes

19    that go into the lake along with the heated effluent,  I

20 !   hope that all four States eveatually will agree to a closed

2i i   cooling system for nuclear powerplants for that reason,
   i
22    We need to proceed cautiously, thoughtfully, yes, the high

23    cost way, but since we know radioactivity builds up in
   I
24    man aren't we willing to pay the price?

25              I have great concern for the high level wastes

-------
 1                         Mrs,  E,  L.  Johnston



 2    that are isolated,  concentrated,  and shipped to  storage



 3    areas.  The low level waste that  is released into the  air



 4    or water at the reactor site is more alarming.   Since  many



 5    radionuclides have long half-life it is no satisfaction  to



 6    know that they will be  diluted for their radioactivity does



 7    not cease but builds up in the ecosystem,



 g              Another unpleasant thought is the possibility  of



 9    nuclear fog caused by an inversion, and taking more radio-



10    activity going into the lake.  There is always the  possi-



11    bility of accidents and many have occurred.  We  know that:



12    1) any dose of radiation, large or small will take  its toll



13    of cell material and this is irreversible; 2) it may take



14    years for organic damage or even generations for genetic



15    damage to manifest itself; 3) all vegetation and animal



16    life are also vulnerable to radioactivity intake and they



17    pass up the food chain from grass to cattle to milk to man.



lg              I would like to give you a few quotes from some



19    scientists that I have high regard for.



20              One is Ralph A. MacMullen, Director of the



21    Michigan Department of — well, it was the Department of



22    Conservation — at the first Lake Michigan Conference in



23    1968,  It was the Calumet Enforcement Conference that met



24    in 1965,  "What will be the effect if we permit the



25    equivalent of 10 huge hot-water rivers to flow into Lake

-------
     	319
                   :	


    !!
«  1 ji                         Mrs.  E.  L.  Johnston



  2 i   Michigan?  We frankly don't  know.  I suggest that we ought


  3 i   to be finding out, and we ought to be aware of the probable

    i

  4    consequences before we go any farther with this kind of
    i

  5 I   development.  Otherwise, we may find out the hard way —



  6 '   after it is too late."


  7              The other night — well, it was a week ago — I



  $    had a long telephone conversation with Dr. Charles W.


  9    Huver — H-u-v-e-r — a Professor of Biology at the


 10    University of Minnesota.  He is also President of the


 11    Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association,


 12    The following are some of his observations:  The question


 13    of the effect of increased temperature on the availability



 14    of oxygen to aquatic organisms needs careful consideration,


 15    Heated effluents produce a major rise in the oxygen require-


 16    ments of aquatic organisms while decreasing the amount of


 17    dissolved oxygen available to them.  A second undesirable


 lg    effect of increased water temperature is the increased


 19    toxicity of any toxic chemicals that might be present in


 20    the water,


 21              The potability of drinking water can be seriously


 22    affected by blue-green algae — and I think all of us can


 23    agree to that — so that they can markedly affect the



 24    quality of municipal water supplies.


 25              Two University of Minnesota Professors, Dr.

-------
                                                         320

                      Mrs.  E.  L.  Johnston
Samuel Eddy and Dr.  T. C. Olson,  have studied deaths of fish
and animals from decay of blue-green algae and say they
are caused by the release of a highly toxic substance in it.
          In regard to radioactive wastes he says:  "The
major problem we should address ourselves to is the
biological effects of low-level radioactive wastes."
          There is no safe  threshold for genetic effects of
radiation.  We have seen that there are three types of
nonthreshold effects to be expected when there is any rise
in environmental radioactivity, an increased mutation rate,
and increased  cancer  rate, especially of leukemia, and an
increased  aging  effect and shorter life  span of the
individual receiving  the radiation.
           It is  clear that thermal and radioactive  pollution
can act in a  synergistic manner  to increase  the radioactivity
of organisms  subjected to  both of these  influences.
           Dr.  Huver strongly  supports the view that because
 of serious ecologic consequences and danger to human health,
 citizens should ask for a  closed cooling tower system so
 that thermal effluents can be recycled.
           Dr. Huver also  expresses great concern for
 tritium which is the predominant isotope released to the
 environment in the liquid waste discharges of light water
 reactors, and it is especially serious because there is no

-------
 3
 4
 5
 7
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
                                                              321
                        Mrs, £« Lo Johnston
   practical method  for  filtering or removing tritium from
   the  effluent.   It can produce chromosome breakage, genetic
   mutation, growth  inhibition, cancer, cellular death when
   taken in sufficient amounts of water.  He feels tritium
   effluents should  be taken to off-site disposal areas.
            Since we have what amounts to a river along the
   shore of the lake due to the thermal bar, radioactivity is
   very significant  because it moves close to water intakes.
            Dr. John Cairns, Professor of Biology at Virginia
   Polytechnic Institute says that we must protect the eco-
   systems we have,  since they have taken thousands of years
   to develop and  we know they work given appropriate condi-
   tions.   It seems  the  real choice for the future is between
   thermal pollution and a shortage of electric power.  He
   says more realistically the choice lies in deciding how
   much money and  effort we are willing to invest in cutting
   down heat pollution now in order to avoid future catas-
   trophe and permit the continued expansion of electric power.
   Every new powerplant  has a cost that must be paid either
   in environmental  damage or in economic investment to
j   prevent heat pollution of water, and we have a choice of
   whether we want to pay it all one way, all the other, or
   partly in both,
            Mr. James Vaughn, Engineer for Water Purification,

-------
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
       	322

                      Mrs* E* L. Johnston
city of Chicago, who is back there with us and I know he is
going to give a statement said: "We have shown increasing
trends in both chloride and sulphate concentrations in
water at the southern end of Lake Michigan*  We can only
view with alarm the use of wet cooling systems.  These
would have to be disposed of in large measure by blowdown*
There can be no question that sulphate and chloride ion
pollution from cooling water blowdown would be both harmful
and irreversible,"
          Dr, J, A* Mihursky, Chairman of the Department of
Environmental Research at the University of Maryland and
considered a thermal pollution expert, says: "Chloride,
used to clean condenser tubes of steam electric stations,
acts as a biocide and its use should be prevented*  Other
less harmful cleaning methods should be required,
          I want to say lots of other things, but that is
all at this time.
them.
          Any questions, I would be glad to try to answer
          (The New Trier High School Environment Committee
statement referred to by Mrs* Johnston follows,)

-------
                                                                323

                NEW TRIER ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

                                             March 23, 1971

To:  The conferees at the Four-State Lake Michigan
     Enforcement Conference
Electric power consumption is increasing at a tremendous
ntfc along the shores of Lake Michigan.  Nuclear power
pldnts st:em to be the answer to this area's power require-
ments, since they do not need as much fuel as coal-
burning power plants, and present no problem of air
pollution.  However, the heated water produced in cooling
nuclear power plants presents a threat to Lake Michigan,
this area's greatest natural resource.

As deeply concerned citizens who make a continuing effort
to keep informed on environmental matters, we urge the
confe;rees to support whatever measures are necessary to
protect Lake Michigan from thermal pollution.  We further
urge the conferees, irregardless of private pressures,
to be guided by one consideration only in their decisions:
the ecological good.

Specifically, wa suggest:  1) adoption of minimal thermal
standards and support of closed cooling systems, such as
cooling towers, which are known to be technically feasible
2) adoption of effective monitoring procedures, paid for
by the power companies with data collected daily and made
public  3) that an independent agency of scientists should
have access to the instruments and reports, and be respon-
sible for regular evaluation and quarterly reports to the
Four-State Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference.

The recent action taken at South Haven, Michigan should
set a precedent for nuclear power plant construction.
Despite the fact that the ultimate result may be an elec-
trical bill increase, we feel that action such as that
taken in Michigan is worth the increase.

Respectfully submitted,

New Trier Environment Committee
New Trier High School West
7 Happ Road
Morthfield, Illinois 60093

Alan Cohen— Co-Chairman                 Martin Miller— Faculty
Todd Cody— Co-Chairman                                  Sponsor
Russell Mason— Publicity Secretary
Ross Slottsn— Correspondance Secretary
Bill Lucchesi— Secretary-Treasurer
Pat Eng— Programs Chairman
Jeff Zoncnblik— Research Chairman

-------
                                                             324
   ii
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
                   Miss  E. McKee
          MR.  STEIN:   Are  there  any  comments  or  questions?
          If not,  thank you for  a very complete  and
delightful statement.
          MR. BLASER:   The next speaker,  Miss Edith McKee,
Chief Geologist, Theodore S.  Leviton and Associates.
 7
                STATEMENT OF EDITH M. McKEE,  C.PoG,,
          CHIEF GEOLOGIST, THEODORE S. LEVITON
             ASSOCIATES, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
          MISS McKEE:  I am Edith M« McKee, a certified
professional geologist and chief geologist for the consult-
ing firm of Leviton and Associates located in Chicago,,  A
resume of my professional credentials is attached to the
copies of my testimony available to the Board members and
the press.  When  I testified before you last October 2,
I  detailed my  36  years of continuing familiarity, both
personal and professional, with Lake Michigan and in par-
ticular with Little  Traverse Bay at the north end of the
lake  where the Big Rock  Nuclear Plant is located.
          Today I wish to report to you the  results of
 field work  done last year in the Little Traverse Bay area
 during June to October;  this work  was interrupted to
 testify before you in October,  and field  surveys were not

-------
                                                             325




                             Miss Eo McKee


 2 |  completed until October 2#th.  This work has been carried


     on as an in-house study, without any financing or pressuring


     from industry, government, academia, or the public.  However,


     there has been indication of public interest in future


     funding of such research work if industry and government


     fail to support it.


               Factual observations concerning Little Traverse


     Bay are particularly relevant to this meeting because this is


     the only area of Lake Michigan where the cumulative effects
10
11
12
13


14


15


16
17
19
20
21
22
25
     on water quality from over seven years of thermal input


     from a nuclear powerplant can be documented.  The Big Rock


     Nuclear Plant discharges each day enough heated water to


     cover the entire Little Traverse Bay to a depth of 1.1 inches


     if evenly distributed.  When the discharge of the 4 nuclear


     plants to be operating around the southern basin of Lake


     Michigan is computed, this data indicates that each day


     enough heated water would be discharged to cover the entire


     southern basin of Lake Michigan to a depth of 1.1 inches


     if evenly distributed.  This does not include heat input


     from fossil fuel plants or other industrial operations.


     Thus, Little Traverse Bay provides a valid pilot study of the
23 ji   long  continued effects of heat input into a circulating
   i!
   !
      lake  system.
               When  the  Big Rock Nuclear Plant was located north

-------
    	326



 1 i                          Miss E. McKee


 2    of Charlevoix at the  southwestern entrance to Little Traverse


 3 i   Bay,  the  decision was taken on incomplete site evidence, and


 4    neglected to adapt  the  plant operations to the established
   i

 5 i   environmental-ecological  systems.   It was assumed  local
 •^ i

 6    currents  generally  swept  northwestward to the open lake;


 7    instead local surface and mid-depth currents move  eastward


 £    toward the head of  the  bay concentrating the effects of


 9    thermal input.    It was also assumed the waters  of Little


10    Traverse  Bay were among the  coldest waters of  the  lake;


11    however,  during the summer of  1970  the near-shore  and


12    upper layers of the bay waters warmed more quickly and


13    maintained higher temperatures for  longer  periods  than did


14    the waters near Chicago.   By failing to  carry  out  complete


15    geological and  environmental investigations  prior  to  locating


16    and designing the Big Rock Plant,  Consumers  Power  Company


17    is contributing directly  to the  accelerating decline  of


18    water quality in Little Traverse Bay.


19              Throughout this thermal pollution  controversy,


20    there has been  general acceptance of the theory that  waste


21    heat from an industrial operation can  be quickly and


22    safely transferred to the atmosphere from the limited area


23    of a near surface discharge plume.   In fact, during those


24    days and months when the air is warmer than the water, heat


25    goes from the air into the water and is stored there.

-------
                                                             32?


                              Miss E. McKee


      At such times thermal input  from a powerplant  is also


      retained in the water, accelerating the  rate and degree of


 4 !   the seasonal warming-up of the water beyond the natural limitk
   ij

 5 I:   and possibly triggering massive algal  bloom.  Conversely,
   i

 6    when the air temperature drops below that of the water, heat


 7    moves from the water to the atmosphere.   This heat exchange


 #    system accounts for the normal spring  and fall turnovers


 9    in the lake with the addition of  oxygen  to the bottom


10    waters.  In the Lake Michigan region,  this means that for


11    the 6 months, November through April,  industrial heat


12    discharged into the lake will be  quickly relayed to the


13    cold air not seriously affecting  water quality, though


14    it will affect ice cover.  However, during the 6 months,


15    May through October, industrial heat discharged into the


16    lake is banked there and seriously affects water quality


17    negatively.

lg              I had hoped to have the projector again today


19    but it is not here.  The Board does have copies of Figures


20    1 and 2.  (See pp. 323 and 329.)

21 j             Figure 1 shows a day—-by—day temperature graph

   II
22 !   for June 29 - August 29, 1970, with records obtained from


23    the Central Water Filtration Plant in Chicago, and from


24    50 feet off the end of the Bay View dock in Little


25    Traverse Bay.  The solid line is the Little Traverse Bay

-------
  N *,
  fi tj
<-i
  X
  
    C)
               WAT C
TEMPERATURE:
                ^
                       5
                                      t __ I
328
                                             •^
                                             I
                                                                               5
                                             |
                                                                               h

-------

-------
 6
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
                                                            330
                        Miss E. McKee
record; the dashed line is the Chicago record; the dotted
line shows the usual temperature range known to swimmers in
Little Traverse Bay from 1932 - 19650  The water at Chicago
gradually warmed in a series of oscillations reflecting short-
term effects of wind on surface waters, peaking at 74° on
August 14 with August 6 - 16 at 70° or above.  That's 10
days.  In Little Traverse Bay over 300 miles to the north the
water steadily warmed more quickly than the water at Chicago,
exceeding 70° on August 2 and remaining above 70° until
September 14, with a maximum peak of 75° on August 16.  This
6-week plateau of water temperature above 70  is a startling
phenomenon for Little Traverse Bay, as indicated by the
dotted line showing the usual temperature pattern for that
region as observed over some 33 years, during which time the
daily water temperatures were posted for the benefit of
swimmers.  Little Traverse water temperatures started dropping
in mid-September when the severe fall storms moved over the
region with the cold air masses reversing the heat flow
pattern so the stored heat from the sun, Big Rock Nuclear
Plant, and the few local sewer systems started moving from
the water into the air.
          Coincidental with the rapid  cooling of the surface
waters in September was the thorough mixing  of surface and
deep  waters  in the bay  due to  the  fall turnover   and an

-------
                                                             331

   [T


- 1 jl                         Miss E. McKee
   I


. 2    abrupt improvement in the water quality.  When I first

    i


 3  I  observed the Little Traverse Bay waters last year on June



 4  j  9th, there was already such an excessive algal bloom that
    I


 5    visibility was only a couple of inches as opposed to the



 6    30-50 feet usually seen there as recently as 196$,  By



 7    October 22, when I returned to northern Michigan, water



 g    temperature at the Bay View dock had dropped to 55  and the



 9    water was crystal clear with visibility 50 feet.  Water



10    temperature rise or fall appears to be a critical factor in



11    controlling algal growth; in the spring additional heat



12    input  from industrial sources such as the Big Rock Plant



13    can trigger early and excessive growth when threshold temp-



14    eratures conducive of plant growth are exceeded,



15              During the summer of 1970 there was so much algae,



16    identified as short strand Cladophora, growing on the



17    bottom of Little Traverse Bay and torn loose to float in the



1& |   water that waves breaking on shore looked like a vegetable



19    soup and both the beach and dock were green with the debris,



20    Cladophora is a species of algae which thrives where it can



21    attach itself to rock outcrops, such as the Traverse lirae-



22    stone forming the bottom and shore of the southern half



23    of Little Traverse Bay,  Cladophora thrives in water where tlje



24- |   dissolved oxygen content is low due to accelerating heat



2^    in-put and storage, and where nutritives are present.

-------
                                                            332


                             Miss E, McKee

 o ;             In  the October meeting  of this  Board Mr. Fetterolf
   I
 ->. \   suggested that  the  occurrence  of  Cladophora  in Little
 J \
 4 |   Traverse Bay  might  be  due  to increased nutritives  derived
   ii
 5 II   from increased  sewage  and  farm runoff,  and  near the Big

 6 j   Rock Nuclear  Plant, to the sea gulls  resting on  rock

 7    spits projecting  into  the  bay. On the contrary, the evidence

 g    shows that prior  to 1965 there was a  large gull  population

 9    around Little Traverse Bay and very little algal growth.

10 '   The gulls nearly  disappeared from the scene  between  1965 arid
   i
11    1970, during  which  time there  has been accelerating  growth of

12    various species of  algae  in the  bay including Cladophora.

13    It was only in  the  summer of 1970 that gulls returned  to

14    the bay in numbers, to  the  region, to rest  on  the  shore  and
   i
15    headlands and add t. small amount  of  pollutants to  the  water.

16 i             Figure  2  presents facts concerning the lack  of

17    farm runoff  to enrich the bay waters, the declining popula-

18 j   tion around the bay, and improvements of sewage systems
   i
19 !i   around the bay.  Since Mr. Fetterolf in October expressed

20    belief that farms,  population  growth and poor sewage systems

21    around Little Traverse Bay were responsible for the

22    accelerating decline  in water quality these facts should

23    be presented to you.  Bedrock geology and overlying glacial

24    till determine the watershed  draining into Little Traverse

25    Bay; this watershed is so narrow  that little or no farmland

-------
                                                               333

   !j
'1 j!                          Miss E. McKee
   ii
   i]
.2  i  is included and the land close to the water is not suitable
   !
 3 j   for farming, being limestone outcrops, sand and rocks, cedar

 4  !  swamp, or sand dunes.  The only river of any size entering
   i
 5 j   the bay is Bear Creek which flows into the Petoskey harbor;
   11
 6"  !  this river is stained from the cedar swamps, where springs
   ij
 7  i  provide the water supply, and carries silt from the glacial
   i
 #    till upstream, but is not heavily loaded with detergents
    i
 9  !  and nutritives.  Other small and short streams flowing into

10    the bay originate from springs developed from aquifers within

11    the till or from bedrock aquifers.

12              Concerning population figures, I quote from a

13 |   Population Analysis Report prepared for the Emmet County

14    Planning Commission in November  1969?  "Emmet County's

15 |   population in I960 was lower than it was in 1950 ... the
   i
16    County's population in 1930 wa-s only slightly lower than the

17    I960 total ... Emmet County reached its peak population in

18    1910, and the 1900 level was 27 persons higher than in I960."
   h
   Ij
19 j|  Petoskey is the largest city on the bay; Harbor Springs

20 j  is number two and the only other community of a size to be

21 j   important to the regional water quality.  About these
   I
22    communities the Planning Commission says:  "Harbor Springs

23    maintained a near static population level in the past four

24    Census periods ... the rate of population change (between

      1930 and I960 totals) measured less than 1 percent.

-------
                                                            334
 1                           Miss Eo McKee
   I
 2 |  • •• Population growth in Petoskey continued at a moderate

 3 |i  pace from 1930 to 1950 (5 to 7 percent for the 20 years).

 L   Between 1950 and I960, the population decreased by 330 per-

 5   sons, a 5 percent decline."  Harriet Kilborn, Emmet County

 6   Clerk, tells me the present population of Petoskey is just

 7   under 7,000, an increase of about 150 from the I960 figure.

 8   Summer residents in the resorts around the bay have dropped

 9   by about 200 in Bay View, with the closing of the summer

10   school branch of Albion College; by about 250 in Wequeton-

11   sing; and another 250 on Harbor Point, when the two large

12   hotels were torn down in 1964 and 1965.  There has been a

13   static number of transient summer visitors due to limited

14   hotel, motel, and other living accomodations.  Therefore,

15   we see that the 1970 population around the bay has slightly

16   declined since I960.

17             Now for the sewage systems around the bay.

18   Petoskey has for many years had primary and secondary settling

19   and  treatment systems;  currently they are building a tertiary

20   system.  In 1965 the resort of Bay View closed down their

21   system which returned raw  sewage to  the bay and hooked

22   into the Petoskey  collection systenu  The resort  of

     Wequetonsing operates a 1930 system  consisting of a holding

     tank and  chlorination with frequent  testing  of the effluent.

      In Harbor  Springs  new sewers were laid in 1963; in 1965

-------
                                                             335

   if
   11
   h
 *1 i                           Miss E.  McKee
   !

 2 ii   the heavy load of 1,500,000 excess gallons of pure  spring
   I
 3    and well water each day which had been  going through the


 4    treatment plant was diverted into storm sewers so the


 5    effective chlorination of the real sewage  load was  consider-


      ably increased.  Harbor Point has always maintained its own


      treatment plant.  Since 1965 there has  been considerable


      improvement in local sewage systems with a simultaneous


      drop in raw  sewage  input into Little  Traverse Bay, but


10    the water quality continues to worsen markedly.


11              Considered from all angles,  I repeat what I told
   I

12 I   you on October 2nd.  The only observed  major change which

   I
13 j   can be recognized as not improving the  environment  has been


14    the introduction of the thermal plume  from the Big  Rock


15    Nuclear Plant.  The plant began operating  in 1963;  by 1965


16    startling growths of algae and weeds of various kinds were

   !
17    reported from east of Petoskey and in  Harbor Springs.  In


18    1969 large masses of free-floating algae appeared.   In 1970


19    the entire near shore bottom was densely covered with algae,


20    and broken pieces filled the water to  the  point where water


21    clarity was zero during the summer months.  In winter the


22    plume can be  clearly seen because the ice does not form in


23    the warm water and it is now possible to fish from boats


24    all winter in the plume.  It appears that by using  cooling


2 5    towers or pools during  the  warm months, and putting

-------
                                                             336
   Tl	'	'
   ii

                             Miss E. McKee


     the heated water into the bay during the cold months this


     company and others could avoid contributing to the environ-


     ment-ecology deterioration.


               Learning from this pilot study of the Little


     Traverse Bay area  and from the evidence presented at those


     hearings, it is obvious that basic research in all aspects of


     the geology, meteorology, and biology related to each lake


     or river system are needed before adequate recommendations


10   for building and operating a nuclear powerplant can be made,


11   Prior to permitting the construction and operation of such a


12   plant it is essential that such studies be submitted to a


13   knowledgeable board showing precisely how the proposed thermal.


14   discharge will react with the entire lake system.  Theoretical


15 ji  models of part of the system will not suffice; adequate
16


17
18
19
20
21
22
23


2k
25
field studies can demonstrate precisely what impact a thermal


plant will have in both the environment and the ecology.  It


is not enough to show backyard studies of the small area


adjoining the plant properties.  Air and water both move


across manmade boundaries and operate in systems of their


own devising.  By using cooling tanks or towers or refriger-


ants during the months when heat is being stored in the


water, excessive damage can be averted; by putting the


heated waters directly into the water during months when


heat is being released from the water to the air

-------
                              	337



                              Miss E. McKee
 2    the problem of dangerous onshore fogging can be avoided.


 3    For many years industry has used cheap gas as fuel during


 /,.    warm months when homes did not need it for heating, and


 5    reverted to coal for  fuel when gas was needed for house-


 6    holders.  The electric companies can also have seasonal


 7    disposal programs and still operate at a profit.


 #              Thank you.  Are there any questions?


 9              (Miss McKee's background brief may be found on


10    pp. 333 - 340.)


11              MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much for a very
   i

12    interesting paper, Miss McKee.


13              Are there any comments or questions?


14 j             MRc PURDY:  Mr. Stein.


15              MR. STEIN:  Yes.


16              MR. PURDY:  Miss McKee, have you studied the plume


17    from the Big Rock powerplant?

18              MISS McKEE: Last April, I made application to


19    NASA for some high altitude overflights, infrared photo-


20    graphy, etc.


21              It took them 9 months lacking 3 days to get a


22    reply  back  saying this project was an  excellent one and


23    should certainly add  their support.  I have not in detail


24    studied the plume, per se, however, I  have walked the


25    entire, say,  30 miles around the bay.  Last October, when

-------
                                                           (312) 641-O18S
THEODORE S. LEVITON & ASSOCIATES

              UUl ivci COUixSELL-S
                                   20S SOUTH LASALLE STREET

                                     CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6OSO4
          BACKGROUND BRIEF OF  (MISS) EDITH M. MCKEE
1.  Rated as a CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST by the Ameri-
    can Institute of Professional Geologists.

2.  For the past twelve years has directed projects as a con-
    sulting geologist, handling a broad spectrum of geological
    work, including such areas as oil and ore exploration and
    storage, water supplies, foundation conditions, urban
    development , environmental use and maintenance, regional
    economic development and research in oceanology and lim-
    nology.

3.  Since 1943 has devised ways of applying scale-controlled
    3-dimensional mapping techniques to surface, subsurface
    and submarine mapping.

    These techniques have been recently demonstrated in the
    project for a detailed mapping of the bottom topography
    and related surface and subsurface geology of Lake Mich-
4.  Prior experience:

    1943-46   Military Geology Unit - U.S. Geological Survey
    1947-49   Shell Oil Co., Inc.  (Houston, Texas)
    1949-54   Arabian American Oil Co.  (Dhahran, Saudi Arabia)
    1956-58   Underground Gas Storage Co. of 111.  (Joliet,  111.)

5.  Areas surveyed:

    United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, Middle  East, South
    and Southeast Asia.

6.  Areas of special interest:

    Integrated mapping of surface and subsurface geological
    structures, tectonics, stratigraphy, geomorphology and
    paleogeomorphology related to mineral accumulations and
    land use.

    Developing displays of geological materials in forms  easily
    understood by geologists, ether scientists and non-scien-
    tists.

-------
                                                                  339
-Background                      -2-
E.M. McKee


7.   Served  as  Chairman,  Public  Relations  Committee  -  AIPG,
     where she  started  a  program to  establish  professional  help
     for  the numerous elementary school  teachers  and students
     who  were and  are struggling to  study  geology without bene-
     fit  of  adequate  training,  texts or  materials.

8.   Listed  in  WHO'S WHO  AMONG AMERICAN  WOMEN,

9.   Member  of  the Following technical societies:

     Geological Society of America
     American Geological  Institute
     American Institute of Professional  Geologists
     Illinois Section  (AIPG)
     Illinois Geological  Society
     Michigan Basin Geological  Society
     Great Lakes Foundation
     International Association  for Great Lakes Research
     Marine  Technology  Society:   Board of  Directors  of Great Lakes
       Section
       Member,National  Geology  and Geophysics  Committee
             National  Coastal  Zone  Management Committee
     Chicago Technical  Societies Council:   Chairman  Environment-
        Ecology Committee

10.   Bibliography (company and  client reports  not included):

     TERRAIN DIAGRAMS OF  THE PHILIPPINE  ISLANDS,  Phillip B.
        King and Edith  M. McKee, Geological Society  of America
        Bulletin,  Vol.  60, pp 1820-1836, 1949.

     THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;  ITS ROCKS AND THEIR GEOLOGIC
        HISTORY^contributor, U.S. Geological  Survey Bulletin
        967, Washington,  D.C.,  1950.

     GAS ON  TAP - UNDERGROUND STORAGE (Herscher Storage Area
        block diagram), Between the Lines  (magazine  of the
        Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America), January,  1966.
        (Note:  Herscher map done in 1958 still in use)

     ARE ALL THESE DRY  HOLES NECESSARY?, Edith M. McKee, The
        Oil  and Gas Journal, pp. 298-305,  November 17, 1958.

     PALEOGEOMORPHOLOGY;  A PRACTICAL.EXPLORATION TECHNIQUE,
        Edith M. McKee, The oil and Gas Journal,  pp. 140-143,
        October 21, 1963.

     GEOLOGY ON THE AIR,  Edith  M. McKee, Geotimes, pg. 22,
        October, 1965.

-------
                                                                340
Background                     -3-
K.M. McK.ee

    A SERIES OF FOUR LECTURES AT THE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCI-
       ENCES ,  dealing with historical geology, locating and
       using world resources, geology used for cultural-eco-
       nomic development and defense, world distribution of
       mineral resources and how they relate to world affairs.
       Given on July 1, July 8, July 15, and July 22, 1965.

    THIS MOT TOO SOLID EARTH, Edith M. McKee, Illinois Sec-
       tion American Society of Civil Engineers News  (from a
       talk given January, 1967), pg. 2, Vol. IX No.  3, March,
       1967.

    LAKE MICHIGAN TOP TO BOTTOM, Edith M. McKee, Limnos, Vol. I
       No. 1,  ppg. 12-16, Spring, 1968.

    MAPPING THE BOTTOM OF LAKE MICHIGAN, Edith M. McKee, Oce-
       anology International, pp. 32-33, July/August, 1968.

    BLUNDERS COMPANIES MAKE OVER POLLUTION,  Edith M. McKee,
       Innovation, Number 16, pp. 24-35, November, 1970.

    PALEOGEOMORPHIC HISTORY OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION WITH
       A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
       OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN, Edith M. McKee, paper
       presented by invitation at the Great Lakes Symposium
       of the GeologicaJ Society of America. Milwaukee-
       Wisconsin, November, 1970.

    DETAILED MAPPING OF THE BOTTOM TERRAIN AND ASSOCIATED
       GEOLOGY OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN, Edith M. McKee,
       paper presented by invitation at the Great Lakes
       Symposium of the Geological Society of America,
       Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November, t!970.

    In preparation:
       Detailed Mapping of the Bottom of Lake Michigan
       Detailed Mapping of the Bottom of Lake Superior
           (These reports are being prepared for publication
          by the Geological Society of America as major
          reports; eventually all five Great Lakes will be
          done in the same manner and published.)

-------
                                                             341
   	.	,	.	.	_
   i
 1 ji                           Miss E. McKee
   il
 2    I went back up, I walked the^ Shore-line between Petoskey

 3 |   and the Big Rock plant, and it was quite noticeable the
   i
 4 i!   nearer I got to the plant the more luxurious was the algal

 5    growth both as to type and to species, and since wading

 6    in the water, you can tell the difference.  It got

 7    increasingly warm as I walked towards the plant.  The plume

 $    was  obviously coming along shore for a number of miles —

 9    between 5 and 10 miles.

10              MR. PURDY:  How many miles is it from the Big

11    Rock powerplant to the Bay View Dock?

12              MISS McKEE:  Well, now, that depends whether you

13    are  talking of walking the headlands or going in a straight

14    line.

15              MR. PURDY:  In a straight line.
   I
16              MISS McKEE:  It would be approximately 17 miles.

17              MR. PURDY:  Now, on  your Figure  1, you have used

IS     some temperature  data  from a Chicago intake, and then

19     temperature data  from  the Bay  View Dock.   I  imagine that

20     from the  Chicago  intake now  this  represents  the  continuous

21     records that  Chicago makes of  this intake temperature.
   !
22     is that correct?
   I
23               MISS McKEE:   That  is right.   It came  from the

       central filtration plant  records.

25               MR. PURDY:  From the Bay View Dock now,  what

-------
                                                             342





 1                            Miss E, McKee




 2    does this represent?



                MISS McKEE:  It represents, at a distance of about



      50 feet off the end of the dock.



 c j             MR. PURDY:  But in the way of measurements, once-



 o    a-day, continuous —



 7              MISS McKEE:  No, it was a once-a-day project.



 g              MR. PURDY:  Now, at what depth is the Chicago



 9    intake and how far out from the shore?



10              MISS McKEE:  That I am not certain of.



11              MR, PURDY:  You mentioned — it is at some



12    considerable distance though, and at considerable depths,




13    wouldn't  you say?



14              MISS McKEE:  I am not that acquainted with  the



15    intake here at Chicago.  I did not observe it myself.



16              FROM THE FLOOR:  About  30  feet.



17              MR. STEIN:  Well, we will  get that in order.  I



lg    think Mr. Purdy's point  is made.  We can get the  exact




19     information.



20              MR. PURDY:   Now,  from  Bay  View Dock, this is



21     fairly close  to  shore, and apparently  a surface measurement.



22              MISS McKEE:  No,  it  was taken down  at  the bottom,




23     and because this summer I  have been  mapping  in  detail the



24     bottom terrain of the Little Traverse Bay,  I happen to know



25     that it was taken beyond the drop-off of some of the

-------
                                                             343



                              Miss E* McKee


 o il   Little Traverse limestone formations there.
   I
 3              MR. PURDI:  What depth would this be?

 4              MISS McKEE:  It was about 35 feet where I am told
   i
 5 !i   they took it.
   j!
 6              MR. PURDY:  Who took it?
   i

 7              MISS McKEE:  The lifeguard on duty who was a

      college  boy, a senior in Geology from Albian College.

 9              MR. PURDY:  Now, if he took it at a  35-foot depth,


10    did he have a depth thermometer to take this?
   i
11 j             MISS McKEE:  Yes, he did.

12              MR. PURDY:  Have you compared now the sort of


13 j   temperature regime that  exists along the Lake  Michigan

14    shoreline at other locations  remote from any sort of

15    waste  input, waste discharge  with  the temperature regime


16     of the Chicago  intake?

17              MISS McKEE:   No, I  have  not.  There  are a number


lg i    of projects  —  basic  projects in the  lake  here which have

19     not been done as, for instance,  for my  own work  I know that

20     in Lake Michigan itself only the mid-lake  high area, Little

21     Traverse Bay since last summer,  and  I understand Green Bay,

22     have the bottom depth figures in detail enough so that I


23     can identify individual boulders and know exactly what


24     rock formation crops out where0   That leaves most of

25     the southern basin of the lake and the northern basin of

-------
                                                              344
   T	'	


 1                            Miss E. McKee

 2    the lake with much work still to be done.


 3              MR, PURDYj  There are a number of temperature

 4    records available from Municipal water intakes, beach

 5    sampling, and so forth, and I think it would be interesting

 6    for you to look at those.


 7              Yesterday, we made the comment that it is not


 $    unusual for the western shoreline of Michigan to have water


 9    temperatures at some distance out from shore to greatly

10    exceed those along the eastern shorelines, due to the

11    prevailing westerdly winds that pile up that surface warm

12    body  of water along the lakeshore.  The fact is these

13    records will show with a wind change that you can have


14    a  15° temperature drop along the Lake Michigan shoreline

15    overnight.  Unfortunately I have experienced this several

16    times in taking my family over to Muskegan to a State

17    park  there, and it seemed that I managed to hit those

IB    days  when the water temperature is about  55 or 60° on the

19    2nd of August and that is just not my swimming temperature.


20              MISS McKEE:  I agree.  I have met the same


21    thing.  In  fact, the  first time when I met that in Little

22    Traverse Bay unwittingly the  skipper had  dropped  a monkey


23    wrench  overboard in about 30  feet  of water and said,  "Go


24    on down and get it."   The day before it had been  about

25    680 4   That  day we  had the effect  of about 3  strong  days

-------
                                                              345



 1 )i                           Miss E. McKee


 .2 ;!    of  east wind.  The  temperature was  down below 50°„   I
   t!

 3 I    sympathize with you.


 4 !             MR0  STEIN:   The  people  in Maire think that  is  warm


 5     actually.   (Laughter)


 6              MISS McKEE:   But look at  the winters they  go


 7     through.


                MRC  STEIN:   That is right.


 9 J             MR.  PURDY:   It  just seems to me that there is
   11
   ji
10 j!    a  great  deal of more  information  that is  available that
   i
11     could be  used to  confirm,  strengthen your conclusions,  or


12     possibly modify them,  and I think that you have reached
   I

13     some very firm conclusions on a  study in  an isolated


14     situation where you have  not used some controls to determine

   i
15 j    the validity of your conclusions.
   I
16 ii              MISS McKEE:   This was  not intended as a complete
   1

17     and total environmental study up there.   To begin with, as


IB     I said,  this had  no funding, no  financial backing,  but I


19     have been concerned because of the  lack  of work done in


20     Little Traverse Bay, and since  I was up  there this summer,


21     I took the opportunity of expanding and putting down and


22     collecting whatever data was available  up there.
   i

23               MR. PURDY:   Actually I think more work has-
   i
2/f     been done in Little Traverse Bay than in many other areas
   i
   I
2^     on the lake.  There is a sea grant program going on at the

-------
     	346





                              Miss E, McKee



       University  of Michigan now.  There has been a great deal of




       work  done up there.



                MISS McKEE:  I was out on the University of Michigan



 5     ship  this summer.  They went over to Grand Traverse where



 6     they  are  concentrating with their sea grant program.  But



 7     this  past summer they had  the  Inland Seas based  up at Harbor



       Springs by  taking biological tests at Nine Mile  Point which




 9     is a  few miles  east  of Big Rock.



10              MR.  PURDY: Right.



11              MISS  McKEE: And I was aboard one day  and  I took



12     temperatures  over there  at a  depth of 71  feet.   And  I was



13     still getting temperatures above 65  .



1^ I             MR. PURDY:  Now, from the  standpoint  of the



15     growths, I  think that some of the  things  that you have  report



16     ed here from the standpoint  of the  conditions worsening,  and



17     again you have looked at an  isolated situation,  and  have  not



lg     used some outside controls you might have used,  confirms



19     an earlier conclusion of this Conference.  Earlier in this



20     Conference we presented information to  show how the  algae



21     and Cladophora growth situation on the  entire Lake Michigan



22     shoreline, along western Michigan,  has  continued to worsen



23     through the years,  and this is one of the reasons this



24     Conference, I believe,- reached the conclusion that nutrient



25     removal was necessary from all sewage treatment plants, and

-------
                                                              347
   r                                                               '

 1 jj                            Miss  E.  McKee
   i
 2 ij    again I must  point out  that near the locations  that  you are
 3
 6
 9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16
17
19

20

21

22

23

24

25
reporting from extreraly heavy nuisance conditions,  that
 4 |    we do have sewage treatment  plant  effluents  there,  and the

 5 jj    purpose for the tertiary treatment — the  so-called tertiary
treatment at Petoskey nutrient removal is to improve that
 7 ,    condition.  The Wequetonsing one that you called a holding tank

       is,  in effect,  I  believe,  a septic tank for chlorination,
and one that we consider totally inadequate and must be

replaced.  But, again, I think yourobservations there

confirm what is taking place along the entire shoreline of

Lake Michigan and may not be traceable to thermal inputs

but to a continued buildup of nutrients in the lake*

          MISS McKEE:  I agree that there are many aspects

and many factors of this, but it still is obvious that

after the fall turnover when the water temperature was on

its way down, it had peaked up in the summer heat and was

definitely going down.  The water had cleared up.

          MR. PURDY:  Do you say that turnover takes place

in September?

          MISS McKEE:  It takes place up in that part when

we begin having our heavy fall storms, and the cold air

moves down, which removes heat from the upper surfaces of

the water, so that the warmwater begins to get denser and

sinks, and the water which has not been that cool below it

-------
                                                            348
   1
 1                            Miss E. McKee

 2     rises,  and  eventually there is a turnover, the so-called

 3     fall  turnover of the water in the basin.

 4              MR. PURDI:  Thank you.

 5              MR. STEIN:  Thank you.

 5 I             MR. BLASER:  May I have a  question?  I need some

 7     clarification.

 g              In the  charts,  you show the  33-year average

 9     ending in 1965, then you  show the Bay  View data as  running

10     warmer than the 33-year average.  Do I take  your remarks

11     to attribute that  increase to the thermal discharge there?

12     You show the contrast  between the 33-year average and your

13     data.

14              MISS McKEE:   Yes.
15              MR.  BLASERi   And you  do attribute  that to the

16     nuclear plants,  the thermal  discharge?
17               MISS McKEE:   I  believe that  the thermal  input

1#     from the nuclear plants certainly contributes to  it.

19               MR.  BLASER:   That  plus,  I assume,  the sewage

20     discharges and such.
21               MISS McKEE:   In the bay,  the sewerage discharges

22     have been  improved consistently since 1965.

23               MR. BLASER:  In terms of temperature.  This is

24     a temperature chart.
25               MISS McKEE:  I don't believe the  sewage  input had

-------
                                                              349





•-,  !l                           Miss  E. McKee
 J.
   1

.2      a  determination  on  the  temperature  prior  to the  —• well,




 3      1967  or so.



 .                MR.  BLASER:   Okay.   The  question that  really is



 5      in my mind:   If  you attribute the  higher  temperature  above



       average to the thermal  discharges,  I notice  in the  same



       year, the 6 or B weeks  preceding  this deal with  two  6-week




       segments, Bay View is  running colder than the 33-year



       average.  Do you attribute this to the thermal plume?



                 MISS McKEE:   What I do  know about  the  33-year



       average — usually by the 1st of July, the temperature had



12      hit 65°.  Anything below that and very few swimmers.



                 This year when we measured it,  it  was  colder and




       lower.  Whether there is an intensification prior to this



15  ij    time, there had been an active release of heat into the




16  |    air, I don't know.



17                MR. BLASER:  This question that is in my mind is:



lg  ||    What do you attribute, when the data runs ahead of the



19  I    base, you seem to attribute it to the thermal discharge,



20 |!    when it runs behind you do not.  Could you help clarify




21  I    that for me?



22                MISS McKEE:  As I  said, I don't know.  I didn't



23      get  up  there  this  past summer and start  these proceedings,




24     temperature  readings,  until  late June.



25                MR. BLASER:  Well,  it was  late June data that

-------
   	350
   II

 1                             Miss  E.  McKee
   i
 2     I am referring to here — June,  July.

                 MISS McKEE:   There  is  a natural input from the

       sun.  It would depend somewhat on the  meteorology,  the

       season, how much sun there was,  how much wind there was,

       how much mixing of the water there was.  I put the  33-year

       average in as a control because prior to — well, at lear.t

       1970, and possibly 1969, if it had hit the 70° two  days

 Q     in an entire summer, it was unusual, most unusual.   And in

10     1970, when we had 6 weeks above 70° and hitting 75°, that

11     is unheard of in that area.

12               These are not presented as complete data, no.

13     As I said, this was an offshoot, a spin-off from other

14     work I was doing.  But it is a very definite change in the

15     water  quality in Little Traverse Bay that has been noted and

16     documented, as of 1970, and it has been accelerating  since

17     1965.

lg               MR. BLASER:  Thank you.

                 MR. STEIN:   Are there  any more  comments  or

20      questions?

2i               Let me make a  comment  on this,  because Miss McKee

22      I  think you have done a  very  good  job,  since  the last time,

23      but  I  had without  communication with Mr.  Blaser the  same

24      kind of question  on your chart.  Now,  I ask you to look at

25      that Figure  1,  and there may be an explanation, because

-------
                                                              351


                               Miss E.  McKee


       I think you have raised some very interesting possibilities»


 3     The question, I think,  that probably Mr.  Blaser and Mr.


 .      Purdy have raised is whether the material you have presented


       backs this up.

                 Let's look at your average.   There is one chart,


       a dotted line, which shows the average temperature from 32


       to 65°.  About half your line for the  Bay View temperature


 9     for 1970 is below the chart.


10               MISS McKEE:  Right.

H               MR. STEIN;  About half that, starting toward the


12     end of July is above it.
   11
                 Now, there is about just as  much of your 1970


       figures below the line as above the line.  Now, given this

15 i    kind of situation, how can we attribute, if you do, a causa}


l£ |    effect to the reason above the line, when just as much goes


17     below the line, not to say it isn't a natural variation.

                 I think this is the gap that we have to close if


19     we are going to look at this, and I just ask you to look


20     at this as — I am not trying to raise a point on your

21     proposal, but I ask you to look at this as a presentation.


22               In  other words,  I  am sure that Mr. Blaser — and
   i

23     I  believe you are a  lawyer,  aren't you?


24 i              MR. BLASER:   No.


25               MR. STEIN:   No,  he isn't.

-------
                                                               352
                            Miss E» McKee



 2              But I think if I were a lawyer on cross — and



 3    I am — on cross examination, this would be the point you



 4    would hit at,  I am not talking necessarily in terms of



 5    your result, but in terms of the presentation,



 6              MISS McKEE:  I see.  Well, I have been presuming



 7    on the presentation that I made in October, giving you



      gentlemen the entire history of the development of the



 9    Great Lakes Basin and the Lake Michigan Basin, per se, and



10    I assumed that you were familiar with the ice cover which



11    is at the northern end of the lake.  Little Traverse Bay



12    still has ice cover over it.



                The only open water would be where the strong



14    currents are around Harbor Springs, Harbor Point, where



15    there is wet storage of the boats over in Harbor Springs,



      and the fishing in the plume from the Big Rock plant*  The



17    water in Little Traverse Bay starts lower for a longer



      period of time than it does at the  south end of the lake



19    here in Chicago,  In other words, it has to wait until the



20    ice gets out, before the heat from  the sun can begin going



21    into it and already the nuclear plant plume is in there



22    before the  sun can get in,



23              MR, STEIN:  I understand  that, but that should



24    be reflected on the average  through the year,




25

-------
                                                              353
 1                             Miss E. McKee
 2                This is going to be kind of a law question.  Is
 3      it your professional opinion, that the heat discharge from
        the Big Rock nuclear plant is the causative agent in
 5      changing the character of the water in Little Traverse Bay
 6      so as to create the condition of algae and Cladophora that
 •7      vou have seen?
                  MISS McKE.E:  In my opinion, from what I have seen
        and thp professional work I have done, it is a major
        factor.  It is not the sole factor, but it is the major
        factor.
                  MR. STEIN:  Right.  Thank you.
                  Are there any other questions or comments?
                  Thank you very much.
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                              354
 1 j                           J. K. Langum

 2 I             MR. BLASER:  The next one is Dr.  John Langum,


 3    please, President of Business Economics.


 4              Mr. Langum.



 5


 6              STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. LANGUM,  ECONOMIC


 7              CONSULTANT, PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS,


 $                         INC., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS



 9

10              DR. LANGUM:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Con-


11 !   ference, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is John K. Langum.


12    I am an Economic Consultant with offices located here in
   i

13    Chicago at  209 South DeSalle Street.  I have prepared a


14    statement of my qualifications in the field of economics


15 |!   which  I believe has been  distributed to the members of the


16    Conference.   (See  pp-.  355 -  366.)


17              I do not appear before you as a physical scientist


1#    or  as  an  engineer.   I  cannot testify as to damage to the


19    lake or in  terms of  the engineering requirements what


20    should be done about it.


21              I am here  in two capacities.  First as an


22    economist.   Much of  my work  is in the field of advising


23    major  institutional  investors  in this country and  Canada  on


24    the impact  of changing economic conditions on the  credit


25    and capital markets.   The other specialty that I have is

-------
                                                           Qualifications 1
                                                                             355
Q.       Will you state your name, please?

A.       John K. Langum

Q.       Where do you live?

A.       I live  at 1186  Duncan Avenue,  Elgin, Illinois.

Q.       What is your present occupation?

A.       I am an economic consultant,  with my offices located at 209

         South  LaSalle Street in Chicago,  Illinois .   My work consists

         of advising and counseling with a wide range of business firms

         and financial institutions on economic matters of concern to

         them.  Much of my work lies  in the field of  appraising changes

         in business conditions and their impact on particular firms

         and industries and in the field of interest rates, the money

         market, and the capital markets.  My clients include some of

         the largest firms and most prominent trade associations in the

         fields of investments,  banking, industry, transportation,  and

         public utilities.

              In addition, I am President of Business Economics,  Inc. ,

         an enterprise engaged in research and publications in the

         field of business and economics.  Business Economics, Inc.

         provides a continuing service for financial institutions

         and business  enterprises covering in depth the forces at work

-------
                                                           Qualifications 2
                                                                             356
         in the American economy and their significance for the


         credit and capital markets.


Q.       What is your  educational background?


A.       In 1933,  I received a B. A. Degree from Colorado College.


         In 1936,  the University of Minnesota awarded me an M. A.


         In 1943,  the University of Minnesota conferred on me the


         Ph.  D. Degree.


Q.       What academic positions have you held?


A.       From 1935 to 1940 I was on the faculty of the School of


         Business Administration at the University of Minnesota.


         In 1940 and 1941, I was lecturer in Economics at the University


         of California.  In 1945 and 1946,  I was  part-time lecturer in


         the Department of Economics at the University  of Chicago.


         In the summer of 1947, and again in the summer of 1951,  I was


         visiting Professor of Economics  at Northwestern University.


              From 1951 through 1962, I served as professor of


         Business Administration, on a part-time  basis, in the School


         of Business of Indiana University.


Q.       What connections have you had with graduate schools sponsored


         by banking and financial associations?


A.     For the last twenty years, starting in 1951, I have been a


         member of the faculty of the  Stonier Graduate School of Banking


         at Rutgers University in New Brunswick,  New Jersey,  sponsored


         by the American Bankers Association.  Here in June of each year,

-------
                                                   Qualifications  3
                                                                    357
I give lectures on the business outlook and the credit and


capital markets for the bank officers enrolled in the


Graduate School.  Each year about 1, 200 bank officers,


from most of the fifty states and from  several foreign


countries,  attend the Graduate School of Banking.


     In 1945, I was one of the founders of the Graduate


School of Banking at the University of Wisconsin,  located at


Madison, Wisconsin.  That school, with over one  thousand


bank officers from about thirty-five states, is sponsored by


the Central States Conference of sixteen midwestern state


banking associations.  For twenty-six  consecutive years,


since the beginning  of the Graduate School, I have given


the basic lectures on the  money markets.


     Since 1955, I have lectured on appraisal of the economic


outlook,  analysis of the individual company and industry in


relation  to changing business conditions, and the structure


and workings of the capital markets at the  School  of Banking


of the South in Baton Rouge at Louisiana State University.


This graduate school for  bank officers  is sponsored by fifteen


southern state banking associations, including the .Alabama


Bankers  Association.


     In several years, I  have also lectured at the Graduate


Southwestern School of Banking held in Dallas,  Texas,  at


Southern Methodist  University; at the National Trust School


held in Evanston,  Illinois, at Northwestern University;

-------
                                                          Qualifications  4
                                                                            35*
        at the Pacific Coast School of Banking held in Seattle,

        Washington, at the University of Washington; and at the

        Graduate School of Savings and  Loan held in Bloomington,

        Indiana, at Indiana University.

              In many years, I have been lecturer at the Life

        Officers Investment Seminar, sponsored by the American

        Life Convention; and at the Financial Analysts Seminar.

        conducted by the National Federation of Financial Analysts

        Societies in association with the University of Chicago.

Q.      What business experience have  you had?

A.      From 1941 until 1951, I was employed by the Federal Reserve

        Bank of Chicago,  and from 1944 to 1951, I was Vice President

        of the Bank,  As officer in charge  of the Research Department

        during  that period, it was my responsibility to direct an

        extensive  research program in  monetary and fiscal problems,

        in the banking mechanism, in business  conditions,  in

        agricultural and business economics, and in business finance.

        Also, at the bank I was in charge of its  bank and public

        relations activities.  In addition, for seven years I was

        associate  economist of the Federal Open Market Committee

        of the Federal Reserve System. This is the body in the

        Federal Reserve  System, made up of members of the Board

        of Governors and Presidents  of the Federal Reserve Banks ,

        which determines the monetary and credit policies of the nation's


        central banking sys tern.

-------
                                                           Qualifications  5
                                                                              359
              Since 1951, I have been engaged in private business


         as an economic consultant.  I am a director of Selected


         American Shares, Inc. , Selected Special Shares , Inc. , and


         Selected Opportunity Fund,  Inc. , common s tock investment


         funds with offices in Chicago, Illinois .  I am a director of


         Founders  Growth Fund, Inc. ,  ( formerly Gryphon Fund, Inc. ,)


         a common stock investment fund with offices in Denver,


         Colorado,  Since February 1,  1969  I have been Pres ident of


         Founders Growth Fund, Inc. I am a director of Firs t Federal


         Savings and Loan Association of Elgin, Illinois .  For s everal


         years,  until late in 1964, when the  company was sold to


         Transamerica, I was a director of Bankers Mortgage


         Company of California, a mortgage banking firm with offices


         in San Francisco,  California, and in New York City.


Q.       Have you previously testified in rate cases?


A.       Yes.  I have testified in a number of cases  before public utility


         commis s ions and courts  in twenty-four  states and the District


         of Columbia, including  Illinois , Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,


         Wisconsin, Massachus etts, Ohio,  Pennsylvania, Kansas, Missouri,


         Kentucky, Tennesse,  West Virginia, Maryland, Louisiana, Alabama,


         Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, Montana, Utah, Oregon,


         Washington, and California. I have testified before the


         Interstate Commerce Commis sion, the Federal Maritime


         Commis sion,  and the Federal Power Commis sion.  In Canada,

-------
                                                          Qualifications  6    360
        I have testified before the Board of Transport Commis sioners





        and my studies have been presented to the National Energy





        Board.





Q.      Are you the author of any articles  and books ?





A.      During the last tjhirty years I have had many articles





        published in leading economic and  business journals.   For





        ten years, from 1941 until 1951, 1 edited "Business Conditions",





        a monthly review published by the Federal Reserve Bank




        of Chicago.  For fifteen years, from 1946 through I960, I





        wrote the articles   on banking,  including investment banking




        and commercial banking,  on the Federal Reserve System and





        other financial subjects for the Encyclopedia Britannica Book





        of the Year.  I write the articles on savings banking and on





        s avings and loan ass ociations for the Encyclopedia Britannica.




              During the last several years, several interviews with




        me on the business  outlook and on investment policy have been




        published in Time, in U. S. News and World Report, and in




        Business Week.





Q.      Are you a member of and have you participated in professional





        societies and civic activities?




A.      Yes .  I am a member of several professional societies and





        have been active in many of them over several years.





              On many occasions I have been on the programs  of





        the Conference of Bus iness Economists,  the National

-------
                                                  Qualifications  7     ,
                                                                    3 01
Association of Business Economists,  the National Industrial



Conference Board, the National Tax Association, the American



Economic Association, and the Financial Analysts Societies .



     In Junei 1957,  I testified before  the Joint Economic



Committee of Congress at their  invitation on the bearing of



the budget outlook and economic situation on growth and



inflation in the American economy.  In August,  1962, I again



testified before the Joint Economic  Committee on Corporate



Profits,  Cash Flow, and Rate o£ Return.



     In 1963,  1964 and 1969 I participated in the  symposiums



on economic growth and public policy  in Washington,  D. C. ,



sponsored by the American Bankers Association.  In



1962 I participated in the conference on fiscal  and monetary



policy sponsored by the  President's Advisory Committee on



Labor-Management Policy. In 1962 I  participated in the White



House Conference on national economic issues .



     Early in the pos twar period, I served on the res earch


s taff of the Committee for Economic Development.



     For three years, from 1959  through 1961, I served



as Vice President of the Chicago Association of  Commerce



and Indus try in charge of the work of  the As sociation in



business research and statistics.  For six  years,  I served



as a director of the Association.

-------
                                                   Qualifications  8
                                                                    362
      From 1951 through 1953, I served on the Committee


on economic policy of the Chamber of Commerce of the


United States.


      In 1964, in my professional capacity,  I prepared a


study for the City of Chicago on "Implications of


Technological Development for the Economy of Chicago. "


      For fifteen years I have  been Chairman of the Elgin


Plan Commission in the city in which I live, and I am a


member of the American Society of Planning Officials.


      I am President of the Fox Path Association, Vice-Chair-


man of the Lake Michigan Federation,  and Director of the


Illinois Planning and Conservation League.  I am a life member


of the Sierra Club and a life member of The Wilderness Society.


      In 1958 I was  made a fellow of the American Association


for the Advancement of Science.

-------
                                                          Qualifications  9
                                                                          363
             PUBLIC UTILITY CASES SINCE JANUARY 1, 1967
             IN WHICH DR. JOHN K. LANGUM HAS TESTIFIED
          REGARDING COST OF  CAPITAL AND RATE OF RETURN
Telephone
1967

Indiana Telephone Corporation
Public Service Commission of Indiana
Cause No.  31275
Water
Gas Pipeline
Telephone
Davenport Water Company
Iowa State Commerce Commission
Docket No. U-138

1968

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
Federal Power Commission
Docket No. 68-17 and Docket No. RP67-21

United Telephone Company of Indiana
Public Service Commission of Indiana
Electric and Gas Distribution
Telephone
Telephone
Water
Water
Montana Power Company
Public Service Commission of Montana
Docket No. 5698

Illini State Telephone Company
Illinois  Commerce Commission
Docket No. 54257

Kansas  Telephone Company
State Corporation Commission of Kansas
Docket No. 84, 317-U

St.  Louis  County Water Company
Public Service Commission of Missouri
Case No.  16, 563

St.  Joseph Water Company
Public Service Commission of Missouri
Cause No.  16, 453

-------
Water
Electric and Gas Distribution
Gas Distribution
Telephone
Telephone
Gas Distribution
Water
Water
Telephone
Water
                       Qualifications  10


Joplin Water Works Company
Public Service Commission of Missouri
Cause No.  16454

Consumers Power  Company
Michigan Public Service Commission
Case No. U-3110 and Case No. U-3179

1969

Laclede  Gas Company
Public Service Commission of Missouri
Case No. 16, 689

Missouri Telephone Company
Public Service Commission of Missouri
Case No. 16, 662

Bell Canada
Canadian Transport Commission,
    Railway Transport  Committee
File C.  955,178

Central  Illinois Light Company
Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket No. 54853

Indianapolis Water Company
Public Service Commission of Indiana
Cause No.  31949 and Cause No. 31953

Northern Illinois Water Company,
    Champaign Division
Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket No. 54850

Illini State Telephone Commission
Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket No. 54257 Rehearing

Alton Water Company
Illinois Commerce Commission
Case No. 54765
                                                                            364
Water
East St. Louis and Interurban
    Water Company
Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket No. 54992

-------
                                                          Qualifications 11  365
Gas Pipeline
Water
Water
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
Federal Power Commission
Docket No. RP69-36

City Water Company of Chattanooga
Tennessee Public Service Commission
Docket No. U-5232

Northern Illinois Water Company
Sterling Division
Case No.  55111
Telephone
Water
Telephone
1970

Ohio Bell Telephone Company
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
No. 35, 959

South Pittsburgh Water Company
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
C. 18807 et al

Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Michigan Public Service Commission
Docket No.  U-3204
Water
Electric
Gas Pipeline
Electric
Missouri Water Company
Missouri Public Service Commission
P. S. C. Case #16,941

Commonwealth Edison Company
Illinois Commerce Commission
Docket No.  55149
(On behalf of Attorney General of State of Illinois)

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
Federal  Power Commission
Docket No.  RP70-35

Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Federal  Power Commission
Docket No.  E-7546
Electric
Consumers  Power Company
Michigan Public Service Commission
Case No. U-3749

-------
                                                         Qualifications  12
                                                                           366
                                  1971

Water                             West Virginia Water Company
                                  Public Service Commission of West Virginia
Electric                          Alabama Power Company
                                  Alabama Public Service Commission
                                  Docket No.  16359

-------
         	367
   |]

• 1 jj                        J. K. Langum
   ji
,2 ij  consultation and expert testimony on financing  of public

 3  i  utilities, cost of capital and fair rate of return of
    i
 4  j  public utilities*  You will see in my qualifications that
    I
 5  I  over the years I have testified as an expert witness on
    i
 6 |   cost of capital and fair rate of return before commissions
   I1
 7  i  and courts in the District of Columbia, some 2k States,

      all the leading Federal regulatory bodies, and the leading

 9    Dominion regulatory bodies in Canada.  There is attached a
   i
10 |   specific list of cases in which I have testified, and
   ij
11  i  jurisdictions — some 33 cases during the last 4 years —

12 i[  on cost to capital and fair rate of return.  I might state
   I
13 i|  those have all been on behalf of the public utilities

14    involved except for one.  Last year I testified for the
    i
15    Attorney General of Illinois against Commonwealth Edison

16 I   in their rate case.

17              The second occasion or matter in which I am here

18    is as a concerned citizen.  It is my philosophy that if

19    we do not really know the possible damage to Lake Michigan

20    from thermal discharges, we should not permit such thermal

21 |   discharges.  That is a matter of philosophy and approach
   i

22    rather than a statement as a  scientist or as an engineer*

23              Now, I have prepared a very brief statement

24 i'1  which I am going to read and make certain additions to,

25    and I have also prepared a few pages of exhibits to which

-------
                                                             368
   i!
 1
                        J.  K.  Langum
     I should like to refer as I proceed through the statement.
     My statement, as you will note, is about the economic con-
 •  p  siderations regarding thermal discharge standards for Lake
   H
 ^ |j  Michigan for major electric utilities.
               Economic considerations should be no bar to
     effective actions by the appropriate regulatory authorities
 a
 9
10
11
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which substantially eliminate thermal discharge of heated
water into Lake Michigan by electric generating plants.
          The price of electricity has shown almost no net
increase or a very small net increase during the past
TO i   years of inflation in the  American economy.   In these  cir-
      cumstances it seems to me  it  would be inexcusable if
regulatory authorities and electric utilities failed to
set the price of electricity so as to cover the full costs
of its production, including adequate safeguards against
damaging impact on water, air, and land.
          Now, if I may refer to the first two pages of
the exhibit material, what is shown as page 1, and  up at
the top is listed Table 1, National Rated Average Bill
for Residential Service,  1935 to 1969.  These data  are
from  the Federal Power Commission and are copies from
their latest  report on this, the annual volume, typical
electric bills 1969.   (See pp.  369 -  336.)
           You will nofce the footnote or the  comment  at  the

-------
       369



I
O)
1
S

S
to
BILLS FOR RE
pvtatton and morel
VERAGE
8 of 2.500 po
P ^
K
1
t^
I


TABLE 1








a
•o
g

i




i
1
!
«
^
i
8
<
i
S





r:
|c
a
f
<




.f




IT
to
0>

11
o
,i
o>



:
















0
Si
g|
s*


s*
8-


^
Ojj


o-'S











toolt_^ltf,0 	 , 	
w'(ci^r-«Jd ! 1 ! 11 [| ! I I I I ! ! ! I I
M tO O> 00 00 O O iiiiiitiiiiiiiii
SSSSSSSSSSoggSSooc.SSSSS
5SS3S2SSSS25S5SSS333SS5

oSoooooSooonoaaaoA^AAoS
^om«e»>iii<

p ooooo^-^r^S^f-ooocjoSoSoont^
e>



en<-tegi-i>iii 	 i
K"'""""<
dSodddd = ddd=iddoodddoodm

irnnocMncauMnvmnexixc-M-Ovicotei-

:;:::;;;;;;:;:::;:;;;;;
• • • • 	
S o r. S o c. S c"^ ^ S o S S ^ c" ^" r~ c". ^ ,- 7 o S

" . . d 	 d ' ' ' e 	 <• ' ' c








•
X
V
bJO
a,
Ik
O^
vO
o
f-H

O
41

n)
O
• H

>~
H
c"
o
to
co
•|H
O
u
M
£
A
f*H
n)
M

d)
Source: I
512^5?
1»&VU
5i!-"32&
fici^:i
•r1-""^
B8l^3
jjc^

i-s
           o
           (M
           a

           
-------
                                                                                                     **X 370
                                                                                                           *><,.
N

 4)
 bO
 d
Pk
                          !!MP|1   *
                                      SM
                        t                I

-------
                                                                                                                                                 371
t)
t>0
      <; w
 to  bD
+>  rj
 U  .H
O
O
O

(M*
0 &
S
0
o
o
P;
o
ft
REVENUES
IGAN WATER
gg
o
H






i-i
n)
4->
O
H

/v>

NO
00
00





r?S
Operatii
Revenu
1970
o
o
o
Ik
PO
00
00

a
0
•i-<
-M
^ <*
3-2
2 -
H £
a,
n)
O


o
f-
o
r~i
f— 1
CO
to
0)
XI
a
4>
y
4)
P
N->
O
O
oo"
co
00
CO
cr-
PO



                                                !
                                               o
                                                o
                                                10
                                               ^
                                               w
                                               ,ri
                                               ^
                                                «)
                                                4)

                                                1
                                                              O  O O
                                                              o  o o
                                                              o  o o

                                                              co  in r^
                                         M in
                                         vO vO
                                                              •*  o o
                                                              vO  O O
                                                              -H  O O
                                                                A  •»   A
                                                              in  m r*-
                                                              oo  r~ so
                                                              r-  o^ vo
                                                                M  •   M
                                                              o^ po m
                                                              O^ \D xO
                                                              (\J  rH NO
                                                              in  o o
                                                              o  o o
                                                              PO  o o
                                                                »   •»   •»
                                                              PO  O^ rH
                                                              CO  pj PN!
                                                              o  co r^

                                                              -l
o
Z



><
s
s*
o
^
y
• H
J^
y
u

W
C!
rt
bO
.H
y
ii

c^
ri
PI
nl
3




^
s
tx
o
rj

IH
4>
o
ft
u
• H
.to
"y
0)
r-t
W

c
n)
u
In
4)
H


                                                                                    •<*•
                                                                                    o
                                                           in
                                                           o
                                                           m
                                                           00
                                                           o
                                                           NO
                                                           m
                                                           pj
                                                           oo
                                                             •k
                                                           PJ
                                                           PO
                                                           OO
                                                           NO
m  o  oo
O  O  'H
r-t  o  f-

CJ* O*  CO
vO  r-  •*
C—  i-H  •—I
  «   «k    *
co  in  r-
co  r-  o
PO
PO  o  o
f^  o  vO
•*  o  o
  •k   «t  •*
NO  rj«  co
•
o  o  m
i-t  O  CO
r-  o  o

••H  o  m
CO  (M  NO
PO  •—i  co

oo  co  m
NO  O  O
o^ co  co

                                                                              bO  4)
                                                                             •H  o
                                                                              d  4)
                                                                          y  «j to
                                                                          M  M  y
                                                                          *»  M -H
                                                                          o  S •"•
                                                                          w  ^ -Q

                                                                          W ft ft

                                                                          .3 J .S
                                                                          10  0)  (0
                                                                          a  d  a
                                                                          o  o  o
                                                                          y  y  y
                                                                          
-------
01
t£
-, O C
to -S o £





^
0
CO
0
O
O
55

t»3
o
o
u
I
K
W
H

^
55

c§
w §
5 s
H
< w
HM
*"•!
w <
So
W 55
g £/i
INVEST]
TILITIES U!
*— >

U
I-H
U
S
u
o
1
g

o



•O J-j c *••
§ w w | 3 ^ § 2 8 3 § p«
22 T> ^ S 2 55 2 °* ooo 2^-j
•M *d j
p CC
d t/
3 _£l
73 dp
g ^5
T3 _CO CO 2 T3*
10 8 '3 S 3 + ^ "*" ' ' 8
, > d ci d ft*.
w c3 W d K „:
T)
C
3 n
oi
CO g CO
Iff ^| ^i || *! ,,-§ |
£s"d a*3 .SfpiJgjH .S?^ .SfvitJiJ »9

•h
3










0
^J
d
t-i
O

^
0
u
CC
O
*a
•*• "^
t~ "2
W 2 rt
1-0

0
,£j
CO
•g
p
o
Q>
^1
ft
S bo -<
80 §
ft '-J3 c
d oj
"ha" < <;jj< j >>
•a 73 ^ <5555 •< <<55 S
C 3 S
s 
co TO
.P P
. 1
rg »-( CQ

s ^3 § s? 8
0)
Q
Senior
w« |«
* ^ E
•< P E
w d o d 5 ^
>,bO w 2 W drt , » §
Sdo£? ,. O>id C >>£
go .& ! E ! | S s g | o a "s e
Tj_^ *V •»- fl^^O^lti '^ QJ}^^* ^-^ 't ' ?N ^3 * ' '
^^ rr-< ^ |*^ C) TJ C LJj r-~^ " O *~ ' 3 *^
| C1 S co ^ S _o w U w g> WU(lHo&'t^2 « ~>
Soft g.Ha^lirtm 2ft C'tno'm-^'io-rt"'3^'^
0<«p S{ -3 p rt o o " cSs -^aSSSeS-OSc
» 6 3 o g||o|jJ-gS S§B g§§§.^8o0>.2w^
o

^
'C
3
O
^-4
L—
C5
7*
rt
C
"-s
o
.g
C
—
0
|u | 1 S< |u " ^ ^ ^ 1 |
HH « S fi XJ ^

-------





Illinois
Commonwealth







Edison Company
Indiana
^t*
IO
c-
>>
§
ex
a
Northern Indiana
Public Service Coi
0

o
o
W
o
0
'55
c
0
o
to
to
o
o
to
£


%
cj
1
o
U
^
(U
•f
&
                                                                                  si

                                                                                  II
                                                                                  a  ^
                                                                                  If.
                                                                                  8^
                                                                                  .2  *o
isconsin Public
                                              o
                                              s
                                              p

                                              I
                                              o
                                              u
                                              0)
                                              O
                                              '?
                                              14
                                              V
                                              1/1

-------
<  O
W
    w
                   ^>  cr>  in
               o  .=<  co  en
               t-
               en  co  •<*  CN
               rH  rH  CO  ««•
°2  CM  co  o
g*  oo  co  o

•"•  co  t-^  co
    rH  CO  CO
                           en
                           en
    co  CM
oo  co
CD   ...
en  ^  o  CM
•H  i-l  ^  CO-
    i-l  O
t-  en  t-
co   ..
en  •*  rH
    o  en
co  oo  oo
CD   .   .
en  "^  CM
rH  rH  -^
    Tj<  CO
in  co  oo
CD   .
en  Tji  CM
                   en
               2  CO'

               ^  I-H
                           CO
                           o>
                           CM
                           CO
                           CM
                           CO-
                           CM
                           CO
            CM
            CO-
    t-  OO  O
co  in  t~  CM
CD    ...
en  co  en  CM
rH  rH  CO  CO
                       1
                       C3
                         -
                    S  .2
                    O  13
                   o  w










































OS
c
t-J
e
*^
CO
co
rH

69
OO
CM
in
i-t
69
in
•*
in
rH
69
O
CM
CO
rH

CO
O
CO
rH

69
CD
co
in
rH

69
CD
in
«**
rH

in
rH
^
rH


Northern Indiana

^
CM
CO
co


00

t-
co

CO
0
co
CO
t~

00
co

o
en
t-
co


in
in
co
co

rH
in
in
co

o
t-
^fl
CO


Public Service

CM
rH
CM



in
co
rH
co-

in
t-
rH

O
C~
rH
co-

in
m
rH
CO


O

i-H
CO


CM
rH
&3*

o
rH
rH



Company

oo
o
t>
rH

69
in
en
e-
rH
69
CO
t-
co
rH
en
CD
t-
i-H

69
CD
en
co
rH

B9
rH
rH
C-
T-l

co
i-H
t-
rH

69
e-
co
•^
rH

a
Indiana & Michig;

in
CM
0
CO


CO

0
CO

en
CO
1— 1
co
en
in
rH
CO

en
en
o
co


CO
oo
o
CO

CD
en
o
CO

CO
CD
rH
CO

^
Electric Company

O
co
rH
CM
CO

£•-
in
CO
I-l

IN
O
in
rH
en
in
•^
rH
CO
en
o
in
rH
CO

£>v
in
CO
i-H
CO
CM
t-
co
rH
CO-

CM
rH
i-l
CO-



CD
rH
M*
rH

69
CM
en
•^
rH
69
CM
•^
in
rH
CO
t>
m
rH

fe9
in
en
in
rH


B«
CM
in
rH

69
i-i
en
Tt<
rH

6s?
CM
M<
^
rH

O
American Electri

CO
o
i-H
CO


rH
•*
rH
CO

^t*
rH
CO
co
I-l
o
^
CO

o
i-H
•^
co


(N
en
^
co

o

•*
co

co
t-
co
co


Power Company

0
CO
IN
CO


O

a
rt
co,
a
o
U

                                                                           in
                                                                           en
                                                                   rH O  CM
                                                                   rH CO  CO
                                                                                           cr>
                                                                                           t-
                                                                                  rH  00   IN
                                                                                  rH  CO   CO
                                                                   en TJH  o
                                                                   rH CO  CD
                                                                                           IN
                                                                                           CO
                                                                           c-
                                                                           OO
                                                                                           CM
                                                                                           CO
                                                                           IN
                                                                           CO
                                                                            oo
                                                                            in
                                                                           CM
                                                                           CO
                                                                  6?
                                                                   co  co  in
                                                                   CD  o  CM

                                                                  rH  CO  CM
                                                                  rH  ^J<  CO
en
en
                                                                                           i-l
                                                                                           CO
i-H  -^  O
CO  O  O
CM
en
                                                                                     en  m  CM
                                                                                         co  co
                       CM

                       CM ^   rH   rH
                       rH CO   CO  rH
co  cn
CO  (M
                               en
                               CM
         69
         en o  r-i
         rH CO  f-
                           i-H  O
                           CM  O
                                                                                                    CO  O  rH
                       CM en
                       rH CO
          co CM  o    oo  in
          Tl< -^  O    CO  CM
                                                                                     O  CO  CM
                                                                                     rH  -^  CO
          CO O CM    CM  O
          CD 00 O    in  CO
                                                                                                                          CO  rH
                                                                                                                CM  CD
                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                          in
                           CM  CM
                           in  o
          O CO CM    i-H rH  rH   CM
          rH -^ CO   rH ^f  CO  rH
                               C~
                               co
          t- rH  CD
          c- rf  en
                                                                                                                          co-
                                                                                     B9
                                                                                     CM  O  CO
                                                                                     rH  eft  t>
                                                                                                                  CD  cn
                                                                                                                  in  IN
                                        oo
                                        co
                           cn
                           co
6?          69
en co  in   co co
CD rH  in   in rH
                                                                                                                          CO  rH
                           CM  CD
                               CO
                                                                                                     en CM  rH
                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                  rH
     L-  CM
     rH  CO
i-l
tj
w
a
a
m
a
o
o
CO
*>
X
£4
o
o
to
'£.
^*

ompany
U
,
9
&
o


Power
£
CO
0
o
to
pj
c
rt
I"
O
U
s
tb
•r-4
HH

"2
ca
              in

              rH
              CO
CM
00
en
CO
co
tr-
co
o
(N
in
co
(M
rH
rH
CD
CO
en
rH
CO
   in  co
                                                                                                                                        co
                                                                                                                (N  CD   rH

                                                                                                                t-l  CO   CO
                                    CO
                                    CO
                                                                                                                                        CO
                                     CO C-
                                     rH CO
                                                                                                                z  s
                                                                                                                3  o
                                                                                                                 3  di
                                                                                                                &  S
                                                                                                                 a u
                                                                                                                'ra  O
                                                                                                                 O T1
                                                                                                                 o  •?
                                                                                                                y.  o
                                                                                                                > CO
                                    CO

                                    I—I
                                    CO
                                                          37A-

-------
                                                                  Page v
      To meet: the projected loads in  1990,  substantial amounts

 of generating capacity in addition to  that existing and under
*

 construction will need to be  installed in  the  Lake Michigan

 area.  Estimates made in connection  with updating the National

 Power Survey indicate that approximately 4,000 megawatts of

 new fossil fueled capacity and 20,000  megawatts of new nuclear

 capacity would be constructed on or  near Lake  Michigan.  Thus,

 by 1990 nearly 40,000 megawatts of steam-electric capacity

 could be located so as to use Lake Michigan, waters for cooling.

      Should the projected 24,000 megawatts of  thermal capacity

 not now existing or under construction be  required to have

 auxiliary cooling facilities  rather  than once-through systems,

   the ar'dxtionnl plcint costs  would be  an estimated $130 million,
        —^V^cZi-Ly.i/rsi'j' -/:• c'- //"•"--'
   using /.bout $10/kW  for nuclear ajid $7/kV,' for fossil plants.

   The added consumptive use of water would be  appro'-.ornately 300

   cubic feet per second.

        If all of the  15j000 megawatts  of capacity existing and

   under construction  required conversion from  once-through cooling

   to the use of auxi-liary cooling facilities,  the required 5.nvest-

   ment, exclusive of  sunk costs in constructed facilities, could

   be of the order of  $150 million, using somewhat higher unit

   costs than for new  plants.  This would not make allowance for

   the unavailability  of capacities during  convnrsion periods.

   The increase in consumptive use of water resulting from the

   alterations would be about  190 cubic feet per second.

Statement of Frederick II.  Warren,  Advisor  on Environmental Quality, Federal
Power Commission, for the Federal-Stale Enforcement Conference on Pollution
of Lake Michigan, September 28,  1970,  Chicago, Illinois

-------
                                                                                                                                    376
                                  CO
                                  c-
                                      n     oo
                                      CO     en
                                      CO     CO
CO

S
CO
rH
m
                                                                               CO

                                                                               CO
o
in
oo
o
in
oo
e-
to
|
PH
H
OT
          O
                        O
                        c-
                                  CM
                                  00

                                  Cn
                                      IO
                                      to
                                             00


                                             CO
          in
          o
       o
       CO
                        cxi
                         •
                        o
                                                                                            CSJ
       in
       CO
          o
          o
          o
          CO
                                                   t-
                                                     •
                                                   CO







CO
W
g
H
r— «
H
fr
r^
W
52
^H
B
U
f3
H
S
H*1
S3
o
U





P
>-\
H^

PJ
H
0
s

w
HrH
H
V ^
rH
0
CO
K
i — ,
H- '
H
r-i
R

W
PH
X
u
.•)
r-H
<
H
t— (
£V
r-M
Q
.J
H-^
<
IN RELATION TO TOT.


8
0
PC
o
PH
«
H
H
<
£
2
<
O
t—4
W
u
r-H
s
w ?
W S
< 7
•J o
o£
g •-!
TO
&
ro
W
HH
H
>•*
iJ
HH
H
r— v
t— '
MAJOR ELECTRIC

in
en •
to CM
e» co
rH •*
«fr


o.
00
tO rH
en 10
rH CO
-5 »
rH
^2
*— <
O
T3

*4H
O CO
t— •
w o en
£ en Tf
2 rH (M
S ^

§
'^' en
to
to en
en en
rH rH
<«-


ealth Edison Company
I
w 6 rt
•*-* a c
85 «
CO -rH
a U -0
i— i C
r- 1 *— (

in 0 rH
• • »
en to in
to T-H o
rH CXI



t- Tj< CO
cxi t^ oo
(O tO O
CXI




(M °° 00

T* OO o
£• co ^


o to o
cxi ci t-
to cxi 51
rH

>,
cd
Indiana Public Service Comp
Michigan Electric Company
s Power Company
a «3 o
1 § |l
±S rt .« in
1 ^ II
XH r-1 i^ { W
<5

CO W
. •
« ss
0 CO
i-H



CO »
® cS
^ CO
rH




Tj* °0
a •
o o>
0 -H
rH


to t-
t^ CO
W rH




Electric Power Company
Pow er and Light Company
•S -S
g 'in 'w
1 o §
o o o
Q U3 W
" £ %
&

t-
»
to
CO




CO
in
CO




0

•*
IN


O
•
•*
rH




Public Service Company
Wisconsin


to
•
t-
o
o
rH


O
•
N
O
O>




CO

t>
^f
to


CO
to
rH
in



struction expenditures
a
0
0
i— (
ni
.4->
0
H

















bfl
C
• rH
r— 1
o
O
o
r-l
l2
HH
P!
&
3
o
:i-(
ectric utilities using Lake M
"cj
r-l
•2,
'c?
k— *


O

3*
m
o
rH


O
rH
O
rH
C»



O

in
co
c-
c—


o
in
^
CO
to


tal expenditures
utility industry
Total capi
Electric



























ruction expenditures
•4->
tn
p:
o
o
r-H
rt
4->
o
£

eP
to
•
en



^9
o^
en
en



ErS
CO
•
CO
bO
't— i
o
o ^0
o eS
, rH
*H
£ CO
*H —
C
&>
3
u
:•-! (O
ectric utilities using Lake M
it of total capital expenditure;
utility industry
Major el
as percer
Electric '


-------
§0
&
     w
                                                                                                        377
     Z,
                                                                                                          •<*•
w
u
CO
W


CO § >-i
W $ K
§ .. CO
iL EXPENDITl
JISTRIBUTION
JTILITY INDU
70-1990
^* W , Ci
~ *y rt
< o 2
ii r i
— CO ^~*
W S tJ
£1W
W <
O H
s ^<
h«(
t-l


K
W
O




CO

-K>
"c
2" I ,00,0^^^0,00 w
I— r3 ooj^coi-it-^ooco co

^ cd ««- 1-1
i -
o -^
3 O
»— I r .
.pH L1
&








0
CO
_J
_! r-((MCO-^
» 8^"
O f— 4 r-<4
t^ W *•*
0^5
_, erf !>
o §•«
i! •§ °

c3 •*-» -*->
•*-* w o
Q Sg
"
to
o
3
c?

0 0
O O5
OJ Ol
1 1
OOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOC3 00 t-
ssssssssss s s

-------
373

O
F— 1

Q) •»
W> 2
a) u
Pi
^J
^

*
J O
A Z,
DM ^
w o
k wg
^ D rt
Ss°
W £J pj
w w w
§ffiX<
0 O W £
> D J 2
gg H o
(H P^ *T*
O i  °
£
o> >>
00 f-l
investment, 1971-1990, by electric utilities with
ke Michigan, per Mr. Warren, to provide auxilia
n once-through systems
In projected 24,000 megawatts of capacity
not now existing or under construction
d ri
'O M rfi
'3 u a)
4> L, nl
tf b M











^rr










In conversion of all of the 15,000 megawatts of
capacity now existing or under construction
Total required investment








f~"1 O
>£> O
O <-i
o ~-
*£>
II II
o o o o
o o o o
O 0 O 0
o* ^ o" o* o"
0^0 00
o o o o
o* o* 0*0"
o in oo in
CD \O CJ >*O
tO OO CO
00 ^* "^*
I <» "**"



to

g> 0] £ -H (fl
s .s H i f « 1?
to OU 4>f*d^^
fi> O^'H 'UmPr-i^
".j U Q) M «H .j /rt -.
capital expenditures, 1971-1990, by electric utili
ligan water for cooling
Total capital expenditures, 1971-1990,
electric utility industry in United States
Electric utilities using Lake Michigan water for
as percent of electric utility industry in Unit
Projected capital expenditures, 1971-1990, elect
using Lake Michigan water for cooling
investment, 1971-1990, per Mr. Warren, to pro\
ry cooling facilities rather than once-through sys
ing capacity on or near Lake Michigan, existing,
iction, and projected, as percent of estimated tot
ttures, 1971-1990, of electric utilities using Lake
or cooling
rl_j ••^ * • •*-' ^J -r^ t^^
.S, 
ft H! PC;

-------
                                                                                                     379
several wells have been drilled
in association with producing
companies. One of these is
producing commercial quantities
of oil.  In southern Louisiana,
six-wells have been drilled in
association with independent
producers. None of these was
productive. More  drilling is
planned for  1971.
   Meanwhile, Northern Michigan
Exploration Company  participated
in a group headed by Sun Oil
Company, which was  successful
bidder for 45,000 acres of
underwater leases in the Gulf of
Mexico, in a  recent Government
sale. Offshore exploratory  drilling
is to begin shortly off the
Louisiana coast.
   At present, it appears that it
may be several years before new
reserves of gas can be found,
developed, and made  available to
customers. Thus, the  shortage of
natural gas in Michigan is real,
and  may continue for  some time
4o come.
   In the electric  business, the
most frustrating difficulty has
been the Company's inability to
operate its Palisades  Nuclear
Plant, 35 miles west of
Kalamazoo.
   This very  important electric
generating station, with a
prospective output equal to nearly
20 percent of the Company's
total generating capacity, has been
ready for fuel loading  and  testing
for some months. But it cannot
be tested or begin generating
power, until the Company is
granted an operating license by
the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. This license has
been held up by intervention of
a few groups of environmentalists,
who  have succeeded in prolonging
the licensing process by public
hearings that have gone on
intermittently since June 23,
1970.
   These delays have been
particularly exasperating because
the plant was designed and built
to conform with every  applicable
safety  standard and regulation
of the  U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. Moreover, the plant
complies with every air and water
quality standard of the State of
 Michigan that is applicable to a
 facility at that site. The Michigan
 Public Service Commission has
 recommended that the plant
 be allowed to operate.
   In effect, the Company and its
 more than  one million electric
 customers have been caught in the
 middle of an argument between
the environmentalists on the one
 hand—who fear radiological
 dangers and possible harm to
 Lake Michigan from heated water
discharged by the plant—and the
 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
  While absence of the Palisades
plant has imposed a strain on the
Company's electric service,
fortunately it has been possible
to date to meet winter peak
demands of the Company's
electric customers with
supplementary power purchased
from other utilities.
  A critical period lies ahead.
 For the summer of 1971, the
 Company has arranged to pur-
 chase additional supplementary
 power to the extent that it is
obtainable, but it is not available in
 sufficient quantities to provide the
 desired level of reserves for forced
outages and planned maintenance
of electric generating facilities.
 Recognizing the crucial importance
of getting this plant on the line
at the earliest possible date, the
Company has  endeavored for
some time to have the
environmentalists withdraw their
opposition by offering to install
the facilities they requested.
These consist of cooling towers
designed to substantially eliminate
thermal,discharges to Lake
 Michigan and additional
equipment which is intended to
 result in an essentially zero
 release of radioactive materials in
 liquid discharges. Such facilities
are in addition to those required
 by law and will cost an estimated
 $15,000,000. They are expected
to result in  an additional annual
cost in excess of $3,000,000,
attributable to reduced thermal
efficiency of the plant, some
curtailment of generating
capability, and increased operating
 and maintenance expenses, as
well as fixed charges on the
 invested capital. We are hopeful
that such a settlement can be
reached with the environmentalists
in the near future and that the
Palisades Plant may be generating
power this summer and fully
operational by September.
  Meanwhile, intervention also is
delaying the issuance of a
construction permit for the
Company's proposed .nuclear
plant near Midland. Some local
residents and others, including
certain of the objectors in the
Palisades controversy, are seeking
to prevent the granting of a
construction permit for this plant.
Hearings were held briefly in
December, and are expected to
resume in the second quarter of
1971. Preliminary work on the
project  now has been shut down,
and work will not resume until a
construction permit is granted.
  On a happier note, construction
goes forward  on schedule at the
site of the 1.8 million kilowatt
Ludington Pumped Storage
Hydroelectric Plant. This facility
is being constructed jointly by
Consumers Power Company and
The Detroit Edison Company, and
is due for initial pumping in  late
1972, and for operation in 1973.
  Despite the difficulties recited
above, the management of the
Company is confident that
these obstacles will be overcome,
with the continued support and
efforts of its skilled and dedicated
employees. Moreover, it is
confident also that realistic rate
relief will be forthcoming  from
the  Michigan  Public Service
Commission in  1971, to give the
Company a firm base on which to
meet Michigan's expanding
demands for energy in the
years ahead.
Sincerely,
          /y
       A. H. Aymond
       Chairman ol the Board

  ^\&ffi&d//v.Ldfrt'i '2^'t^cA
/   /                  "        ^
IJ  James H. Campbell
^^^   President
February 15, 1971

-------
Statement of Income
TOR THE VEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1970 AND 1969
                                                                                                      Page  12
                                                                                                                     380
Consumers  Power Company
                                                                                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                                        1970
      OPERATING REVENUE (Note 5):
         Electric	     $334,904,154
         Gas	      273,873,680
         Steam	        1,211,671
                 Total operating revenue »


      OTHER INCOME:
         Interest charged to construction (Note 2)	       14,108,197
         Dividends from Michigan Gas Storage Company	        1,650,000
         Gain on reacquisition of long-term debt	        1,074,465
         Other	        1.124,807
                 Gross income	,	     $121,389,088


      ItJCC.V.E DEDUCTION:
         Interest'on loiv-iirm debt	     $ 4<,S1?,f'3',
         lht',rost on nut'.1; payable	        2,r/i;,';!
         Other	   .   .   .          7?.'^1
                 Tot?!  i..,'/(it; deduction:	     $••;...
                  Met iii;r_.:ie	     $ V2,v i... j


      DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED STOCK	     	3,516,422
                 Net income after dividends on preferred stock	     $69,315,187
                                           1969
                                       $307,999,678
                                        240,535,782
                                          1,239,386
                                       $549,774,846
                                       $  13.530,397
                                          59,091,019
                                        105.888,113
                                        ]C0.874,343
                                          26,121.267
                                          51.880,650
                                          37,058,195
                                          41,022,326
                                          '1.071,324
                                          10,932051
                                          ?'!15.U5
                                          8,421,485
                                          1,350,000
                                            768,802
                                            771,285
                                       $106,170,588
                                       ? 35.P5G.1CO
                                          3,534,500
                                         63,425,843
        .KWIS m; i;:r, , or cu;.;,.;<';; STOCK
          BASID ON A'.'.i/Gf SHAMS li>';'.',;'M1KX
             (23,'JCC.,7Ji  . ;;os in 1S//13.1 ,J ki,/tJ,SCO L'.I 'i > in 1'JGS) .    .
                                      The accompanyinc nolcs are an inlec^l part of this statement.

-------
              and  Gas
Operating Comparison  1970-1960
                                                                   Per Cenljncronr.e Or (Decrease) 1970
                                                                           Compared with
                                                               1970
1969
1960
1969
    electric revenue
      electee .u'os
(1,000 kilowatiliOvirs)
         peak load

 generating cv,;,,it>
         heat rate
  electric custMiers
  electric residential
         customer
         averages


       r.is ri. vue
      gas statistics
   (1,000 cubic feet)
         rr. '  ':'l
         f,;  .. T,
       usi:i ;   '. ' ;r
      twine i. • .VI1,"
1968
Residential 	 • . .
Commercial 	
Industrial 	
Interdepartmental and Other ....
Total Sales to Ultimate Consumers . .
Power Pool 	
Other Resale . . 	
Reserve for Possible Rate Refund . . .
Total Electric Sales Revenue. . .
Miscellaneous Electric Revenue . . .
Total Electric Revenue ....
Rp-Vmt.*!
Commercial 	
Ir.cljstiial 	
lnterdep3rlmeiTtal and Other ....
Total Sales to Ultimate Consumers .
Power Pool 	
Other Resale 	
Total Ebctric Soles 	
Kilowatts 	
Kil:.,3Us 	
Btu of Fuel per Net Kilowatthour Generated
En I or Period 	
Annual Kilowatthours Used
Revenue per Kilowatthour Used . . .
Annual Revenue 	
'. • • r Gas for Hi.r.j /rating
C - '-' r
!'!.' : .v! end Cornir,.'cijl 	
Inhi.':p3rtmental iTrj Other (1) '. . .
ResMva for Possible '(ate Refund . . .
Total Gas Sj!:-s F.j.'enje. . . .
M.scjibneous Gas P., venue ....
Total Gas Revo. no 	
Gas Sales
Residential
Usmg Gas for Home Heating . . .
Other 	
Industrial and Commercial ....
Interdepartmental and Other (1) ...
Resale 	
Total Gas Sales 	
Net to Storage 	
Unbilled, Lost and Company Use . . .
Total Gas Purchased and Produced .
ii." ) Cubic !c;t) 	
hi.' ;i' Period
: , -.' fncfaf i";f'yJ . .
A . j Annual .,.cf '.'-•"d .
A1.-. . : /uiiiiial ,r; ;:;:;, i'o ...
. $133,131,799
. 87,727,018
. 102,501,526
. 6,101,767
. $329,462,110
6 661 084
. (5,929,745)
. $330,193,449
. 4,710,705
. $334,904,154
S'J31,"-',0
4,027,215
8,073313
203,525
• V&:^M
555,183
10,'. i'J,u/7
. 3,448,345
3,530,C:S
10,120
1,002,142
6,222
2.24(1
$139.64

j B'-r V '•"
: 'Sll
o 1 ? -;,17
. ?27L :/;, -j'j
. 134,435,759
3,733,980
. 146,405,893
. 24,805,895
. ' 962,331
. 310,343,958
. 13,88G,516
9,765,675
. 334,003,149
. 2,0-OT
')j:>
111.??;
11.6
15.1
4.5
14.7
10.2
196

8.4
37.2
8.7
7.0
9.6
(5.9)
8.6
1.4
15.6
1.8
2.1
4.4
1.8
2.3
4.5
4.2
9.0
12?
8b
130
253.3
(42.6)
140
5.9
13.9
4.2
(6.6)
5.0
243.8
(51.7)
10.1
27.1
2.3
10.5
105
2.J
45
(C C!
- 77
73
74.7
117.5
36.2
108.2
88.8
125.3

86.0
126.3
86.5
85.1
138.2
88.6
63.1
96.1
126.4
96.9
83.8
56.8
2.7
23.9
49.5
(5.9)
41.1
187.r)
(40.2)
221.2
683.8
(72.0)
172.7
110.8
171.8
150.1
(54.4)
199.7
568.7
(74.6)
162.3
35.1
42.5
146.6
152.5
53.3
1105
C.O
15.0
22.2
$119,298,937
76,246,495
98,132,472
5,320,222
$298,998,126
5,567,956

$304,566,082
3,433,596
$307,999,678
551C^
3,673,703
8,578,3: J
191, 9:. 1
17,930,31?.
489,03!
1 8,4/9,3.'' >
3.377,275
3,411,CGS
9,941
1,057,735
5,954
$128.06

SOT/ li:.
93,716,;:;;
3,079,35=!
79S/.01
"" ihw:^
;:'-iO,53.../ :
129,060,276
3,997,083
139,497,140
7,214,920
1,992,394
281,761,813
10,937,194
9,548,264
302,247,271
3311 Mi
KU.bi.:
$203.?,'
$109,988,430
69,952,596
91,018,176
4,849,742
$275,808,9-14
2,504,458
4,912,924

$283,226,326
3,019,298
$286,245,624
5C.C
8,'ie;/.
1S5 •'.
16,77,'.'. ;
411.::

I7,6;j .
3,179,715
3,37i,C
9,804
1,031,51:
5,609
2.16ff
$121.18

6,31 '."

v':13v:: "
..i / - ,
120,256,312
4,215,239
125,896,455
482,506
3,620,014
254,470,535
6,204,577
12,648,538
273,323,651
l,fcv
1
If '
  (1) Includes Inlracompany sales of gas to the electric department lor use in Generating electricity in years 1970, 19C9. 19C8, 1905. 1962. 1961. nnd 1960.

-------
       Impact of Additional Annual Cost in Excess of $3, 000, 000 to be
     Incurred by Consumers Power Company in its Electric Operations
                                                                         36*2
Total electric revenues in 1970
$334,904,154
Increase in total electric revenue from
    1969 -1970
 $  26,904,476
Application for
    increase in electric rates now before the
        Michigan Public Service Commission
 $  28,500,000
Increase in cost of purchased and
    interchanged power from 1969 to 1970
 $  5,800,239
Increase in cost of fuel consumed in electric
    generation from 1969 to 1970
 $  11,848,517
Increase in interest on debt from
     1969 to 1970
 $   8,940,503
Estimated increase in monthly bill to average
    residential customer
about
or 8/10 of 1% increase

-------
                                      AJ.Tl'iWATK KK/.m 0? COOLIHG
  Costs (in Kxccr.s of fir.cje-7bro\if;h)_

  I. Capital Investment Costs
     a.  Pumps & recovery turbines
     b.  Basic Tower Units
     c.  Footings
     d.  Controls
     e.  Piping, Valves & Tanks
       ,  1) Backfitting Piping6
     f.  land Costs4
     e-
     h.  Earthwork'
Road & Track Work3
         ,3
     i.  Yard drainage, underground
           interference, & fence-
           work
     j.  Electrical
     k.  Contingencies
     1.  Top Charges
         Subtotal
 II. Operating &. Maintenance Costs8
     a.  Iocs of Capability
     b.  Increased fuel costs
     c.  Maintenance
         Subtotal
III. Total Cost (Capital Inv. &
                  Oper, & Haint.)
Dry K c c h rt1'7
Mills/
.03
.20
in b. above
.51
1.70
-
-
-
-
-
a,b,d,&e
3.23
k._ above
17.0
7.0
12.83
b_,_ above
19.83
.01
.03
-
-
-
-
-
above
.06

.33
.14
.25

.39
ft Cool inf. To
O.K. Co
Dollars
Included
150,000,000
3,300,000
1,750,000
29,200,000
23,230,000
•6,400,000
2,450,000
31,000,000
790,000
49,201,000
7,125,000
38,056,000
342,502,000
90,043,000
22,294,000
9,043,000
121,380,000
\'ers
. Studios2
S/KVf
in e.^ below
68.18
1.50
0.80
13.27
10.56
2.91
1.11
14.09
.36
22.36
3.24
17.30
155.68
40.93
10.13
4.11
55.17
Mills/
K v;:-; R

1.79
.04
.02
.35
.28
.03
.03
.37
.01
.59
.OS
.45
4.09
1.07
0.27
0.11
1.44
                                                  .72
463,882,000   230.85     5.54
                                   36,827,500    36.83
Notes; 1.  Estimates based on 1,000 rcw - fossil unit
       2.  Estimates based on 2,200 isw - nuclear unit  (Zion)
       3.  Earthwork includes iteras such as overburden removal, dev.'atering,  excavation for
           circulating water piping & tower footings, and compacted fill  for ro,-.cs & towers
       4.  Land cent estimated at £10,000/acre
       5.  Road & track v/ork includes relocation of existing roads, protection of  circula-
           ting v/aler pipin-; at rood crossings & alteration of track spur
       6.  Backfittjp.g piping includes uuch itens as modification  to existing service v/ater
           nystem, alteration of existing submerged circulating water  intake piping,  and new
           booster pumping stations
       7.  Cost breakdown reference - October 10, 1970, Letter-Bruce Tichenor,  Pacific Korlh-
           wcst Laboratory to 0. D. Butler, C.E.Co.
       8,  Costs ore listed in equivalent investment dollars.

-------
                                                                                      Page  it,
  Postr; (In Kxc.cr.n of Pmc-Throu^h)
  I.   Capital Investnent Costs

      a.  ConOcnsers £• Punps

      b.  Basic Tower Units

      c.  Footings

      a.  Piping & Valves

          1)  Backfitting piping5

          Earthwork4

                         .5
e.

f.
          Road & Trackvork^

          Yard drainage, under-
          ground interferences &
          fencing
      h.  Electrical

      i.  Continsencies

      },  Top-c}iargcs

          Subtotal

 II.  Operating & Maintenance Costs''

      a.  Loss of Capability

      b.  Increased fuel costs

      c,  Maintenance

          Subtotal


III.  Total Costs (Capital  Inv. &
                   Oper. £  Haint.)
  Notes;  1.
AW3HNAT): K™:S OP rom-ric


X *-**+•
Wet Krchnnif-il flrnft CooHr..-', Tovcrs
Case II
Interior Dent. Rorort
1-alls/
Dollars S/KW KV.'HK
1,410,000 1.41 .027
5,670,000 5.67 .072
Included in b._ above
Included in a._ above
-
-
.-
_
Included in a . fcb . above
Included in a.&b. above
Included in a.£b. above
5,060,000 5.08 .099
- _
462,000 0.46 .009
Included in b. above
462,000 0.46 .009'
5,542,000 5.54 .108
Lear unit - 82^ cap. fact. 33#
C.E.Co.
Dollars
Included in d_._
16,000,000
Included in b.
10,500,000
23,250,000
10,550,000
290,000
205,000
1,855,000
1,585,000
8,000,000
72,015,000
37,142,000
7,116,000
562,000
44,840,000
116,855,000
eff. " ~"
Studies2'
S/KW
below
7.27
above
4.77
10.56
4.70
0.15
0.09
0.84
0.72
3.64
32.73
16.9
3.25
0.26
20.4
55.12

6
Kills/
KW:'R

.191

.125
.277
.124
.005
.002
.022
.019
.096
.659
.445
.065
.007
.535
1.394

          2.  Based on  Zion  2200 r.v  nuclear  70^ cap.  factor 33^ eff.
          3.  Baclcfitti?if,  pipir.- includes  such iteiss  as r.odification to existing  service
              water syrten,  chr.n-ir.~ of  existing sutr.erced circulating water intake  piping,
              and new booster  pucj'ing stations
          4.  Earthwork includes such itcir.s  as overburden removal, dev/atcring,  excavation
              for cjrcul,-it:r..3  water  piping and tower  footings, and conpacted fill for road-
              ways and  towers
          5.  Iioc.d & trackwork includes  relocation of existing roads, protection  of  circula-
              ting water piping at ro:-_0  cror.sir.-n and railroad spur alterations

          6.  C.K.Co. ntidy  is based on  urc  of a hybrid rour.d Mechanical draft  tower with
              250' hyjrcrtolic  dicchar^o  r.taci: for plurr.c dispersal

          7.  Costs are listed in  equivalent investment dollars.

-------


r~
— ' i
0)
bO
n)
A .
i.u
S?
!
> &,-::
< ill
LU 111
X »:
H!::y:--:::
iv*-:*
£ z 11
£ 0 :S

*• t^\ IJ_1 ::•:••• ::
y 8 e n
> 0 00 IK;.:;:
2 LU ;:::••;:.:••:
r~) Ll_ r^ t'--y.-*
^ f^ LL. :.,.',::•:
** ^r v.^y •'••• ' '•' '•*
^» N^' :•' :• • -.-.
L^M :•:•:':":•. :-:
0 0 p?
O UJ *:•::.:•:
U. i: •: V:;
LL. WH
LU ii:i:x:-:ii


J 	

t _
1 T Lul
D: Sow
> fe°™ <
0 ^S=ffl 1


CO

Jss!v*o$
^ sS-i N
|;r^
^ -,^
















<",'

rJr
f rr
















cn
u.
b
j>-
ih-
^ ijj
^ =5




;
;










































OJ
N
d
•CO-
N^'-XCx
$S:>
^:<;
V ^ V
















SV"
^ '^
	
"" ".
















CC.
U.
5
G
H-
£















































f^__
1^*
CD
d
••
§F^5
w^
^$f
•t-x-^ -.•
^tf
-















<">
V'"" '
_V1
*-r^


: •















C
2
o
CL
^
















'•t
V)'
».v
'"".
















Q-
U.
^
c
J1-
o: >
j Q-
r r


^
j
1
1
i

I
^ 	



































f
\
b-
)
4
D o
JLJC
-•1 D
5?S
n,>
—J C
D.—
1-
z c/









. J . .






fj"
'•>'" .
..^''
• • " •
















D:
ii
c
t-
5-
.Q
•^c:
^0?
D
**
j
"X
1
3
^



__ O

^
-,- ,/• Q)
i.; PH o
Z «> » "^
O -H p >
;; ^ -to (H
•^ C -P " 3
— 00"^ owrtco ^
•- JS O r -r{
fH -U '• 'O ti
_i tu ^ -c( r' r!
_) G ••-! 0) US Q)
03 HJ •- ta u) 'u
, , M H (\i '(J O
y y t\} p. o -H
o: o -M 4 o ^
H O OJ O 0)
— CO ^ r-l ^l rO . p<
^ UJ ,,j £j ; Vf
.-{ ---H f ; S» O .C
LL) +j r.: 5< -P
, ri o :J w 5.^
-7 "- " •-> i < r
<£ ".-•-••. ~.
~— r*-i uj t~
. *- ' ^ ' (^
\- -H •)-> £ 0 |
2 Q t\) •,-( O CM
UJ C) ,t1 rH
C^ t J 4-J rr ( f /-<
L— ' /H T U O
(O i rH 0> fa
— N UJ G) G) 3 (0 O
C fi 05 CJ Oj  "' J< r-l
O O S ( '(if O rH
d P p r: r; -H
CC f"! cJ -M ,r>
UJ (D •£(
S W | ft j:I rH
^ oi 6) 3 -M r5
d) ,Cl CJ *H
— cvi f-i -p •:: ;i -P
0 f T'f 0 ^
p; n K o -
•H p id O t) •
r\( r 1 -P -H
p Pi ;j w co .-
c: O rJ >
'C3 --H O rj rH
r-. ,0 wi .,-1 ,C C
--1 0) C) P P I-
,C >> f5 ^' C
: -P r-l - 0 0 r-
! ^ w -e n
| CO -P -rt -H
o s: 
-------
                                                                  18
        Evaluation of Impact of Additional Annual Cost of $18, 930, 510 from
        Installation of Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling  Towers which would be
        _ Incurred by Commonwealth Edison Company _
Total electric revenue in 1970                            $886,992,000
Increase in total electric revenue from
    1969 to 1970                                          $ 85,843,000
Request for increase in electric rates
    now before Illinois Commerce
    Commission                                         $ 95,000,000
Increase in cost of fuel consumed in
    electric generation from 1969 to 1970                 $ 41,470,000
Increase in interest on debt and preferred
    stock dividends from 1969 to  1970                     $ 26, 818, 000
Estimated increase in monthly bill to average
     residential customer

-------
                                                              387

   [

• 1                            J. K. Langum


.2     bottom as by Moody*s Investors Service, as to why these
   i
 3     comparisons of the  Federal Power Commission rather than


 4     revenues per kilowatt hour  are proper measurements of
   ii
 5 ij   cost  of electric  service to residential consumers,

 A !             If you  look in the heading "Average bill" and
   !i

 7 I   let us say under  500 kilowatt hours, the figure way back in


 g     January 1940 shows $10.55; in 1950, $10.11; in I960, $10.62;


 9  j   and on January 1, 1969, $10.32.
    I
10  |            Now, in the last 2 years, there has been increase
    i
    i
11     in these bills.   But over the years, this  of course  is


12     a most remarkable phenomena because this is in contrast to


13     the rise in the  consumer price index from 1940 to January


14     1971  of  some 2#5  percent, and this record of virtually no

15     price increase for electricity to  residential consumers


16     until the impact  of the last year  or two is a remarkable

17     tribute  to the managements of the  public utility industry


lg     and  the  benefits of greatly improved technology and  science.
   i
   i
19 i            Now, page two is a  chart.  The figures are somewha^
   11
20 i   out  of date.   They show percentage changes, 1964 to  1969,

21     but  they make  a  point  that is  still valid*  The bar  at the
   i
22 |i   left is the  electrical bill,  and you  can  see what has hap-


23 !j   pened to other service prices.
    i
24  |             Now,  to go on,  I would like  to make just a bit
    i

25     of a  comment  on the electric  utilities that are involved

-------
                                                              388
   i!
 1 J                           J. K. -Langum



 2    here.  The major electric utilities located along Lake



 3    Michigan — and I must say that some of these are my



 4    clients and anything I say is my opinion and not necessarily



 5    their opinion in any manner — these major electric utilities



 6    located along Lake Michigan are among the largest and most



 7    successful business enterprises in the American economy,




 $    with high investment stature in the credit and capital



 9    markets.  There  is every reason to believe in the future,



10    as has generally been the case in the past, strict but fair



11    regulation by the State public utility commissions in the



12    four States — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin



      — represented at this Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference*



                Fair rates of return which cover costs of debt



15    and preferred stock and provide adequate earnings rates on



16    common equity permit the electric utilities on or near Lake



17    Michigan to attract large amounts of capital on a continuing



      basis.  The added capital investment necessary to stop any



19    damaging thermal discharge into Lake Michigan is  simply



20    insignificant when appraised in the framework of  total



21 '   construction expenditures and  capital  investment  of these



22    electric utilities on or near  Lake Michigan,



23               In this  connection,  may I refer  to page 3 of



24    the  exhibit material  (See p. 371).  Page 3 is simply  a



25    quick  statement  of size  in terms of capitalization, total

-------
                              J. K. Langum



      operating revenues, total electric operating revenues, at



      the end of 1970, or for the calendar year 1970, of these
 j' I!
   I j

 i  !|   major privately owned electric utilities represented,


   II
 5 !i             Page 4 (See p, 372) is a statement of the invest-



      ment stature of these major electric utilities using Lake
 7
 8
10
11
13
14
15

16


17

I* i
19
20
21
22
23



24



25
Michigan water for cooling,



          I have shown at the left Moody's rating and



Standard and Poor's rating of the senior debt,  I have shown



Standard and Poor's quality rating of their preferred stock



and I have shown the Moody's quality rating and the Standard



and Poor's earnings and dividend ranking on their common



stock and the number of years in which dividend and common



stock have been paid  without interruption.



          Commonwealth Edison, Consumers Power Company —



top-notch, the highest rating in every category.  The other



companies not quite as high but almost, with high and very



high investment stature.



          Now, page 5 (See p. 373) refers to another matter.



This is a measure of the overall earning capacity of these



businesses.  Page 5 shows the ratio of income available for



capital to average total capital for the years 1963 to 1970,



This is the ratio of interest for total debt, preferred stock



dividends, and balance in net income for common equity  to



average total capital, including total debt, preferred stock,

-------
   	390

   j
 1                           J. K. Langum

 2   and total  common equity.

 3              You will notice the very remarkable record of

 l^   earning  power, pressures in recent years; rates of return

 5   in Illinois and Indiana are somewhat higher than for Michigan

 6   and Wisconsin, and they should be, because Illinois and

 7   Indiana  are fair value jurisdictions.

 g              The next page, page 6  (See p.  374) is earnings

 9   and common equity, rate of return on common equity,

10   common equity ratio, and earnings per share, major electric

11   utilities  using Lake Michigan water for  cooling.

12              On the top line for each company, I have shown

13   the rate of return on common equity.  Just below it is the

14   common equity ratio which must be considered side by side

15   with the rate of return on common equity, and then earnings

16   per share. Over the years, the  utilities have had remark-

17   able growth in earnings per share.  Yet  by the same token

l£   we can see pressures emerging — an occasion for rate

19   increases, a flat behavior, for  example, of earnings per

20   share for  Commonwealth Edison, 1967 to 1970, and a some-

21   what similar record for some of  the other companies.  These

22   are top-notch business enterprises, large, highly successful.

23              Now, in terms of financing, expenditures, for

24   alleviating the problem of thermal discharge, on page 7


2 5    (See p.  375) of my exhibit, I have quoted — I have

-------
 1
 2 I
 3 '!|'
 6


 7


 3


 9


10


11


12 ;
   i

13 |


14 !
   i

15 I


16


17 |


IB I


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
	391



                        J, K« Langum


 shown —  copied out  from the statement of Mr* Warren from


 the Federal  Power  Commission, which I believe was reaffirmed


 by the gentleman appearing yesterday for the Federal Power


 Commission —  in this Mr. Warren gave an estimate of


 estimated plant costs and required investments  for  converting


 existing  capacity  and that under construction and projected


 capacity  not yet under  construction to auxiliary cooling


 facilities rather  than  once-through systems, and the sum


 of the two figures that you  see is $130 million plus $150


 million or $2SO million.


           May  I appraise that  in terms of  the  size  of  these


 companies?  Page  8 (See p.  3?6) shows  construction  expendi-


 tures in four  of  these  enterprises, major  electric  utilities


 using Lake Michigan water  for cooling.   These  are the  actual


 construction expenditures  year-by-year in the  last  5 years


 and the 5-year total.


           For Commonwealth Edison, in the 5 years  ahead,


 the present plan is an additional $2.5 billion capital


 expenditures which will require Commonwealth Edison to


 attract an additional $2 billion outside capital}   for


 Consumers Power Company,  $2 billion estimated capital


 expenditures over the next 5 years, which billion and a


 half will have to be raised externally.


           Now, there is a pattern to this*  You see down

-------
   	392
   ,i
   ij
 1 !i                           J. K, Langum
   ij
 2 |i   below the ratio.  Year-by-year these are running at about
   , \
 o ji   9 percent — up above, a little below — on an average
 -' ]

 ^    exactly 9 percent for these several years0

 c i             On page 9  (See p. 377), I have made there an
   ij

 5 ji   estimate based upon  the last  survey of the "Electrical
   ii
 7 !i   World," and recent estimates  by the Federal Power Commission

 g !   of total capital expenditures in the whole electric utility


      industry in the two  decades ahead*

                The Federal Power Commission, for example,  for

      the  decade 1971-19^0 is estimating $1&0 billion, and  the

12 '   Chairman of the Federal Power Commission has  estimated  that

13    in 1990, in present  prices, not allowing for  further

14    inflation, total capital  expenditures of the  entire industry


15 l!   will be  some  $40 billion.
   i
16 ||             Now, on page 10  (See p. 37S), I have  started  off

   j
17 |   with the required investments over the two decades per

lg    Mr.  Warren.   I then  projected capital expenditures for  the

19 |   two  decades for these major electric utilities  using  Lake

20    Michigan water for  cooling.

2i              If  for the two  decades, total capital expenditures
   ,i
22 |   for  the  entire industry in the Nation should  be $4#5  billion

23    and  if the  share of  that  continues the  same for the  electric
   i
   i
24 |   utilities using Lake Michigan water  for cooling as a  percent


25     of electrical utility  industry  in the Nation  — 9 percent —

-------
     	393
                              J» K. Langum
 2 i   then in the two decades ahead, the projected capital
   |
 3 !   expenditure, 1971 to 1990, of the electric utilities using
   |J
 4 ![   Lake Michigan water for cooling would be some $43*650,000,000
 5
 6
 7
 3
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the ratio of the required investment over the two decades,,
$280 million, to the ^43,650,000,000 is 0.6 of 1 percent.
          My conclusion in my prepared statement on this
matter is simply this:  that the required investment neces-
sary to install or build auxiliary cooling facilities as
against once-through cooling with thermal discharge of
heated water in electric utility plants now in existence,
in plants under construction, in plants now planned, and
plants projected to meet needs for electric energy over the
next two decades would amount to about $2#0 million.  This
added capital investment necessary to prevent thermal pollu-
tion comes to about 0,6 of 1 percent of total capital
                                                            i
expenditures, $43,650,000,000 estimated at current prices  for
                                                            I
the years 1971 through 1990 for these major electric
utilities on Lake Michigan,
          Now, Consumers Power Company and intervenors
announced on March 16, 1971, a settlement of the dispute
over the Palisades nuclear powerplant on Lake Michigan,
I think that both the intervenors and Consumers Power
Company merit the congratulations upon the agreement and
the major step, in my opinion, toward the public good, and

-------
    	394
   [

 1 I                           J, K, Langum

 2    a tribute to both the intervenors and Consumers Power


 o    Company as a private enterprise.

 • _              The intervenors described the company program as
   i

 c    a major advance toward protection of the environment through

      utilization of the latest and best technology.  Consumers

      Power Company will proceed with a program to install and

      operate cooling  towers designed to substantially eliminate


      thermal discharges into Lake Michigan and an essentially

      zero radioactive liquid release system at the Palisades plan'i,

11    The company stated:  "Such facilities are in addition to

12 I   those required by law and will cost an estimated $15 million
   ll
13    They are  expected to result  in an additional annual cost in

      excess of $3 million, attributable to reduced thermal

      efficiency of the plant,  some curtailment of generating

      capability, and increased operating and maintenance

17    expenses,  as well as fixed charges on the invested capital,"

                 The additional  revenues in excess of  $3 million

19    to  cover  this additional  annual cost would be less than 1
    i
20    percent of the  company's  total  electric revenues in 1970,


21    They would increase the monthly electric bill of the

22    average residential customer, in my judgment, by 10  cents


23    or  less,  a percentage  increase  of about 0,7 of  1 percent,

24 J             Now,  if I might turn  in the  exhibit material to


25     what is page 11, without  a  page number on it  (See p.  379)i

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 	395
ii
                           J. K. Langtun
   it is headed "Consumers Power Company Annual Report 1970,H
   This is a page from the annual report which contains the
   comment of the company about the possibility, at that time,
   of the agreement and the material which I just quoted.
   I
 6 I!   You will notice this is a plant with 710,000 kilowatts of
      generating  capacity.  The capital cost, $15 million for
      the added facilities, or some $21.13 per kilowatt.
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
             Page 12  (See p. 3SO) shows the income statement
    of  Consumers Power Company from their annual report, and
    which  is the basis for my statement that the additional
    revenues needed to cover these additional costs — some
    $3  million — are  less than 1 percent of the total electric
    revenues of the company.
             And page 13 (See p. 3&U is some detail about
    the electric business of Consumers Power Company including
    certain data which I shall now proceed to use in connection
    with the data on the previous page in analyzing this.
             Page 14  (See p. 3#2) is an attempt to put this
    matter into context in terms of the company.  The impact
    of  the additional  annual cost in excess of $3 million to
    be  incurred by Consumers Power Company in its electric
    operation because  of the agreement.  Total electric revenues
    of  the company in  1970 just about $335 million.  The increas
    in  total electric  revenue from one year to another, 19&9 to

-------
     	396
   jl                             '	
   j!
 1 !                           J» K« Langum

 2 j   1970, $26,904,476.

 3              Consumers Power Company now has an application
   !
 4 i   for an increase in electric rates before the Michigan Public

 5    Service Commission, $23,500,000 on an annual basis.  Consumers
   I
 6    Power Company is incurring additional costs all of the time,

 7    The increase in cost to purchase an interchange power one

 3    year to another, $5,300,000.  The increase in cost of fuel

 9    consumed in electric generation of 1969 to 1970, $11,300,000,

10    The increase aniinterest on debt from 1969 to 1970,

11 I   $3,900,000.
   !
12 I             Now, the $3 million additional cost and additional
•*•  11                *
13 |   revenues is another cost.  It presses on earnings but in
   i
14 i   terms of the framework of the company, you can see it is
   ii
15 ji   something which it will take in stride,
   i
16 !             And at the bottom of the page, I estimate that
   i
17 !   the increase in the monthly bill to the average residential

13    customer will be about 10 cents or about 0,7 — not 0,3 —
   I
19 I   0.7 of 1 percent increase.
   j
20              Now, then, in conclusion, if I may make  some

21    comments about Commonwealth  Edison Company, estimates have

22 !   been made by Commonwealth Edison Company as to the cost of
   j
23    cooling facilities at its Zion Units 1 and 2.  The data on

24    that are shown last in the exhibits.  Page 15  (See p. 333)

25    is a copy of what  I understand to be the revised estimates

-------
   	397
   |j
   i1
 tl !'                           J. K* Langum
   i i
 2 ;    of Consumers Power on dry mechanical draft cooling towers*
 «  i

 o ;    But what  is relevant here really is page 16 (See p* 3#4)»

 ^ j|    as I understand it, on  so-called wet mechanical draft cool-

 c jj    ing towers, and the estimates at the righthand  side of the

       page by Commonwealth Edison Company on the bottom line.

                 The Commonwealth Edison's estimate in terms of

       total  costs — that is  capital  costs or investment costs,

 o j    because apparently the  operating and maintenance costs

       have been stated  and listed in  the equivalent invested


       dollars -- they show $116,355,000 of

12 |    cost,  of  such capital investment and capitalized operating

       and maintenance cost, and $53*12 per kilowatt of capacity


       and 1«,394 mills per kilowatt hour*  Those figures, when

15     translated out per Commonwealth Edison into the effect on

       the average residential customer are shown next on the

17     exhibit.

                 This set of bar charts is the revised study, as

19     I understand it,  of Commonwealth Edison Company, which

20     shows  that for the mechanical draft wet tower there would

       be an  increase of 6# cents per  month on the average resi-

22     dential customer's bill, and that would be in relation to


23     the $11,44 present average monthly bill.

24               Now, on page  IB (See  p. 3#6), I have made an

25     attempt,  again, to put  this into some context as I did for

-------
                                                              393
 1                            J« K, Langum
 2    Consumers Power Company,  Here is an evaluation, as best I
 3    could, on the basis of the work paper material which was
      available to me, an evaluation of the impact of the addi-
      tional annual cost of $13,930,510 from the installation of
      wet mechanical draft cooling towers  which would be incurred
      by Commonwealth Edison if they were installed.  The total
      electric revenue of the company in 1970, $336,992,000,
                The $13 million annual cost — the annual cost
10    would be, of course, a slight percentage of that, slightly
11    more  than 2 percent.  The increase in total electric
12    revenue from 1969 to 1970, $35 million.
                Commonwealth Edison now has a request for an
      increase in electric rates before the Illinois Commerce
15    Commission of $95 million.   Commonwealth Edison, like every
      other electric utility and every business, is in a hard
17    race  between  sales and expenses.  Here are a couple of
      increases in  expenses involved.  Cost of fuel consumed up
19    $41 million last year.  Increase and interest in debt and
20    preferred  stock  dividends, 1969 to 1970, $26 million,
2i    Against that  context, an  additional cost of $13 million
22     is an added  cost of  significance.  On the other hand, it
23     is the kind  of  cost  that  can be met and taken in stride
24     by the company with  proper regulatory action,
25               It  is  my  estimate  that using  Commonwealth

-------
      	399


 i i|                           J. K, Langum
   ii
   ii
 2. i   Edison*s figures, but translating them out in proper fashion,

 3 j   in my form, as I see it, that the estimated increase in the

 4    monthly bill to the average residential customer using

 5    Commonwealth Edison's total cost figures would be about 25

 6 j   cents or less than a 2 percent increase*

 7 j             I have two objections to the Commonwealth Edison's

   I
 g    cost estimates.  Sixty-eight cents per month increment

 9    instead of the 25 cents which I am here showing and which

10    I think would be more accurate than 10 or 15 cents ~ the

11    first objection I have is simply a suspicion, but if you

12    refer to page 16 (See p. 3#4) of my exhibit material, the

13    bottom line, the second from the right, Commonwealth

14 I   Edison is using a figure of $53.12 capital investment in

15    total per kilowatt of capacity,

16              Now, by comparison,, the corresponding figure for

17    Consumers Power Company and what they are going to do at

lg    Palisades is $21, and the figure apparently mentioned by

19    the Federal Power Commission gentleman, Mr, Warren, some-

20    where above $10,

21              I am not an engineer and I am not in a position

22    to testify as to the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the

23    $53,12, but when I find this degree of difference without

24    a  satisfactory explanation to my opinion, that is, I am

25    suspicious and I will drop it there.

-------
                                                              400





                              J. K. Langum



                Now, the second point of difference between me



 o     and Commonwealth Edison on this matter of cost is not a



 •  !   matter of suspicion.  On this matter, I think they are wrong



 c     Commonwealth Edison Company — to go back to the bottom of



      page 3 (See p, 371) in my prepared statement, has estimated



      again that for mechanical draft cooling tower, Commonwealth



      Edison Company estimates a total capital cost including



      operating and maintenance costs listed in equivalent invest-



      ment dollars at $116,855jOOO, with additional annual costs



      — annual costs — and necessary increases in electric



      revenues on this account of $13,930,510,



                Now, by applying the entire burden of these



      added costs to residential customers — in other words,



      at $13,930,000 — that has all been applied in the 68 cent



      figure to simply the residential customers, which account



27    for about 38 percent of the company's electric revenues.



      Commonwealth Edison estimated an increase of 68 cents



30    per month to the average residential customer or about a



2Q.    6 percent increase,,  For other cooling devices, percentage



      increases of 25 percent or more are estimated,



22              Now, I think this approach is fallacious in com-



23    putation and I think it is incorrect as a matter of



      economics.  Using Commonwealth Edison1s total cost estimates



25    but applying them proportionately to 1970 electric sales to

-------
                                                              401



                                 J. K« Langum

 o    residential  customers as compared with total electric sales

 •3    and  giving consideration to the larger energy production in


 4 !   the  Commonwealth Edison system after the Zion units are in
   I
   i
 5 i   operation, the added cost per month to the average resi-


 5    dential  customer appears to be more like 25 cents or a


 7    percentage increase of less than 2 percent.

 g |             More than that, if instead of the $53*10 cost


 9    per  kilowatt of capacity, due to the cooling towers which


10    Commonwealth Edison has used, if we happen to use on that

11    the  figure for Consumers Power Company in the Palisades

   11
12 jj   installation of cooling towers, namely $21, then this

   i
13    estimate of  added  cost to the customer — residential


14     customer per month would not be 25  cents, it would be a

15    little over  10  cents a month; somewhere between 10 and 15

   '!
16 i    cents or slightly  more than 1 percent,

17               Now,  Commonwealth Edison  Company has  been in


lg    and  will be  in rate  cases and in  such matters they are,

19     of course — relate  the  expected  increase in revenue

20     percentage-wise not  to residential  revenues but, of course,


21     to total revenues.  The  prospectus  page &  (See  p. 376)

22     from the January  7,  1971 prospectus of Commonwealth Edison


23     notes, for example,  the  rate  increases they received  last


24     year which would  provide added  revenues  of about  $36


25     million a year related to  total  electric  revenues.  If

-------
                                                             402





 1                              J» K,  Languia



 2    related to the average residential customer,  it would be a



 3    wholly different thing.  That rate increase of $36 million



 •     was 4,3 percent of total revenues of the company; if related



 c    only to residential revenues it would have been 11,36 percent



      Now, we should also note by the way in that rate business,




      that the Illinois Commerce Commission, in addition to their



      finding of a fair rate of return on a fair value rate base



 o,    and the increased revenue rate,  made 50 percent of the



10    authorized rate increase conditional and contingent upon the



11    company's fulfilling a program of prescribed air and water



12    quality measures described and listed specifically in the



13    Commission's orders, and one of those points was ",», Build-



      ing a suitable intake and discharge system with suitable



      cooling facilities at Zion by October 31, 1971."



                Now, Commonwealth Edison once again is going before



17    the Commerce Commission for a rate increase of $95 million,



      and frankly they need a good big rate increase.  They are



      describing that in their current annual report and in their



20    literature to the^public as an increase of about 10,4



      percent, which it is.  That is the way to look at these



22    things. But if that were related to residential revenues,



23    the increase would be about 28 percent, and I hesitate to



24    say,  and I will not say, what the combination of the rate



25    increase last year or the 1,000 asked for would amount to

-------
                                                           403

 -i                             J. K. Langum
* J"
 2    if it were all related to the average monthly bill of the
 •5    average residential customer.
                That figure is shocking, and I will not give it
      because it would be misleading and a serious disservice to
      the company and its customers.  But, by the same token, in
      my opinion, the revenue estimates and cost estimates on
      cooling towers at Zion presented by Commonwealth Edison
 9    Company not only to this Conference but to the Illinois
10    Pollution Control Board, to their advisory group of
      scientists and the public, in my opinion, those figures
12    likewise are in error.
                Thank you.
                MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much, Dr. Langum.
                Are there any comments or questions?
16              Mr. Dumelle.
17              MR. DUMELLE:  Dr. Langum, in that bar chart that
      you included in your statement, near the end, the 66-cent
19    bar chart —
20              DR. LANGUM:  Yes, sir.
21              MR. DUMELLE:  — which is Edison's chart — they
22    have  a  footnote which says that these charges have been
23    figured on the basis that you have been discussing, the
24    increase  in the residential  customer, plus the increase that
25    commercial industrial railroads, and so forth, would  incur

-------
   	404

 1                            J. K. Langum
 2    and would in turn be passed on to the residential customers
 3    in increased costs of goods and services.
 4              Have you evaluated that portion of it,  and do you
 5    have the company's method of computation of that?  It seems
 6    to me that if that footnote is correct, that we are really
 7    not talking the same thing and they are presenting it on
 $    one basis and you are presenting it on another and I would
 9    be interested in your comments.
10              DR. LANGUM:  Yes, I have attempted to evaluate
11    that in terms of the economics of it overall it is wrong,
12    and in terms of the practical looking at revenues, it is
13    wrong.  The residential customer pays his revenues, and the
14    railroads and the industries and the commercial enterprises
15    pay their costs, and to the extent that they can pass them
16    on, that is their business, and their problem.  But it is
17    not a matter inherently in the residential bill of Common-
18    wealth Edison or any other electric utility.
19              Now, specifically the way that 68 cents is
20    computed is precisely, as I understand it, what I have
21    criticized.  The Commonwealth Edison shows a total cost
22    for the installation of the  cooling towers of $116,855,000.
23    Now, that is total  capital cost.  We have to take a figure
24    times that — 16.2  percent,  I believe we have used —• and
25    I have no quarrel witih that  figure for fixed charges and

-------
                                                              405



 I                            J. K.  Langum


 2    taxes, depreciation — that would give $18,930,510 as
 »

 3    the estimated annual cost from the installation of the


 4    proposed cooling towers.  That $18,930,510 I use in different


 5    comparisons, as you will recall„


 5              Now, then, if that figure of $18,930,510 added


 7    cost per year is divided by 3,307,685, the number of


 3    residential customers of Commonwealth Edison, we get $8.20


 9    per year added cost, and then if we divide $8.20 by 12, we


10    get exactly 68 cents per month, and specifically that is


11    relating all of the additional annual cost to the residen-


12    tial customers of Commonwealth Edison Company, and then


13    comparing that with the $11.44 average monthly bill in the


14    12 months ending June 30, 1970,


15              MR. DUMELLE:  I would just hope that Edison,


16    if they do  speak, would discuss this point.


17              MR. STEIN:  Yes.


lg              MR. MILLER:  Mr. Chairman, I have a point of


19    clarification of Dr. Langum.  In a number of these tables you


20    have major  electric utilities using Lake Michigan water for


21    cooling, and  in these you show American Electric Power


22    in Indiana  — now, we have a number of American Electric


23    Power Company  plants in  Indiana, but to my knowledge none


24    of them are using  Lake  Michigan water for cooling.


25              Could you tell  me where  this plant would be?

-------
   	406





 X                            J. K. Langum



 2              DR. LANGUM:  Yes.  I have shown American Electric



 3    Power Company in my financial comparison because it is the



 ^    parent holding company of Indiana and Michigan Electric



 5    Company.



 6              However, on the specific matters relating to,



 7    say, an appraisal of capital expenditures, for example,



 g    on page 8 (See p. 376), I have shown only the figures, of



 9    course, and only those are relevant, namely for Indiana



10    and Michigan Electric Company.



11              MR, MILLER:  Indiana and Michigan Electric Company



12    has no plants in Indiana using Lake Michigan water for



13    cooling.



14 |             DR. LANGUM:  Well, it was my understanding — I



15    do not have the details here — that the American Electric



16    Power Company definitely has a proposed — has a plant



17    under construction along Lake Michigan which would use the



IB    lake for cooling.



19              MR. MILLER:  This is correct, but it is not in



20    Indiana.



21              DR. LANGUM:  Not in Indiana.  Well, my analysis



22    of this, you know, on page 8  (See p. 376), and how I used



23    it on page  10  (See p. 373), was not directly relevant to




24    the  State of Indiana, but  rather to these electric



25    utilities as a whole, you  see, and comparing for these

-------
   	407





 1                            J. K. Langum



 2     same electric utilities, the  estimates may require addi-



 3     tional  investments  on the common auxiliary cooling facili-



 4     ties and,  of course, in terms of that comparison, it makes



 5     no difference whether they are in one State or the other*



 6               MR. MILLER:   I would agree with this, but it does



 7     make a  difference in the table in inferring that the plants



 #     are in  Indiana,  and there are no such plants in Indiana*



 9               DR. LANGUM:   Well,  I recognize that, and I have



10     not, I  don't believe — I have not  intended to give the



11     impression,  if I had, it is wrong,  of a plant located in



12     Indiana.   The company is in two jurisdictions, and



13     ordinarily I have considered  it under Indiana because of



14     the predominance of the fair  value  type of rate base in



15     Indiana in determining  its earniangs.



15               MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions?



17               MR. PURDY:  Yes.



lg               Dr» Langum, after your excellent financial review



19     and your expertise  in this area, I  am tempted to sneak in



20     a couple of questions of whether or not I should invest



2i     in a public utility and, if  so, which one, but that isn»t



22     my question.



23               MR. STEIN:  I was  thinking of that.  You know,



24 j    while he was talking, I was  regretting  that



25     rule we have in the Federal  Government  that

-------
   	403





 1                            J, K, Langum



 2    regulatory  officials can't buy stock in the company,



 3              MR, PURDY:  But on your financial review, again,



 4    I have no doubt of who is going to pay this bill, and I



 5    am. not saying that the cost here should influence the action



 6    of,  say, Michigan, in what sort of action they should take,



 7    Because on an industrial plant, if waste treatment is needed



 8    why  you order it to be done, and the cost is passed on to



 9    the  consumer, to the individual.  If a municipality needs



10    treatment you order it to be done and it is passed on to the



11    consumer or to the residents of that municipality, and here



12    if something needs to be done, why I am sure that is going



13    to be passed on to the customer*  So my question does not



14    influence the action we should take, but only so that the



15    customer doesn't get surprised. And in your analysis with



      respect to Consumers Power and the additional cost per



17    customer on the system, this relates only now to the



      additional cost to the customer on that system for install-



19    ing  cooling facilities at the Palisades plant, and that as



20    we look at other plants on the Consumer system, either in



21    Lake Michigan or on the other Great Lakes — because very



22    probably this decision on Lake Michigan will set a pattern



23    for  the other Great Lakes and they are not that much dif-



24    ferent — that the total cost of backfitting to the Consumer



25    customer can be considerably more than what you have reported

-------
                                                              409
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21 !
22
23
24
25
                        J. K, Langum
in this paper.
          DR0 LANGUM:  Yes,  that is true.   You are quite
right, of course, that the only place these additional costs
can come is from the revenues paid to the  public utility by
the consumer, because the utilities have no funds, and the
money to cover costs must come from the revenues. -And if
you refer to page 14 (See p. 3#2), I stated expressly, of
course, that I was appraising the impact of that $3 million
figure, and that only. And I recognize that Consumers Power
Company has other situations where additional costs may be
incurred on account of cooling facilities  or other
environmental requirements,  and in turn this has to be put
in the framework, as I endeavor to do by giving two or
three examples, of increases in other costs.  Consumers
Power Company, Commonwealth Edison Company — every
electric utility, every business, is in a  hard, desperate
race between sales and expenses, between sales and invested
capital.  This is one additional expense,  I think, that is
so small in relation to residential customers and in rela-
tion to the overall affairs of the company, that we should
take no chances with any possible thermal  discharge. But
I recognize it is added cost, and I have tried to make
certain appraisals of it,
          MR. PURDY:  Yes, I think you have pointed it out

-------
                        J. K. LANGUM               	
 1     very clearly in your paper, but frequently others pick up


 2     figures and quote them possibly out of context, and this


       only represents the additional cost for Palisades.


                 DR. LANGUM:  That is right.


                 MR. PURDY:  And, as you apply this to the rest of


       their  plants on their system on the Great Lakes, that this


       adds to it.


                 DR. LANGUM:  That is correct.  This  is taking


       only that one isolated action, the installation of the


       cooling tower at Palisades.


                 MR. STEIN:  Are there any further  comments or


       questions?


.,.,               If not, I have one last general one, and I want


.,,     to  get back to the total impact of your statement.  I would


,i-     like to bring you back — and this is for a  point of clari


,>•     fication — to page 2 of your general statement, where you


,-     take Mr, Warren's figures, and you. say that  it is "...


       estimated that the required investment necessary to install


       auxiliary cooling facilities as against once-through coolin


       with thermal discharge of heated water, in"—  and here is


-_     the key point — "electric utility plants now  existing,  in


22     plants under construction, in plants now planned, and plant


       projected to meet needs for electric energy  over the next


_,     two decades, would amount to about $2$0 million."
24


25

-------
      _	01


                               J.  K.  Langum

                 Then you take this and you  say this will increase
 •  !
   I
 3 j|    after awhile the average monthly bill of the residential

 4     customer by 10 cents a month.   Is  this correct?


 5               DR.  LANGUM:   No,  that isn't quite right, sir.

 6     The comparison on page 2 is for the group which I have

 7 i    studied of the major electric  utilities on or near Lake


       Michigan,  and I have related an estimate on required

 9     investment and capital expenditure for the cooling towers


10     and the like to the total capital  expenditures of these

11     same companies.

12 !              I have not measured,'  I am not able to measure
   i
13     the import of that for the  additional cost to all of the

14     utilities.  I have made a specific study of that 10 cents
   !
15     or more per month per residential  customer only for

16     Consumers Power Company and for Commonwealth Edison.

17               MR.  STEIN:  All right.   Now,  we have heard your

lg     figures on Consumers Power, and I  think this is —- and
   I

19     Consumers Power you figure  it  is going to be 10 cents or

20     less,  right?

21               DR.  LANGUM:   Yes, sir.

22               MR.  STEIN:  For Commonwealth Edison, you finally


23     came down with a figure —  they came  up with a figure of


24     what,  68 cents?
   i
25               DR.  LANGUM:   Yes, sir.

-------
                                                              412





 1                            J» K. Langura



 2               MR.  STEIN:  And then you used their  computation,



 o     and you came down to  a  figure of  about 25  cents, but you



       said if your suspicions were right that it might be 10



       cents*



                 DR.  LANGUM:   Yes.  I would like  to amend that



       last, as I did,  10 to 15 cents.



                 MR0  STEIN:  Ten to 15 cents,



 9               DR.  LANGUM:   Yes.  The  reason for that is simply



10     this:   that the  cost  per kilowatt for the  auxiliary cooling



       facilities at Palisades is $21.   The estimate   for the same



12     thing by Commonwealth Edison is $53•  Twenty-one is about 40



       percent, you see, of  that, and if we apply that to the 25



       cent figure, we  would get 10 cents.



                 However, somewhat  more  than that is  involved



       because this covers only the added capital investment, and



       there are certain operating  and maintenance costs, and



       there is some loss of capability  and need  for  additional



19     capacity elsewhere.  That is why  I put that — if you just



20     consider alone $21 cost per  kilowatt instead of $53» it



2i     comes out 10 cents, but there are certain  other matters,



22     that is why I say 10  to 15  cents.



23               MR. STEIN:  Well,  let's suppose  we extend it to



24     15 cents.  I appreciate your public interest



25     in coming forward like  this  and giving us  this information

-------
     	413

                             J« K. Langum
     because this is very helpful indeed.  Let me
     go  back to  page  2...   Wh^t  I  would  like  to know is how
 4 !  typical these  analyses  of  the Palisades and Commonwealth
     Edison you  might  figure, if  you can, are to the kinds of
     increases we might  expect  in plants now planned*Would these
     figures of  about  from 10 to 15 cents,  you think,  apply — let's
     make the  assumption —  within the  present day prices?
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
          DR. LANGUM:  We would have to make that because
these figures will certainly go up over the years*
          MR. STEIN:  Yes.  But would you assume that this
is pretty typical of the plants now planned — of these
two plants you analyzed?
          DR. LANGUM:  Yes, I think the figure for Consumers
Power Company is a very accurate figure.
          MRC STEIN:  I understand.  But how would that
apply, say, to other plants, in your opinion, which you
haven't analyzed?  Is this a typical one?
          DR. LANGUM:  I have not — I have simply not
studied other similar matters for other plants.  So I can't
say that it is typical generally.  However, Commonwealth
Edison and Consumers Power Company are very, very large
companies and just those two companies would bulk very large,
as you know from the figures, in the totality of the electric
utilities around Lake Michigan*

-------
                                                               414
   r	


 1                            J. K, Langum


 2              MR, STEIN:   I understand your reluctance,  sir,


 3    and I am not going to keep pushing it, but we have — if


 4    we are dealing with a pattern here I think we should know


 5    this.


 6              You have analyzed two plants, and it seems to me


 7    you have come out pretty close — one a dime or less, and


 8    the other between 10 and 15 cents,


 9              Now, we also have a large group of plants in


10    there, where some plants may be backfittingj some plants


11    may be under construction; some plants are planned,


12              The question is:  What is this going to mean to


13    the utility bill for that vast spectrum of plants near the


14    lake*  Is your analysis fairly typical and can it be applied


15    to those plants, or does it just relate to these two plants


16    and no more?


17              DR. LANGUM:  Well, my analysis relates to these


18    two plants and companies and no more.  However, I think  it


19    would be a useful  starting point — let's put it that way —


20    in appraising the  situation elsewhere,


21              You understand, of course,  that this would vary


22    from  company to  company obviously  on  the terms of the


23    particular engineering matters involved, and the location,


24    also  the distribution of  residential  revenues to total


25    revenues.  You  see that would have an effect on it as well.

-------
    	415




 1                            J.  K.  Langum
   !
   I

 2              I think this whole area,  a  very  thorough  study in

•

 3    checking out of costs is extremely  important,  and I think —



 4    and we must have much more  work done  on it so  that  you



 5    gentlemen and other similar authorities can make the  proper



 6    decision,



 7              MR. STEIN:  But it  is your  view now — and  let me



 8    ask this one last question -- that  we have really done a



 9    case-by-case analysis on two  plants.   You would suggest



10    before we use that case-by-case analysis that you made for



11    these two plants to be applicable to  other situations in



12    Lake Michigan, that we adopt a cautious technique of using a



13    case-by-case analysis on every plant rather than projecting



14    it as a  general rule.



15               DR. LANGUM:  No, I don't think that would be my



16    conclusion,  I think that these two cases are large



17    enough and clearcut  enough to offer, as I say, a starting



18    point and guidelines,  and I would  certainly in any other



19    case require all  of  the  figures necessary for a thorough



20    study of the cost.   But  I think this is a starting point.



21               In other words, I am  saying  perhaps maybe this



22    is typical of  this general order of  things, but  I wouldn't



23    want  to  be tied down in any sense  to 10 cents versus  15 or



24    16 or something like that.



25               MR.  STEIN:  Dr.  Langum,  here is where I  come up

-------
     	416





 1                            J. K, Langum                  {



 2 \   with this difficulty.  Let's go to the first sentence of



 3    your statement.  It says:  "Economic considerations should



 4    be no bar to effective actions by the appropriate regulatory



 5    authorities which substantially eliminate thermal discharge



 6    of heated water into Lake Michigan by electric generating



 7    plants,"  This is a general statement,



 g              I understand what you are saying very well,  I



 9    think you have had a very professional and precise analysis



10    and I followed it,  I thought it was very well done, very



11    well presented.  But here is the question:  What we get is



12    we boil  down that you come to an analysis of two plants,



13    and then we have to take your generalized statement in the



14    first sentence, and I have asked you if we could use those



15    two analyses to project it to support this,



16              I think we have to get — I am trying to get the



17    feel  for the  conferees of what you are trying to say,



18    Please understand, I am trying to  get this in the sense  of



19    a clarifying  sense.  I have  no position on this.  I  just



20    want  to  understand what you  have been saying,



21               DR.  LANGUM:  The conclusion — the first sentence,



22     of course,  rests  upon  several matters.  It rests upon my



23     analysis of the  capital  expenditures, and it rests upon



24     the past price behavior  of our  electricity.  It rests upon



25     a judgment which  is  implicit here  of  how  important the

-------
	417
                        J. K. Langum
 additional investment, and the additional cost of the cool-
 ing towers or other facilities are in terms of the companyfs
 overall  operation. A^>H j think in terms, again, of the par-
 ticular  bearing of the increase in cost to residential
 customers, that there is — that while the specific studies
 for Commonwealth Edison and Consumers Power Company are
 specific studies and not to be just taken as typical, they
 are for  important enough companies and important enough
 situations to thoroughly justify that generalization in
 terras of the overall pricing of electricity.
          MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
          Mr. Purdy.
          MR. PURDY:  Yes.  Mr. Stein, again, now, so that
 I don*t  misunderstand the analysis, in attempting to project
 this, when you  say 10 cents per customer on the Consumers
 system,  you are talking about spreading this cost of the
 Palisades plant to all of the customers now on the Consumers
 system.   Is this  correct?
          DR. LANGUM:  That is correct.  And the 10 cents
 is how the  share  of how the residential revenue share of
 total revenues  and  share of the added $3 million cost —
 what  that would mean to the residential customer.
          MR. PURDY:  So let's say you had another twin
 plant of the Palisades already existing on the Consumers

-------
     	413
 1                            J, K. Langum
 2     system, and you went ahead to backfit that also, now it is
 3     not a 10  cent per customer, you have to add that as cumula-
 4     tive cost to the customer, and it now becomes 20 cents per
 5     customer,
 6              DR. LANGUMs  Yes, that is correct, if it were
 7     something just like Palisades,  And it would be 20 cents
 #     per average residential customer, too,
 9              MR. PURDY:  Right.
10              DR. LANGUM:  In other words, I have computed that
11     10 cents  by taking a proportionate share, you see, of the
12     $3 million, precisely as  the total revenues are now
13     divided.
14              MR, PURDY:  So  that as you build new  capacity on
15     the  system, that  new capacity that is built to  serve new
16     customers may be  at some  rate, but that new capacity
17     that  is built to  serve the  existing customers and  their
IB     increased utilization of  power makes further addition to
19     their bill,  so  it isn't going to be something that you  can
20     project and say it is 10  or 15  cents per residential
21     customer,
22               DR. LANGUM:   No,  I would certainly hesitate to
23     project that  and in part  because  of the extremely  important
24     influence of continuing major  inflation on construction
25     costs.

-------
                              	419
                               J.  K.  Langum
 2.              MR.  PURDY:   Okay.
 3              MR.  STEIN:   All right.   Are there any other
   i
 4 !    comments or questions?
 5              If not,  thank you very  much.  This has been a
 6     very,  very  useful  contribution indeed, Dr.  Langum.
 7              DR.  LANGUM:   Thank you.
                MR.  STEINj   We will  recess for lunch and  return
 9     here at a quarter  to  2:00.
10               (Noon recess.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                              420

                              Murray Stein
 2
 3                           AFTERNOON  SESSION
 4
 5               MR,  STEIN:   Let's reconvene.
 6               In the absence  of any  indications to the  contrary,
 7     I would suggest that  the  States  run their  way through  the
       citizen participants  and  nongovernmental and nonindustrial
 9     groups to give them an opportunity to make their  statements
10     first on thermal, of  course, and then we will go  to the
11     others, but we will give  you an  opportunity before  we  call
12     on industry or any other  participant groups.
13               How  many others did you have on  your list of
       thermal participants?
15               MR0  BLASER:  Illinois  has really two more
16               MR.  STEIN:   Two more?
17               MR.  BLASER:  Yes.
lg               MR.  S'EEIN:   Wisconsin  has two.
19               Let's take  your two, as we agreed, and  then  we
20     will go to Wisconsin, and then we will follow the rotation
21     of the States  for people  who wish to make  statements about
22     other aspects  of the  problems.
                 Would you call  your two, Mr. Blaser?
                 MR.  BLASER:  All right.  Mr. Bernard  Scharr
  *     Is he present?

-------
                                                              421

                               E. Fo Conti
                MR. STEIN:  Pardon me.  Before we start this, is
      Mr. Conti in the room?
                MR. CONTI:  Yes, sir.
 5              MR. STEIN:  The Atomic Energy Commission wishes
 6    to make an additional statement.  As you know, I did make
 7    a statement for them this morning in accordance with the
      instructions from that Commission, but I think since Mr.
 9    Conti has asked for this, and they want to clarify the
10    record, it would be best if AEG spoke for itself.  So
11    before we start with that, let's call on Mr. Conti.
12
13            STATEMENT OF ENRICO F. CONTI, ASSISTANT
14          TO THE MANAGER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES,
15            ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
16
17              MR. CONTI:  Thank you, Mr. Stein
                In response to yesterday's question asking
19    whether presently proposed plants on Lake Michigan can  be
20    built while in-depth studies are being conducted, I gave an
21    affirmative response
22              Since  it  is possible that this answer  could  be mis
23    interpreted, I would like to amplify it.
24              The  statement  I presented yesterday reflected AEC
25     comments  on the  Conference Technical Committee on Thermal

-------
                                                             422





                               E.  F.  Conti



 2    Discharges to Lake Michigan  recommendations and was not



 3    intended to make a judgment  with regard to any particular




      powerplant.



 5              Our basic position is that cooling towers are not



 6    necessarily required for every powerplant to be built on




 7    Lake Michigan.



                As indicated in the statement I read yesterday,



 9    both cooling towers and once-through cooling systems need



10    careful examination for each individual situation.  We



11    feel, therefore, that each plant should be considered on its




12    own merits in regard to thermal effects.



13              Thank you.



14              MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Conti.



15              Any comments or questions?



16              If not,  thank you very much  for  your  statement.



17              Mr. Blaser, may we go on?



                MR. BLASER:  All right.   Is  Mr.  Schaar  here  today?



19              Michael Bialas.  Mr. Bialas  I  know is here.




20



21



22




23



24



25

-------
                  	423


                            M* E. Bialas


 2'

 3               STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. BIALAS, CHAIRMAN,

                  COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT,  CHICAGO AREA

 5                     COUNCIL OF LIBERAL  CHURCHES,

 6                          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


 7

 3               MR*  BIALAS: I am Mike Bialas.  I am the  Chairman

 a     of the Committee on Environment  for the Chicago Area Council

in I    of Liberal Churches, and I come  as  leader of that group  as
xu n

11     well as a private citizen.

12               I have prepared  a  statement here.  I only have a

13     few extra copies here,  and a few extra  comments afterwards.

•j,               A question from  the American Museum  of Natural

15     History which I got in the mail  with an advertisement  says:

16     "What's filling Lake Michigan faster than waste?"   And the
   I
17     answer that they gave was algae.

lg               And the University of Michigan  researchers,  spon-
   i
19     sored by Federal Government have found species associated

20     with pollution in all parts of the lake and predict massive

2i     algal blooms within  2 years, which will make our water

22     unfit to drink in the Chicago area.  Before the death of

23     Lake Erie, a  superabundant algal bloom appeared and shortly

24     thereafter the mayfly and mudpuppy disappeared sig

25     the complete  breakdown of the food chain process.

-------
                                                              424


 1                          M. E. Bialas

 2              To go into the contradictory statements of the

      Technical Committee report and all the fine points of the

      issue would be to continue to fiddle while Rome burns,

      We have been trying to  solve this problem for over a year

 5    now  and we seem to be nowhere near beginning to solve our
   I
      dilemma,,  I hear all kinds of time periods and dates ban-

      tered about here today,  such as "by 1976," "in 32 months

 o,    or 42 months while they are installing cooling towers."

10    But  we only have 2 years left for our vital Lake Michigan.

11    We don't  have time to continue haggling over the rules of
   i
   !
12 !|   the  game  when we are so close to the end.  What does it
   i
13    require to make our leadership in government and business

14     see  their responsibility?  All our activities, even to edu-

15 i    eating  our young, are worthless if we leave a lifeless

16     heritage.

17              In  every area and  in every way, we continue to

lg     procrastinate  regarding what  and how to do it.  Everybody

19     says it takes  time and  money.  Well, it is taking me  time

20     and money to  be  here  and everywhere else  to  fight for our

2i     survival.  It  is taking time and money to fight in Viet Nam,

22     to build an SST,  to  go  to the moon, but we  do  not have time

23     here and nobody wants to spend the necessary moneys.  While

24     discussing our current local school crowding problem,

25     someone remarked to me that the lack  of timely action in

-------
                                        	425


                              M. E. Bialas

 2    that issue is the price of our democratic procedure.  I
  * i
 o    feel this could be applied to pollution problems, in that

 •     we have used that argument in this survival issue to ration-
   I
 c    alize  inaction, and  in waiting to exhaust all avenues of

      remedy short of the  final desperate act of injunctive proce-

      dure.

                We must, now, declare  a moratorium on  discharge of

      all  pollutants or suspected  pollutants — heated water,

10    chemicals, oils, pesticides,  fertilizers, municipal waste

T-,    products,  everything.   Short of  that, we must  examine each

12     polluting  source and immediately force an early  end by

       determining what must  be  done and how to do  it.  We must

      issue  an ultimatum  to  the polluters:  Stop or  shut  down.

       Powerplants  and  industries  discharging heated  water and

       chemicals  must  be  shut down  until alternate  solutions are

-J7     available.

                 Pesticides must be completely  discontinued  and

       new pest  control methods used.   In  the  past  week,  I heard

20     from a news reporter that Mr. Ruckelshaus  has  delayed the

       ban on DDT and other pesticides for another year pending

22     further study.  How many more studies will it  take to kill

23     a lake?

24               Fertilizers for agriculture will have to be

25     rigidly controlled  and farmers will have to move their

-------
                                                          426





 1                             M. E. Bialas



 2     animal  pens,  if necessary, to avoid the runoff of manure  into




       Lake Michigan's related  streams.



                 Municipalities will have to  make  immediate  changes



 5     in their disposal systems  to divert sewage  from  Lake



 5     Michigan.  If financial, technical and other help  is



 •7     required by the polluters, this  must  be made available on



       an emergency basis,  so that  they can  join the ranks of the




 a     non-polluters.



10               All oil spills must  be avoided  by not  allowing



11     potential sources to operate.  All marine vessels  must be



12     checked before they are  allowed  into  the  lake;  this includes



       ocean vessles.  Size of  oil  tankers must  be greatly



       decreased; the current monsters  have  certainly proved



15     themselves unseaworthy.



16               Above all, with  this emergency  situation, we must



17     have Federal control and leadership  in all  areas,  with



       Environmental Protection Agency supervising all operations



19     until the four states can  separately provide their



20     necessary protective moves.



21               In further remarks,  I want to comment that my



22     group signed a petition that was issued by the Committee



23     on Lake Michigan Pollution. Control.   It is the Committee




24     on Lake Michigan Pollution, I mean.



25               As far as other things that have been said, I

-------
        	427




                              M. E. Bialas



       kind of am wary even of regulatory agencies — people who



       are supposed to protect our environment.  I know in a



       current issue of Sports Illustrated, they have an article



 5     called "The Poisoning of the West," in which the National



 6     Wildlife Service is being implicated.  So it means that



 7     citizens must be always on the alert for — individuals in



       all areas — of this problem.



 9              A couple of other things came to my mind — the



10     fact of the need for electricity, but what I think is we

    i

11     will have to reduce our demands.  We will have to stop



12     advertising affluence in this country.  As far as cost of



13     nuclear powerplants, I felt also that one cost that wasn't



14     mentioned — I don't know all of the answers on it — but



15 (    I think, as I recall, radioactivity material is accumulated.
   i


16     Somebody has to get rid of it.  Somebody has to pay for



17     the movement of this, and also the storage, and I think the


       Federal Government is being stuck with that bill, for we



19     are getting it in our taxes eventually.



20              Thank you.



21              MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Bialas.



22              Any questions or comments?



23              Let me ask you:  I am not sure I understood you.



24     YOU talked about polluters, and you said "Stop or shut down.'



                MR. BIALAS:  Both.

-------
                                                             423




 1                             M. E. Bialas



 2              MR. STEIN:  I understand.


 3              MR. BIALAS:  Yes.


 4,              MR. STEIN:  You said,"stop or shut down."


 5              Now, do I understand your point of view if we find


 6    that a powerplant is polluting we tell them to stop now or



 7    shut off the electricity?


 g              MR. BIALAS:  That is what I am saying.  There is



 9    no  point, when you have 2 years, and you are talking about



10    32  and all  this  —


11              MR. STEIN:  Now, let me push another point.


12    You know we have water supplies  in the various cities  and


13    these fellows use a  sand  filter, and the sand filters  get


14    filled  in  their  backwash  and  then they put  this  backwash  intj>


15    the water  and people think that  is a pollutant.   Now,  if  we


16    find that  that  is a pollutant,  do  you recommend  that we
    I

17     shut the water  supply down as well as the  electric  supply?


lg               MR. BIALAS:  I  would think in  the case of water


19     supplies that would require immediate  correction of all



20     because —


21               MR.  STEIN:  Well, supposing they can't correct



22     them immediately?


23               MR. BIALAS:  This is one place where I guess we



       would have to backoff on immediate stopage because you



       have to have drinking water.

-------
                                                               429


                              M.  E.  Bialas

                MR.  STEIN:  Right.   We  can't  do without water,

       but we  can  do  without electricity.

                MR.  BIALAS:   Yes, to the  extent that we want  to


 5     in this country right now.

 5              MR.  STEIN:  Consider the  poor unfortunate  soul
   i
 7     like  me,  who lives  in Fairfax, Virginia, and has a well,
 1

 $     and  I don't have electricity,  I can't  pump  water from the

 9     well.  How  am I going to  get water  if  you turn  off the
   i

10 '    electricity?
   i!
H 'I             MR.  BIALAS:   It is  a matter  of priority.   That
   I

12 i    is  the important thing  on this issue.
   ji
13              MR.  PURDY:  Mr. Stein,  if we would follow  that
   I
   I
14 j    same line of thinking,  with respect to municipalities and

15 h    where there is a pollution problem in  a municipality, and

16     so now you shut off the sewage treatment  plants,  you don't
   i
17 j    need any water anyhow.   (Laughter)

lg I              MR. STEIN:   I guess that is right.  I want to do
   i
19 if    that anywayc  I am trying to  convince my wife to have that

   ll
20 i    green concrete.
   i
   i
   i
21 ||              Any other comments  or questions?
   ij
22               Thank you very much, sir.

23               MR. BIALAS:  Thank  you.
   i

24 i              MR. BLASER:  That concludes the  list  for Illinois,
   i

25               MR. STEIN:  Well, we have some from Wisconsin*

-------
      	430
                            Mrs. M. Go Dahl
                MR. FRANCOS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would like to  call
      Mrs. Miriam G.  Dahl, who  is  the  State  Division Chairman  of
      the Water Committee of  the Isaac Walton League.
 5              Mrs.  Dahl.
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                                431

                             Mrs.  M.  G.  Dahl

 2.
                 STATEMENT OF MRS. MIRIAM G.  DAHL,  STATE
                    DIVISION CHAIRMAN, WATER  COMMITTEE,
 5              IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE,  MILWAUKEE,  WISCONSIN

 6
 7               MRS. DAHL:  May I offer a suggestion to Mr.  Stein
       before I begin this talk?  You mentioned that you would be
 n     hard put to it to get water our of your well.  We used to
10     do it this way (indicating).  (Laughter)
11               MR. STEIN:  Yes, so did I.  But you know I have
12     been spoiled by electricity; I would be hard put
                 MRS. DAHL:  Conferees,  I wanted to thank you for
       allowing me time to be heard.  I am Miriam G. Dahl of
15     Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Mrs. for those who are interested.
                 I am an interested citizen directing my efforts
17     for good conservation through many organizations, but
       presently mainly through the Izaak Walton League of America
19     where I serve as Air Quality Representative for a local
20     chapter, also as Chairman  of the Water Committee for the
21     Wisconsin State Division,  and as a Member of the National
22     Water Committee, and a National Director of Izaak Walton
23     League„
24               I have been given permission, in addition to
25     speaking for  the State Division and for myself as a citizen,

-------
                                                               432
 1                           Mrs.  M.  G.  Dahl
 2     for the National Izaak Walton  League today,
 3               For six years,  I  chaired the  Wisconsin  State
 4     Division of Pollution Abatement where I was  actively  engaged
 5     in all phases of conservation,  including the KAB  — Keeping
 6     America Beautiful — and the Anti Litter.
 7               I have become aware  of  and active  in every  area
 8     of work resulting in a realization for  me of the  ecological
 9     interrelationships and the  global scope of our local  actions
10               In the careful analyses capably prepared and  pre-
11     sented here today, it is evident  that progress to good
12     discussions is being made.   The Wisconsin Division of Izaak
13     Walton League of America has presented  a comprehensive
14     statement to this group previously,* We stand on  the  points
15     made then, and ask that those  statements be  incorporated
16     into the present record*
17               We do this in the interest of conservation  by
13     saving time for everyone, and  the paper necessary to  repro-
19     duce another statement.  We believe that the little things
20     do count,
21               At this time, we commend your decision  to limit
22     heat additions to 3 degrees.  We  hope that this is a  3°
23     effluent discharge not a 3° hearing permit,
24               However, the Izaak Walton League will hold  to its
25     opinion that a 1° discharge increase is generous  enough
    'pp 20^0 - 205/j.  "Act 1970  Workshop Sessions

-------
                                                             W3

 1  ii                         Mrs. M.  G.  Dahl
 *•** 'I
   I j
 2 !    and really not  necessary at  all —  even the  1°  —  if we use
 '  j
 3 j|    our ingenious expertise  to find new methods.
   i;
 .  i|              We request  addition  of  the following  to  the orig-
   |!
   II
 5 ji    inal statements which we have  asked to  be incorporated today
   !|
 5 j    While giving full attention  to the  analysis  of  the present
   i
 7     situation and methods, we ought to  look at new  developments

       which I have not heard mentioned  anywhere.  The closed

       circuit method  is very good, but  cooling towers are expen-

10     sive monstrosities,  cluttering, if  not  defacing, any land-
   I
11 i    scape, and using precious earth footage.  We are talking

12 !    about starvation in the  near future.  We are talking about

13 i    over population.  In another breath we  are talking about

       building this sort of a  monstrous  business  only to cool

15     water.  It doesn't make  very much sense from a  conservation

       point of view.

17               Alternate methods  of cooling  can be developed.

lg     We believe this.  We may need  a new approach.  Perhaps we
   j
19 I    even need a new map, but presently  refrigeration can

20 !    accomplish most of the  cooling,  so  I  am told by engineers,

2i     and the finishing of the cooling  could  be done  with a

22     pond or smaller cooling troughs.   A pond could  serve as  a

23     recreational area or an experimental  area which we do

24     need, and this would provide multiple use.

25               Energy from the cooling also  ought to be

-------
    	434


 1 ji                          Mrs. M.  G,  Dahl
   I
   !
 2     redirected to useful purposes.  Not  allow it  to  be  thrown
   |
 3 j|    off as waste0  We are doing  too much of that,  and not  enough
   j!
 4 !l    recycling of our resources.  New  methods of producing
   i
 5     nuclear power using lighter  elements — and I am sure  you
   I
 6     gentlemen have heard of this recently  — instead of the

 7     heavy elements would eliminate entirely,  I am told,  the

       reactive wastes, and this in itself  would create disposi-

 9     tion of a very large problem with which we now are  concerned,,

10     This method could produce energy  enough from  one gallon of
   li
   i
11     sea water equivalent to using  300 gallons of  fuel oil,

12     and if you will divide the use per annum of our  fuel oils

13     and our gases presently available, you will see  that we

1^     have some concern within the next 20 years over  what we

15     will use for fuel*  We should  be  thinking of  those  things

16     as well in the whole context,

17               It may be well that  the answers are here  now

lg     eliminating many of those problems with which we are

19     wrestling today.  Let us be  aware of these developments,

20     and rapidly include them into  economic use.  And I  stress

21     that again:  Rapidly include them — the new  development —

22     into our economic use,

23               Let us build our new economic structures  with

24     the idea of adaptability as  these new  methods develop,

25               And I thank you very much, gentlemen,  for your

-------
                                                                435
 •1                             Mrs. M. G. Dahl




 2      time and your attention.



 3                MR. STEIN:   Thank you,  Mrs.  Dahl.



                  Are there any comments  or questions?




 5                Mrs. Dahl,  let me take  a minute with you because



 5      I really do think — and I say this in the broadest




 7      possible sense — that we really  need an understanding




        between the public groups and the official groups.




                  I think it  was very, very clear here about the



        3° rise.  The proposal made by the Federal conferee was



        that all new plants and plants under construction should




        -° to closed cycle, which may cut that down.   But that the



        ')  rise, as I listened to it, was not  an effluent require-




        tnent but 3  within a  mixing zone  of 1,000 feet.  I think



TC      wa should understand  what they are saying are two quite



        different things.




                  MRS. DAHL:   Yes, indeed.  Indeed.



                  MR. ST^IN:   There is one other point.  I



        think you should keep talking about ponds and new devices.



2Q      I push this all of the time myself. We get a supplement



        to our Sunday paper that has a feature which  always



22      has new products.  They are always talking about these




        great new products in glowing terms and what  they




        are going to do.  I rarely see them;  they don't last.





25

-------
                                                               436
 1                            Mrs. M. G. Dahl




 2                Mrs. Dahl, my experience with two major power-




 3      plants I recall outside this area and major engineering firhs




        handling those powerplants which deal with ponds for cool-




 5      ing don't come up nearly with the kinds of reductions we




 6      are talking about here.  They need a lot of space.  You




 7      would be surprised how much space.  In fact, the cooling




        we are getting in those proposed ponds, which may or may




        not go forward or lakes which may or may not go forward,




j_0      doesn't quite do this.




11                Mow, I know, and I share your concern about




12      cooling towers and the lack of aesthetics that one of




        these towers might create.  But I hope we are going to




        look at the hard facts,  The trouble is that when all




15      is said and done, these engineering plans cone in, and.




        I have to look at the hard facts done by top engineering




        firms and reviewed by our people, and when our people




        say there is nothing wrong with the engineering, I am




        sort of dismayed at the kind of heat reduction they get




20      with the ponds or how much water you will need in the pond




        for the nuclear plant in order to get some kind of heat




22      reduction.




23                Now, I appreciate the glowing terms in which new




21      processes are always described, but I ask you to reconsider




25      As I have seen it here right today, the citizen

-------
                                                               437


 1                           Mrs, M. G. Dahl
 •

 2     groups have been infinitely more sophisticated here, and


 3     thev are getting infinitely more sophisticated in every


       conference or hearing I have*  But I suggest that you stay


 5     with us with the new processes; look at them with a healthy


 6     skepticism  and see what they can produce, not what they


 7     claim.


 #               MRS, DAHL:  Thank you very much.  And if I may


 9     say so, I did compliment you with all earnestness over


10     what you are doing.  May I also add that this kind of


11     experimentation has built our country*.    I am looking at


12     it from the point of view that was shared by one you all


13     know  and I am sure you love and esteem? who said, "I


14     have done several experiments" — I won't say how many,


15     60 or 70, and was told that he ought to quit because he


16     has found out nothing works<>  And the evidence is piling


17     up, and he said, "I can't quit now.  I haven't found that


lg     nothing works.  I haye only found that these 70 do not


19     work  and that I shall try until I find one which does*"


20     And I think you all know that I am talking about Thomas


21     A. Edison, without whom we would not be as well lit.


22     (Laughter)


23               MR. STEIN:  Or as well heated*

   i
24               MRS. DAHL:  Or as well heated.


25               I thank you.

-------
                                                              43$
 1                          Mrs, C. L. Palmer
 2              MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 3              MR. FRANGOSs  Thank you, Mrs. Dahl.
 4              Mrs. Louis Palmer.
 5
 6              STATEMENT OF MRS* CLAIRE L0 (LOUIS H.)
 7              PALMER, CITIZEN, RACINE, WISCONSIN
 a
 9              MRS. PALMER:  Thank you very much, gentlemen,
10     for letting us tell you how we  feel about these things*
11              My name is Claire Palmer, and I am testifying
12     for the Racine League of  Women  Voters and also for myself.
13              The Racine League of  Women  Voters urges that all
14     aspects of  environmental  changes be thoroughly explored
15     before any  more  nuclear powerplants are allowed to operate
16     on Lake Michigan.   If more plants are found necessary, the
17     government  should develop a  rational procedure for locating
lg     these plants.
19               We also suggest exploring any possible  alterna-
20     tives to nuclear power.
21               And now speaking as an individual citizen  and
22     as a lover of all lakes and  rivers,  I urge you gentlemen
23     to avert further degradation to the  lake.   Dr»  Stoenner's
24     research in indicating that  the proliferation of diatoms
25     and phytoplankton species which preceded the explosive

-------
                                                               439
                          Mrs. C. L. Palmer

       algal bloom in Lake Erie is now  pretty generally present


       in Lake Michigan.

 A               Only by  strong regulations well  enforced  can we
   i
 c     hope to reverse this  trendo   I urge this Conference to

       adopt the thermal  discharge regulation suggested by the

       Environmental Protection Agency, and to arrange strong


       enforcement procedures.

                 Thank you,  gentlemen.

10               MR. STEIN:   Thank you.

                 Are there any comments or questions?

12               If not,  thank you very much,

                 I think  without  objection now we —

                 MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Stein, I am sorry, I have one


       more —

16               MR. STEINs   Yes. Go ahead.

                 MR* FRANCOS: — lady  who would  like to appear


       at this time, please.

                 MR. STEIN:   You  know — let's go off the  record

       now.

                 (Discussion off  the record.)

22               MR. FRANCOS: Mrs.  Robert Erickson, please.


23

24


25

-------
                            	  440




                            Mrs, R, Erickson
   i
   i


 2


 3              STATEMENT OF MRS, ROBERT ERICKSON, NORTH



 4              CENTRAL AUDUBON COUNCIL, RACINE, WISCONSIN



 5


 6              MRS, ERICKSON:  I am Mrs, Robert Erickson, and



 7     I am  speaking for the North Central Audubon Council,  This



       is  an organization representing groups in seven States



       which includes Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well



10     as  others that don't  border on Lake Michigan,



11              I am going  to speak first about pesticides and



12     then  something about  nuclear powerplants.



                We are concerned about the pesticide problem in



14     relation to Lake Michigan,  I myself sat through approxi-



       mately 2 weeks of pesticide hearings before the Department



16     of  Natural Resources  last year on the problem of DDT,



17     DDT is not a problem  in relation to the drinking water of



       Lake  Michigan,  At the time of one of these Enforcement



19     Conferences, the Governors very carefully drank water out



20     of  the lake and jokingly  said that the DDT was not much



2i     of  a  problem, and it  is not a problem in drinking water,



22     The only way that DDT is  a problem in relation to Lake



23     Michigan is as it builds  up in the food chains,



24              We have materials showing that the fish of Lake



25     Michigan — many of them  — have a very deleterious amount

-------
                                                              441


 1 {                          Mrs. R. Erickson
   |
 2 j   of DDT present.  Some  of them show from  5 to over 20 parts

 3    per million of total DDT in their flesh.  The Federal


      standards  for DDT, I believe, are around 5 parts per

 5    million.   So that many of  the fish that  are caught in Lake

 6    Michigan are not fit for interstate shipment,

 7               I think the Enforcement Conference has been  lax


 $    in not realising the seriousness of the  DDT problem.  I

 9    think they have been lax in not completely banning the  use


10    of DDT and other chlorinated  hydrocarbons in the four States

11    adjoining  the lake.  I think  the Federal Government should


12    also step  into this picture,

13               You will note,  if  you read the statistics that


14    are  put  out about Lake Michigan fish  that the introduced

15    fish have  just as high or  higher parts of DDT as the other

16    fish.  The brook trout, the' lake trout have larger numbers.

17    The  brown  trout  found  with 7  parts  per million  — the brown

IB    trout  range up,  some of them, to 14 parts per million.

19    These  were largely  caught  in  Door  County, where the  DDT

20 i   use  has  been  heavy  for the cherry  orchards.   The seagulls

21     off Door County  had up to  400 parts per million in  their

22     flesh,  and were  not reproducing at that time.

23                The rainbow trout  have  high amounts.  Even the


24     coho,  which is our fabulous new sport fish,  ranges up to


25     16 and 19 parts per million many times.

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                               442
                       Mrs<,  R,  Erickson
           Because of this,  the Audubon Council  would like
 to say that we should protect  the ecosystems of Lake Michi-
 gan.  We believe that DDT and  the chlorinated hydrocarbons
 should be banned by the four States adjoining the lake,
 and in addition should be banned on a National  level.  The
"agrichemical" industry for short-term profits should not be
 allowed to pollute the food chains of Lake Michigan.
           Now, I  will turn to something in relation — two
 things in relation to powerplants0  We are concerned about
 radiation in a similar way. Radiation can build up in the
 food chains in the same way that DDT can build  up in the
 food chains.  Dr. Malcolm Peterson has published some
 information from the Hanford Plant in Washington where Z ino»-
 65 was present in the waters below the Hanford  plant.  This
 was at quite a low level and the algae and the  micro-organism^,
 then it was picked up at a  higher level by the  small fish and
 a higher level still by the larger fish.  It was also picked
 up in the plants that were  irrigated by the waters of this
 stream, and then the cows,  and so forth, that  fed  on these
 plants further concentrated this radiation.
           They found that — in the river — there were a
 very low level of heat of  picocuries — 188 — in the drink-
 ing water.  A man who had been using this for drinking water
 ended up with 4,000, but a  man who drank the milk and ate

-------
    	443
 •j.                         Mrs. R.  Erickson
 2.     the beef that had fed on the  plants irrigated with this
 3     water had  36,000 picocuries.
 •                So you see, at this point, man was getting to be
 c     the top of one of these food  chains where radiation could
 5     concentrate.
 7               You can do the same thing with things such as
 g     cesium 137, If the lake had  only  50 percent of the atomic
 n     energy standards, and one ate a  very large fish from this
10     lake, he would from that one  fish  — one pound of it —
11     he would have his whole body  burdened of cesium from that
12     °ne meal.
13               I am not implying that our plants are going to be
1^     necessarily polluting Lake  Michigan with zinc 65 or cesium
15     137.  But  I am just using these  as examples of the way that
15     small, tiny amounts of radiation,  even  in parts per billion,
17     and  so forth,  can build up  in the  food  chains and become
lg     a dose which  is much higher than man or animals, for that
19     matter,  should be allowed to  have.
20               I would like to  say, because  of this, that we
2i     should not put all our power  needs, our power eggs into
22     one  fishing basket.  Perhaps  we  should  be putting more
23     funds into developments  of  other types  of power sources.
24.     People are talking  about,  for instance, the breeder reactor
25     and molten salt method, which is a cleaner process.  Now,

-------
   	kkk





 1 j                        Mrs. R. Erickson



 2    I realize this is a little bit of pie-in-the-sky still,



 3    but maybe that will be a cleaner way of producing power.



 4              I understand that our sources of uranium that we



 5    are now using for our powerplants may be gone within 25



 6    years.  Perhaps it is a bad thing to use up so much of



 7    this uranium.  When it's gone, it's gone.



 #              Another thing we might be looking forward to is



 9    fusion.  The thought now is that a fusion reactor will be



10    much cleaner than our present reactors.



11              In addition to these, perhaps we should be



12    thinking of other alternate sources of power.  Geothermal



13    power  has been used in other parts of the world and it has



14    been used in Iceland and Australia, England, I believe, and



15    I think we now have a new plant in the western part of the



16    United States.  As far as I can see, this has almost no



17    effect on the environment that is particularly deleterious.



lg              Another method that is new is MHD, magneto-



19    hydrodynamics.  I understand that its use of coal is much



20    more  efficient than our present uses of coal.



21              A third method would be the use of a fuel cell.



22    There  is a  fuel cell that works from municipal sewage  and



23    makes  electricity and is a  by-product of fertilizer.   This



24     is called  complete recycling and maybe this is what we need



25     to be  doing.

-------
                                                             445




 2_ j                          Mrsc R.  Erickson




 2              There is also electrogasdynami.es.  The Northern



 3     Environmental  Council which deals with the northern part



 4     of Wisconsin and other States in that area has suggested



 5     that  there  could be tie-ins between the Missouri Basin, the



 6     Bonneville  Power, and our own system, an inter-tie that



 7     would enable the peak loads of  the early evening to be met



 3     more  easily.



 9              They have also recommended that there could be



10     low head bulb-type turbines put into the Mississippi*  The



11     Mississippi has quite a few present navigation dams, and



12     we didn*t use  to have turbines that would work in these,



13     but we do now  have a low head turbine that would work in



14     these dams* Turbines could be  installed there without



15     any particular detrimental effect to the environment,



16     than  the already installed  dam,



17              If we would put equal funds into some of these



lg     types of alternative power, alternative types of power, we



19     could probably now have an alternative method that might



20     be much less disastrous to the  environment.



21              In addition, there are other things we could do



22     to help our electric power structure.  The electric power



23     system has  been doubling every 10 years in  its demands



24     and I believe  the last doubling was 7 years.



25              Did  you all know that if it kept on doubling at

-------
                                                               446
 1                         Mrs. R. Erickson
 2    this rate for 300 years that, at that time, the whole of the
 3    United States would be covered by powerplants?  Something
      has to be done.  We can't go on forever.
 5              MR. STEIN:  That is better than having these
 6    conferences  continue that long because you would be surprised
 7    what the United  States would be covered with by then
      (Laughter)
 9              MRS. ERICKSON:  Another point is that we might
10    change the rate  structure — I don't believe that the rate
11    structure reflects the true economic picture.  It seems to
12    me that we could have a  rate structure that would discour-
      age the large uses of power.  It may reflect the economic
      picture to the power company right  now, but I  do not
      believe it reflects the  economic picture  of the deleterious
16     effect  on the  environment.
17               We also think  that it might be  well  that the
       advertising cost be omitted from the basic rate charge.
19    An electric  utility is a public utility and really does
20     not need to  advertise.
                 There  are also problems  in connection with siting.
22     I personally am very much opposed  to  siting powerplants
23     immediately adjacent  to  natural  areas,  and it  seems  to me
24     that all of the big new powerplants have  been placed
25     thusly around Lake Michigan.

-------
   	447
 1                         Mrs. R.  Erickson
 2              If you were a person who enjoys Zion Park, you
 3     can't really enjoy the park now because you have to look at
 4     the towers of the new nuclear plant, and if you go to Point
 5     Beach there are two plants near to that one, although they
 6     are not  as close*  If you go over near St. Joe, Michigan,
 7     the new  plant there by the Grand Marais is right in an area
 g     which is trying to be set aside as a State natural area.
 9              So I do think we need a change of siting, and I
10     do feel  that plants could be put back from the lake a ways
11     so that  they do not destroy the beauty and use of the lake-
12     shore.
13              Now, in  conclusion, I would like to say that the
14     Audubon  Council recommends that powerplants on Lake Michi-
15     gan  emit as little radiation  as possible into Lake
16     Michigan — if possible,  zero radiation — and furthermore
17     that Federal  funds should be  used to find alternate
13     methods  to promote,  develop,  and  encourage these  so that
19     we can find  better methods  of producing  electric  power.
20               Thank  you.
2i               MR.  STEIN:   Thank you very much.
22               Are there any comments  or questions?
23               MR.  PURDY:   Yes,  Mr.  Stein.
24               Several people, during the course of this
25     Conference,  have touched on the matter of radioactivity

-------
                                                             448




                           Mrs. R. Erickson



 2    and the concentration of radioactivity in the effluents



 3    from the nuclear reactors.



 4              As I understand the legislation and the finding



 5    of the Federal Court in Minnesota, that this field has



 6    been preempted from the States, and that this lies



 7    exclusively in the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission;



      Is this correct?



 9              MR, CURRIE:  Mr, Chairman, if I may comment on



10    that, the Illinois Pollution Control Board has recently



      taken the contrary position.  We believe we have the power



12    to regulate radiation.



                MR, STEIN:  I think the Minnesota Board took the



      same position the Illinois boys have.



15              I don't want to comment on that.  If an AEG



      spokesman is here, he can speak.  This is an interpreta-



17    tion of the Atomic Energy Commission law, and --



                MR. PURDY:  I think the Federal Court in Minnesota



19    — and until that decision is appealed — found that this



20    is the case; and we are at the State level continually



21    pressured to adopt something different,  something more



22    restrictive than the regulations  of the  Atomic Energy



23     Commission; and I feel here that  this is a matter that ought



24    to be  clarified at the Federal level.  There are a number



25     of people that feel that  pollution  control ought to be

-------
                                                               449
 1                         Mrs. R. Erickson
 2'    turned  over  to  the  Federal  Government at the  Federal  level


 3     exclusively.  I don't  happen to  hold to that  particular


       theory.  I think we need each other.  But  here  is  a case


 5     now that the Court  in  Minnesota  has decided is  the case


 6     but yet the  people  are not  satisfied with  it.

 7              MR. STEIN:  Well,  I cannot speak for  radioactivity


       because that is handled by  a special statute, but  it  is


 9     perfectly clear that in the Water Pollution Control Act,


10     or under the Water  Pollution Control Act,  and Federal


       water quality operation, the primary rights and responsi-


12     bilities rest with  the States, and they can adopt  more


13     restrictive  requirements if they wish.

                 Now,  I have  been  in this for 25  years, and  I


15     have rarely  seen a  State exercise that kind of  option.


16     It always seemed to me that the  Federal Government was


17     asking for a stricter  one,  so I  know you may  have  problems

       in radioactivity because of  the  law.  But  you surely have an
                                                              «»

19 i    open field in water.  If you want to be more

20     restrictive  than we are, just come forward and  say so and


2i     I will be glad  to doff my hat.


22               MR. PURDY:  Well, I hope that is true, Mr.


23     Stein,  from  the standpoint  of pollution  control from  rec-


24     reational and commercial watercraft.   (Applause)


25               MR. STEIN:  I hope so.  I  don't  think — as a

-------
                                                                4 50





                             Mrs.  R.  Erickson



       matter of fact,  I am not sure  that  you  and your predecessors



       were with me on  Lake Erie,  Lake Michigan and Lake Superior



 i      Conferences.  As far as I was  concerned when we were



 c     dealing with watercraft, we didn't  have a difference of



       opinion.



                 MR. PURDY:  None  whatsoever on that,  but the



       proposed regulations that we had an opportunity to review



       pretty well cut  the ground  out from under the very good



       foundation, I think, that we were able  to build in the Lake



,,      Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake  Superior  Enforcement Confer-



,2     ences.



,-               MR. STEIN:  I have no comments on those regula-



, .      tions.
14


                 MR. PURDY:  We did.



-x               MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?  You



__     know I would like to take this chance to comment on one



.,»     aspect of your statement, and  that  is on your radioactive
-Lo


       cumulative effect of Zinc-65 and that kind of material.
_-               Years ago — I guess in the fifties — we had
19






       cases involving the  uranium industry and  the  Colorado



       River and the  Animas River particularly.



                 That portion  of the  speech seemed almost  word



       for word like  the perorations  —  statements that  I  was makin



       at that time.   I figured this  is  a  fair time  for  cultural

-------
    	451
 1                            Mrs.  R.  Erickson
 2    lag.  Sometimes you feel your work isn't all lost.  It is
 3    only about 10 or 12 years before the citizens  groups pick
 4    it up.
 5              MRS. ERICKSON:  I am sorry we are so slow*
 6              MR. STEIN:  Okay.  But on some of the other stuff
 7    you seem to be faster.
 g              Are there any other comments or questions?
 9              MRS. ERIGKSONj  I think I would like to say it
10    would be nice to have the State standards much stronger
11    than the Federal ones in regard to radiation.
12              MR. STEIN:  Again, let me — I think we all have
13    to recognize this, and I think this is fair to say.  I
14    don*t know if the AEC wants to come up here or not.  This
15    is not really the forum to change the law, but we are a
16    government of laws, not of men.
17              Now, we do know in the law that it seems — and
13    I agree with Mr. Purdy — unless the Court decisions are
19    reversed, it seems to me that the Courts and the AEC is
20    contending that the Atomic Energy Act may have preempted
21    State activities in certain measures of the radiation field.
22              I do think in the labor field there have been
23    numerous decisions which have said the same thing, and if
24    people don't like the law, of course, the Congress is the
25    place to change it.

-------
                                                               452
 1                           Mrs. R. Erickson




 2               I  do think, too, though that in developing the



 3     water  pollution  control  law in this  country, while we may




       have made  many,  many, many mistakes  — goodness  knows we




 5     have,  and  I  probably am  associated with as many  as anyone



 6     because  I  have been around so long — we were aware of this




 7     situation  from the very  beginning,   I look at these fellows



       at  the table, their predecessors —  Blucher  Poole from




       Indiana; two predecessors to Mr. Purdy, Mr.  Adams from




10     Michigan,  and myself; I  think the Illinois representative



       Mr. Klassen  — and this  was back in  the late forties, we




12     all recognized this situation.



                 In consequence of this, I  think, if you read



       practically  the  first sentence of the Federal Water




       Pollution  Control Act — and this has been in there since




       194$ —  it states that the primary rights and responsi-



       bilities for water pollution control rest with the States.



       That is  stated in every  Act, although, as you know, it has



•jo     been amended numerous times since,




20               ln other words, this is one of the problems we



       have avoided in  the field that we are in, and we have




22     fully  preserved  State rights, and State prerogatives



       here.  I think in this spirit we should try  as much as we



       can to take  advantage of that.





25

-------
                                                              453
                             Mrs. R. Erickson
                MR. MAYO:  By way of observation, Mr. Chairman,
      I wonder if what Mr. Comey presented to us this morning
      doesn't stand out as a fairly striking lesson in terms of
      whether or not the argument of whether the Federal Govern-
 5    ment is going to preempt the State Government on some of
 7    these issues is passe', because I think we have been advised
      that the agreement reached between the conservation groups
 a    as intervenors in the Palisades case demonstrates  that
   I
10    outside of the Federal Government and the State Government,
11    there is a route by which the citizen can come forth, in
12    a variety of forums, have imposed on a particular dis-
13    charger a series of constraints that perhaps are consid-
      erably more severe than either the State Government or
      the Federal Government would currently consider imposing.
                MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, if preemption is no
17    longer important I wish somebody would ask the Congress
      to stop putting it in their statutes,
                MRo STEIN:  Well, I didn't say that.  This is an
20    interesting observation.  If individual action by citizen
      groups will make the State and Federal action of government
22    passe', maybe we have entered into a new era of brotherly
23    love.  I  think I will have to check with my sister in
24    Philadelphia on that.   (Laughter)
25              MRS. ERICKSON:  Thank you.

-------
                                                                454
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
                       Mrs. R. Erickson
          MR.  STEIN:   Are there any other questions and
comments?
          MR.  FRANCOS:   Mrs.  Erickson,  we thank you for
stimulating this interesting dialogue.
          MRS. ERICKSON:  All right.
          MR. STEIN:  By the way, I do  have a sister in
Philadelphia.
          MR. MAIO:  Does she love her brother?
          MR. STEIN:  Oh, yeah!  Don't push that too far
though!  (Laughter)
          Do you have any more?
          MR. FRANCOS:  No, that completes our citizen
participation.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, let's go State-by~State.
          Michigan?
          MR. PURDY:  These are  comments now other than —
          MR. STEIN:  — other than — and what we are
going  to do  is  run this through  the States as we did before,
          You will get  one  shot  and then we can come around
to you again*
          JAMES B. HENRY:  Mr. Chairman, do I understand
you are now going to  something other than  thermal  effects?
          MR.  STEIN:  No.   Let me make this  clear.
25     I said and asked the conferees:  We are not foreclosing

-------
                                                                 455
 1                            Mrs. R. Erickson




 2     thermal  effects but because we have many citizen groups



       cominrr,  who have come here at their own time and expense,




       and they have many pressures, the judgment that I gave to



 5     th^ conferees, and I heard no dissent, wag that we were




 6     p-Qi.n^ to call on the citizen groups first.  Then we would



 •7     .five the -^hit'i-rer industries were here full time to talk




       about; thermal effects.




                 MR, HENRY:  Well, speaking on behalf of Indiana




       and Michigan Electric Company, I object to that procedure.



       I think  we should be entitled to go ahead in order with




       O1'r presentation on thermal effects.



                 MR. STEIN:  With that objection, I will poll the




TI     conferees and ask them whether they want to hear the




       citizens or the industries first.



                 MR. PURDYt  Can we find out how many citizens



       we have  left?  I have two from Michigan, both absent.



       Mrs. Botts will represent both.




                 MR. MILLER:  I don't have any that I know of.



20               MR. STEIN:  How about you?



                 MR. CURRIE:  I don't believe we have any.  Mr.



       Blaser had the list but I think it is exhausted.




                 MR. STEIN:  How about Wisconsin?




                 MR. FRANCOS:  I think we are finished.




                 MR, STEIN:  I think this is a moot question.

-------
                                                              456
   n	—	•	—	—•	"	
   |
 1                          Mrs.  L.  Botts

 2              MR. HENRY:  Very  well,   I withdraw the objection,

 3 ||             THE REPORTER:   Who was  that from the floor?
   l|
 4 !             MR* STEIN:  Oh, pardon  me<>  Would you identify
   I
 5 jj   yourself?

 6              MR, HENRY:  Yes,   James B, Henry, Vice-President

 7    and General Counsel of American Electric Power Service

 £    Corporation,

 9              MR0 PURDY:  I have a request from Mrs, Carole

10    Magnus, Secretary  of the Manistee County Anti-Pollution

11    Organization; and Mrs, Kathleen Nixon, Secretary of the
   i
   i
12 i   Mason County Anti-Pollution Action Council,  Both asked

13    for an opportunity to present a statement,

                I understand that they are not present, but that

15    they have presented their statements to Mrs, Botts to

      give on their behalf,

17              MR, STEINj  Mrs,  Botts, we can»t do without you*

      Please let us have your attention,

19              MR. PURDY:  The statements from the Manistee

20 i   County and Mason County Anti-Pollution Committees,

21

22

23

24

25

-------
                                                             457


                               Mrs.  L.  Botts


 2

 3               STATEMENT OF THE MANISTEE COUNTY ANTI  POLLUTION

                               ORGANIZATION (MACAPO)
 "•" i
 5 |                          (READ BY MRS. LEE BOTTS)


 6

 7               MRS. BOTTS:  Thank you very much.

 g               I have been requested by the Manistee County Anti


 9     Pollution Organization in Michigan to read the statement

10     in their behalf concerning the chloride input into Lake


11     Michigan.

12               Mr. Chairman, conferees and representatives:

13     MACAPO was established in April 1970.  The purpose of the

14     organisation was to select the worst pollution problem in

15 [    the Manistee area of Lake Michigan and aggressively work


16     toward its correction.

                 Since that time, we have pinpointed dozens of

       sources of pollution in violation  of Michigan State law

19     and Federal law in the Manistee area alone.

20               Our evidence was sufficient to warrant two

21     Federal investigations  by  the U.S. Corps of Engineers and


22     the former FWQA.

23               The publicity brought about  by our investigation


24     and publication of the  facts regarding pollution  in the

25     Manistee  area brought  the  Michigan Water Resources Commissidn

-------
                                                            458
                               Mrs.  L.  Botts
       to Manistee for its January meeting.   At this meeting vie
       heard that some timetables for pollution abatement have been
       set, but the two major sources of pollution in the Manistee
 5     area of Lake Michigan are not part of this timetable as yet.
 6               We of MACAPO can see that some progress is being
 7     made.  Some stipulations have been signed.  However, we
       have our files full of previous Orders of Determination and
 9     know that the amounts and levels of pollutants allowed by
10     these Orders of Determination and the amount that actually
11     has been discharged has been entirely different in numerous
12     cases.
13               At the WRC meeting in January, some dates were
14     given and the public was told that vast  sums of money will
15     be  spent to abate  pollution.  But, this  is not anything
16     that has not been  promised before.   Therefore, we must  and
17     have taken the  attitude that when we  see it, we will
IS     believe it.
19                All  of the  antipollution  measures now  taken,  how-
20     ever upgrading,  still does not  legalize the  numerous
21     violations of  the  1#99  Rivers and Harbors  Act  of  the
22     Federal Water  Quality Act.   These were  illegal then,  and
23     they remain illegal.  The courts  must decide what a'ction is
24     deemed appropriate for  these violations,
25                It is very gratifying to us that because of facts

-------
    	459





 1                             Mrs. L. Botts



 2     presented by MACAPO that two Federal investigations have



 3     been ordered.  But, what good does it do to order the



 4     investigations if the Environmental Protection Agency and



 5     the U.S. Corps of Engineers do not have the staff to do the



 6     investigation?  For it is these agencies that must collect



 7     the evidence and submit same to the United States Attorney



 g     before prosecution of violators can commence.



 9               The United States just spent another $400 million



10     putting two more men on the moon.  Many Americans seriously



11     question the sanity of such an expenditure.  How can we



12     justify spending this fantastic sum exploring the moon to



13     bring home rocks, when over half of the American fresh-



14     water supply is either poisoned, dead, or on the verge of



15     disaster?



16               America is still on a collision course with obliv-



17     ion.  We have not yet accepted pollution as the  national



lg     crisis it really is.



19               MACAPO has been criticized when we ask if the



20     State of Michigan is looking for an obituary list as proof



21     that pollution or injury is occurring.



22               MACAPO has requested the precise Michigan Water




23     Resources Commission definition of the word "injury."



24     It was stated that some things cannot be put down in black




25     and white.  It is the opinion of MACAPO, that if the

-------
                                                            460
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                              Mrs. L. Botts
Michigan Water Resources Commission cannot precisely define
the word "injury," then they cannot use the word.
          By the Michigan Water Resources own admission, 5
Michigan industries contribute 50 percent of the total
chloride input to Lake Michigan,  MACAPO has been working
to see a cease and desist of chloride disposal to surface
and ground waters.
          On October 2, 1970, MACAPO made a presentation
to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Workshop, at
which time we outlined the vast tonnages of chlorides
presently contaminating Lake Michigan from industries in
the Manistee area.
          The chloride problem of our area is not to be
taken lightly, but at the same time, we are amazed and appall
ed by the lack of compatible standards with our  sister
States  on the Lake Michigan shoreline.  We of MACAPG, do
not understand why a  standard of  50  parts  per million is
allowed by  established  standards  of  Michigan, while  our
neighbors to  the south,  Illinois  and Indiana, hold to a
standard of 9 parts  per million.
          As  you are  aware, the  Special  Report  No.  11
issued by the University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee,  Center
 for Great Lakes  Studies under the direction  of  Dr.  A. M.
Beeton, has issued a very vivid graph in Figure 10,

-------
                                                              463

 T                             Mrse L. Botts
 2-     page 30 "Changes in the Chemical Characteristics of Lake
 o     Michigan", shows a very precise chloride part per million
 .      count soaring past 8 parts per million, and if not in fact
 c     surpassing the 9 parts per million allowed by our neighboring
       States.
                 This, gentlemen, in essence says to our sister
 d     States of Illinois and Indiana, by the standards set, you
 n     can no longer have any chloride discharge to Lake Michigan
       since the lake is already at the maximum level set by the
       standards as approved by the Department of the Interior.
,2               How pathetic that we are all to sit and count
•IT     our chloride input to Lake Michigan and divide it by the
•], ,      total volume of Lake Michigan and say that we will never
       reach a given parts per million.  It is unfortunate  when
       intelligent people will add chlorides in this manner and
       disregard all those operating on the same basis.
                 Let us, just for once, sit down and consider the
•jo     whole chloride problem as contributed by large and small
       discharger alike, and then  in retrospect we  can see the
       problem as it truly exists.
22               When we are to  consider that the chloride
23     standard  that Michigan has  elected  to  select for  its
2/.     maximum part per million  count  is so far greater  than  any
25     other  State bordering on  Lake Michigan, are  we not being

-------
                                                             462





 1                             Mrs. L. Botts



 2     unfair about the amount of chlorides that Lake Michigan




 3     can realistically absorb?



 4               MACAPO is told repeatedly that the exceptionally



 5     high  chloride  count in the Manistee area exists because



 6     the term "mixing zone" exists.  To date, we have not



 7     had a specific definition of "mixing zone1* and can  only



 &     conclude that  the term "mixing  zone" applies to any area



 9     where the part per million  count  is in  excess of a  given




10     standard.



11                In  conclusion, in view  of the aforementioned



12     facts,  we of  MACAPO wish to make  the following recommenda-



13     tions for upgrading Lake Michigan and  urge their immediate




14      consideration and adoption.



15                1)   Since Lake Michigan is a contiguous  body  o'f



16     water effecting four  States, we urge the  establishment  of



17      uniform water quality standards,  nullifying  the  individual



13     State standards approved by the Department  of the  Interior.



19      These new uniform water quality standards to be  set as



20      high as is technically possible,  allowing an absolute



21      minimum of pollutants to further degrade  Lake Michigan.



22                2)   Establish a uniform set  of effluent  standards




23      rather than using Lake Michigan as a test tube for mixing



24      and  diluting all types of pollutants.



25                3)   Immediately press for adequate funding and

-------
                                                           463

                              Mrs. L. Botts
 2    staffing so that the agencies empowered by law to preserve
 o    Lake Michigan can function with the least amount of delay
 A    and red tape.
 c              Conferences are  fine to  a point, but if
      aggressive, positive action does not displace rhetoric,
      Lake Michigan will be lost, just as we  have lost Lake Erie
      and Lake St. Glair.
                That concludes the statement  from the Manistee
      County Anti-Pollution Organization sent to me by Mrs.
      Carole Magnus of that group.
12
              STATEMENT OF THE MASON COUNTY ANTI POLLUTION
                        ACTION COUNCIL (MACAPAC),
                        (READ BY MRS. LEE BOTTS)
16
                MRS. BOTTS:  The second  statement is from the
      Mason County Anti-Pollution Action Council of Michigan,  and
19    also concerns chlorides.  I am sorry I  don't have copies
20    of this second statement, but I will supply this to the
2i    reporter,,  This report is similar in content to the one
22    which was presented at a public meeting held by the Michigan
23    Water Resources Commission in Manistee  on January 21, 1971
24              This organization, the Mason  County Anti-Pollution
25    Action Council was formed in September of last year to

-------
 5
 7
-L2
21
22
23
25
	464
                      Mrs, L, Botts
 study and act upon the pollution problems of our area,
 We  now  have information on a number of different pollution
 problems there*
          We will limit ourselves in this paper to only
 one problem.  That is, chloride discharges into Lake
 Michigan from a  pipeline between Ludington and Manistee,
 In  our  paper we  will  draw from data from the Water Resources
 Commission Industrial Wastewater Survey Reports and from
 the minutes of the Michigan Water Resources Commission
 meeting of January 21, 1971,  We will use these data because
 they are the most reliable and authoritative we have.
          The Industrial Wastewater Survey Report is that of
 the Dow Chemical Company of Ludington, Michigan, for
 November 3-5 of  1969?  This report is approximately 16
 months  old at this time*
          Dow Chemical Company processes brine.  It dis-
 charges effluent containing  concentrations of  chloride
 into Pere Marquette  River,   In addition, Dow discharges
 effluent  containing  high  concentrations of chlorides into
 Lake Michigan by way of a 14^-ineh  diameter pipeline which
 runs from the plant  in Ludington to a  point approximately
 9,000 feet  north of  Point  Sable  and  500 feet from  shore
 in about  15  feet of  water.   This pipeline has  been in
 existence  since 1943•  In the meeting  of January  21, 1971,

-------
 1 ji                         Mrs. L. Botts
   i
 2 !    the Water Resources Commission admitted that five point
 .  i
 3     sources  supply at least one-half of all chlorides into
 4     Lake Michigan,,  Three are in Manistee and two in Ludington.
 5     The two  in Ludington were named as The Dow Chemical
 6     Company  and the Harbison-Walker Company,
 7              We would like to draw your attention to some
 3     figures  for the discharge of this pipeline.  For the first
 9     survey period from the third to the fourth of November,
10     the total  solids discharged were 3,190,000 pounds per day.
11     The total  chlorides discharged was 1,693*000 pounds per
12     day.   The  concentration of chlorides was 145,000 milli-
13     grams  per  liter.  For the second survey period, from the
14     fourth to  the fifth of November, the total solids discharged
15     were 1,44^,000 pounds per day.  The total chlorides dis-
16     charged  was 794,000 pounds per day.  The concentration of
17     chlorides  was 6S,000 milligrams per liter.  We understand
lg     that Dow is participating in a voluntary program to
19     restrict and control the polluting content of their waste
20     discharges.  We have requested information on the subject
21     from Dow but have not yet received any.
22               Note that we are talking about millions of pounds
23     of chlorides and  concentrations in the thousands of parts
24     per million.  The quantities of discharge over a long
25     period of  time have amounted to astronomic proportions.

-------
                                                              466



 1                          Mrs, L. Botts
   i

 2     The concentrations  of chlorides as they come from the pipe


 3     are vastly greater  than any acceptable standard which we


 4     know of,


 5 j              We understand that the  discharge of these heavy


 6     concentrations of chlorides have  been permitted with the


 7     concept that there  is a mixing zone where these chlorides


 g     are mixed and diluted with the freshwaters of Lake Michigan,


 9     We submit that, in  practice, the  definition of a mixing


10     zone is that quantity of  water required to dilute an un-


11     acceptable effluent to an acceptable level.  By this logic


12     it might  be reasoned that no discharge would be unaccept-


13     able until the entire lake failed to meet the standards


14     for discharge waters,


15               We also understand that, at present, one must


16     prove injury before action can be taken to abate a par-


17     ticular pollution problem.  In practice, injury has been


l£     interpreted to mean obituary and  regulation impossible


19     until the damage is done,


20               The primary  fault is not with Dow,  Dow has 400


2i     employees in Ludington,   The  community depends on their


22     presence.  It would be  pointless  to act against Dow and


23     not against other firms which may do the  same thing,


24     perhaps in other States,  What  Dow has done is neither


25     illegal nor unreasonable  under the circumstances.  The

-------
                                                               467


                             Mrs.  L. Botts

 2 i    fault is in the circumstances.
   I
 3               What is needed is:   1)  regulation of industrial
   i
 4     waste discharges with uniform standards based on ecologic

 5     principles; 2) that the regulations be enforceable;  3)

 6     that there be sufficient personnel and funds to enforce

 7     them; and 4) that there be  additional technical and  scien-

 g     tific personnel and funds to  find solutions,  if possible,

 9     for problems for which there  are  presently no solutions.

10               We are concerned  about  the pollution problems

11     of our lake and elsewhere.  Our ability to affect these

12     problems is limited.  Representatives here have the  power

13     to affect these problems if they  will act.  The primary

14     fault is, therefore, inaction.

15               I thank you very  much.   I have already discussed

16     with Mr. Purdy the statements and I am sorry I cannot

17     answer questions on behalf  of these groups; I can only

lg     present their statements.

19               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.   Are there any comments

20     or questions?

21               MR. DUMELLE:   Mr. Stein,  I would like to ask

22     Mr. Mayo, as the result of  the Federal investigations at

23     Manistee, what action is planned   if any  on this discharge

24     of  1,500 tons of salt to the lake every day,  and what

25     action  if any  is planned  at this other discharge we just

-------
                                                               468
                           Mrs, L, Botts
     heard about in the Ludington area2
               It seems to me the whole business of saving the
     lake is tied up in this particular instance that we are
     hearing about here.  Chlorides are persistent.  Chlorides
     are not desired in a freshwater body.  We have got a stan-
     dard here which is very low; it is very loose — 50 parts
     per million.  The Illinois standard is 9.
o              It seems to me we are permitting degradation
     and we have heard a lot of talk about Federal action,  I
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
      still  haven't  seen it in Iowa, because you said the decision
      is deferred there, and I just wondered what has happened
      here in the investigation that I know went on up there last
      August,
                MR, MAYO:  Well, first, I think it would be
      appropriate if we could permit Mr, Purdy to make — he
      indicated he desired to make a statement, and I think let
      him have an opportunity to  apprise the  conferees of the
      State program of remedial action which  I understand is
      under way.
               As far as I was concerned,  I  think I  have  to
      express resentment at your comments,  Mr.  Dumelle,  because
      the Federal Government did,  in fact,  in the  case of  Iowa,
      take a positive action.  It  did promulgate Federal stan-
      dards.  It  went as far as the statute would  permit it to

-------
                                                               469






 1                              Mrs.  L.  Botts




 2     go.   The Governor of Iowa requested the  hearing process be



 3     initiated,  and  there are  activities going on  now that  I



       mentioned to you earlier  — the meeting  of the  Iowa Pollu-




 5     tion Control Commission tomorrow.   I understand it  is  to



 5     address itself  to a variety of matters dealing  with Iowa




 7     water quality standards,




                 MR. DUMELLE:  Mr.  Chairman —




                 MR. STEIN: May I make  a suggestion?   I don't want



       to cut anyone off.   Mr. Dumelle,  I am going to  give you a



       last word on this,  but I  can't help feeling that any




       acrimonious discussion in particular to  Iowa  is not going



       to °;et us very  far  in the Lake Michigan  problem. But



•11      go ahead.




                 MR. MAYO;   I defer to Mr.  Purdy.




                 MR. DUMELLE:  I would like an  expression  of



       what the Federal Government  is going to  do  in these par-



       ticular polluting cases.



•jo               MR. STEIN:  Do  you want  to respond  now, Mr.



2Q     Purdy,  or not?




                 MR. PURDY: Well,  I  wanted to  make  some comments



22     with respect to the statements, and I did not intend to



       comment in  detail on the  statements.




                 My silence on many points of the  statements  does



_-     not  mean that I am  in agreement with what has been  stated.

-------
                                                               470

                            Mrs* L, Botts
 2               I  do hope that we  can agree with the Manistee
 3     County group that  some progress is being made.
                 Now, from the standpoint of chlorides, this men-
       tions the Michigan Water Resources Commission meeting of
       January,  and I don't want to leave the impression that the
       Commission waited  until January of 1971 to look at this
       problem in detail.
                 In fact, Mrs, Magnus was present at a Water
10     Resources Commission meeting in June of 1970 where the
11     same problem was considered, and  the only reason we  are at
12     the point that we  are now is that a great deal of ground-
13     work has gone on in the past.
                 But I  would say that the Commission last summer
15     looked at the matter of chloride  discharges into Lake
16     Michigan, and they looked at many reports from the stand-
17     point of what the problem might be, and  one of these
       reports is a report published  by  Mr, Owribey and Mr, Willeke
19     on behalf — I  would guess  —  of  the  Great Lakes Illinois
20     River Basin Project,  It was published in one of the
2i     annual reports  of the Great Lakes Research  Conference
22     about 1966,   And at  that  point in time,  they  very  flatly
23     stated that  from the  standpoint of the lake as a whole
24     that they were  not concerned with the chloride or  sulphate irj-
25     put into the lake from the  standpoint of causing an  injury.

-------
     	471
   i
 1. j|                         Mrs, L. Botts
   i
 2. jj             Now, even though there was a great deal of inform-
   jl
 3    ation to indicate that chlorides were not, say, a problem

 4 !   or one that could be forecast in the immediate future,
   I
 5    soaring past 8 milligrams per liter, I don»t know — there
   i
 6    are not too many waters in this country that will meet

 7    that level,

 &              But looking at the inputs to the lake, we did

 9    find that on the basis of estimates that my staff was able

10    to make of the inputs that might be made into Lake Michigan

11    from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and then the data

12    that we had available from Michigan, that we had five point

13    sources that could represent 50 percent of the annual

14 j   input of chlorides to Lake Michigan,  The Michigan Water

15    Resources Commission did not believe that this is the best

16    and wisest use of either this brine resource or of Lake

17    Michigan, and that the impact of these certainly was felt

1#    upon Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and the entire Great Lake

19     system.  And  so, therefore, they asked the staff to immedi-

20    ately  contact these  companies and  develop a program that

21    would  reduce  this chloride  input to minimum levels by

22     December of 1972*  We have  proceeded on that program,

23              I am positive that at least three and possibly

24     four of the companies now have  signed binding  agreements

25    with the Michigan Water Resources  Commission to carry out

-------
 1                          Mrs, L, Botts



 2    this program and, in fact, there will be some very sub-



 3    stantial cutbacks yet this year, and we intend to carry



      forward on this program.  So I think action is well under



 5    way to bring this problem — if it is a problem —• but



 6    certainly to conserve this resource, and that action is



 7    under way to do just that very thing,



                MR, STEIN:  Do you care to make a further response



 o,    now, Mr, Dumelle?



10              MR. DUMELLE:  Yes,  I think the significance here



11    lies in two points.  One is that, whether the chlorides in



12    Lake Michigan are & parts or 9 parts and we can go up to



13    50 or 200, we are still permitting degradation when we



14    have sources such as this that can be controlled, and I



15    think the Federal Government should be looking at that



16    particular point,



17              Secondly, we have the whole business of the



18    jurisdiction of the Conference,  These industries — at



19    least the Manistee ones — I am not familiar with the



20    others — were never listed as being under the jurisdiction



21    of this Conference, and they were never listed because



22    Michigan chose not to list them, and I think that is



23    because each State chose for itself what pollutant and



24    what polluter affected the quality of Lake Michigan and



25    there were no guidelines.  And perhaps if I were in

-------
     	473



                            Mrs, L.  Botts


 2 *jj   Michigan I  would have done the same thing.   But I think it

   ii
 3  |   points out  the ineffectiveness of  the  Conference procedure,


 4  '   as it is presently drawn, and  I hope when we get to  the


 5     compliance  schedules that somewhere in there we can  work


 6  !   out procedure for taking another look  at all these other


 7     industries,


 g              MR. PURDY: Mr. Dumelle, you are  pushing me  to


 9 i    the same point that I have to  make the same comment  that


10 !|   Mr, Mayo did and I resent some of  your remarks, because —


                MRc STEIN: Could  you wait?   Let  me try to do


12  !   this,


13              I appreciate  what  Mr, Purdy  is going to say,


14     and maybe I should let  him talk now, but let me try  to
    i
15 ji   state the facts straight.  We  didn't permit the States to


16 i    pick their  own polluters or  pollutants. The conferees


lr,     came  up with  a program  on certain municipal


       and industrial wastes.   Chlorides  were not  included, and if


19     the chlorides were not  included, this  was a defect of  the


20     Federal conferees as well as the State conferees, including


21     Illinois,

22               Now, to my mind, this does not,


23     on the contrary, point  up the  defect of the conierence


24  i   procedure^  this points  up the  essential strength of  the


25     conference  procedure because if anything has been overlooked

-------
     	474
   p                                                          ~  ~~  '
   i
 1                          Mrs, L. Botts
 2     — and you very well may  be right on the facts, Mr.
 3     Dumelle, that something is overlooked  — any laxity on the
 4     part of any governmental  agency or on  the  part of  an
 5     industry is open to continuous  scrutiny and rectification
 6     in the repeated meetings  of the conference*
 7               Now, as I see this, we have  three alternatives
 $     as far as our problem:
 o               1.  Either the  dischargers  are a violation of
10     the 1399 Act  and they are putting out an industrial waste
H     without a permit and maybe we should move to stop it,
12     we have to get the specifics on that to see if we can move.
15               2.  The  second point is maybe we didn't cover
14     this  in the conference,  or maybe the conference should
15     cover chlorides.      If  this is your proposal, certainly
16     as chairman I am going to make this open  to the conferees
17     and let them  see if they want  to include  chlorides in
lg     this<,
19                3.   Thirdly — and this is  another hat, as you
20     may know, that I wear — evidently the different  States
21      in Lake Michigan have different standards for  chlorides.
22                The much maligned State  of  Iowa has  joined with
23      us on the Mississippi and the  9 other Mississippi States
24      	 10 States in all — to come up with uniform temperature
25       standards for the whole State of Mississippi or the whole

-------
     	475




                            Mrs, L.  Botts



 2-     Mississippi  River,  which was a difficult  job  indeed.



 3               We have  four  States  here.   If you feel that the



 /,     four States  have differences in the  chloride  requirements
 ^ !


 5     which are impeding different State programs and may not



 6     adequately preserve the lakes, just  let us know, I will

   i
 7     get the four States together   We will try to come to an



       agreement on a chloride standard, and then we will ask



 9     you all with us to put  this through  the requirements and



10     get them all to line up the same as  we got the Mississippi



11     States to line up,  including Iowa.

   !   .

12 !              Now, these are the three things I see and they



       can all work simultaneously.



12,               By the way, I hope you have cooled  off by now,
   I


15 !    Mr. Purdy,  (Laughter)



16               MR. PURDI: Not  entirely.



17               MR. STEIN: Go ahead.



                 MR. PURDY: First of all,  I resent  the statement



19     that we have not included  this information to the conferees,



20     because in all of  our listing  of industries and municipali-



2i     ties, and any of the reports that we have made to this



22     Conference,  we have listed all of the industries, all of



23     the municipalities within  the  entire drainage basin of



24     Lake Michigan.



25               Now,  from the standpoint of those that we said

-------
                            	476



 1 ||                         Mrs, L. Botts

 2    had an effect on Lake Michigan and came within the time

 3    schedules established by this Conference, we relied upon

 4    the conclusions reached by the conferees at earlier Con-

 5    ferences.  And I know, at this time, of no conclusion that

 6    related to chlorides and found that chlorides discharged

 7    into Lake Michigan from any State affected or endangered

 g    the health or welfare of persons in another State.

 o.              Now, if there is information in the record of

10    this Conference to show this finding — or at any other —•

11    I  am ready to bring those — or that information to the

12    conferees with time schedules and place them under the

1^    jurisdiction of this Conference.

14              But until there is that finding, I do not believe

15    that I need to place those industries under the time

16    schedules here.

17              Now, secondly, there are many ways to accomplish

1#    things, and earlier you pointed out the primary jurisdic-

19    tion of the State to  carry out some of these actions.  I

20    think this is now under way.  I think it is under way under

21    a  timely basis, and I hope that we do not delay programs

22    that are now already under way and will go to their

23    completion.

24              MR, STEIN:  Mr. Dumelle.
   I
25              MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, did I understand you

-------
   	                             	477
   1	

 1. i                          Mrs. L. Botts

 2 j    to say that the subject of chlorides was not a part of
  K !

 3     this Conference?

 4               MR. STEIN:  I did not.   If you understood me to

 5     say that, I don't believe I did,  and I don't believe I

 6     intended to say that.  The subject of chlorides certainly

 7     can be a part of this Conference.  We put it on the agenda*

 8               MRc CURRIE:  I was just going to remind you of

 9     that.  What was it you said?

10               MR. STEINs  I said — let me repeat again what

11     I said — that if you wanted a chloride requirement in

12     this Conference all you had to do  was write it up,  because

13     I said that was one of the strengths of the Conference

14     technique, that we constantly bring up new items.

15               MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, I hereby bring it up.

16               MR. STEIN:  All right.

17               MR. CURRIEj  Mr. Chairman, I move that —

lg               MR. STEIN:  Wait a moment.  Wait a moment.

19               MR0 CURRIE:  I move that that item be added to

20     the agenda of this Conference.

21               MR. STEIN:  Now, let me make a  suggestion

22     to you — and I also said that there were three

23     ways that I thought we could handle this: 1) go 1#99 with

24     the Statej 2) the route of getting all of the States to

25     dovetail their standards — maybe we should do all three —

-------
                                                               473
 1                           Mrs,  L.  Botts
 2     and 3) bring this up as part of the Conference.(See pp.  47#a,b)
                 However, I would  like to  suggest  that  the repre-
       sentatives of the power companies were  kind enough to
       withdraw their request for  a statement  now,  I think they
       did this on the assumption  —  at least  the  assumption  I
       had — that we had a  couple of short statements.
                 Unless we hear from  other public  people,  perhaps
       we should honor the requests of the power companies to
       put in their statement now, and then have a full discussion
11     of the chloride problem at  the conclusion of that*   Is
12     that agreeable?
                 MR. CURRIE:  I believe there  is a motion on  the
       floor, Mr* Chairman,
15               MR8 STEIN:  Right,  All right,  now, let's see
       what you want ~-
17               MR. FRANCOS:  Mr, Chairman, I would like to
       comment that I concur in your  suggestion  that we ought to
       address ourselves to the thermal question and let's see
20     if we can't get one item at least somewhat  closer to some
2i     conclusion and then take up some other  item. We are just
22     wandering all over the place here at this point,
23               MR. MAYO:  I agree,  Mr, Chairman, since chlorides
24     are specifically mentioned  on  the agenda.
25               MR. STEIN:  All right. Let's poll the States0

-------
DAVID P. CURRIE,CHAIRMAN
SAMUEL R.ALDRICH
JACOB D. DUMELLE
RICHARD J.KISSEL
SAMUEL T. LAWTON.JR.
                               STATE OF ILLINOIS
169 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 9OO
     CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O6O2
                                              March 30, 1971
                                               TELEPHONE
                                              312-793-363O
Mr.  Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Officer
Office of Water Quality
U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Washington,  D. C.  20204
Dear Mr. Stein:
After my public discussion on March 24 at the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference with Mr.  Ralph Purdy of Michigan and Mr. Francis T.  Mayo of
the U. S. EPA Regional Office on the discharge of chlorides from Michigan
you stated  to me that you would "sue the companies under the 1899 Refuse Act"
if I would provide you with their names.

I then told  you that Mr. Mayo's staff had run field investigations at Manistee
and that full data were already available but you again repeated your request
for the names of the companies involved.

That  afternoon I gave to you a handwritten list listing the following companies
as putting approximately  1500 tons of salt into Lake Michigan each day:

                    Morton Salt Company, Manistee,  Michigan
                    Manistee Salt Company, Manistee,  Michigan
                    Great Lakes Chemical Company,  Filer City, Michigan
                    Standard Lime and Cement Company, Manistee,  Michigan

The following company was listed as putting approximately 1000 tons of salt into
the Lake every day:

                    Dow Chemical  Company, Ludington, Michigan

-------
                                                                         47Sb
Mr.  Murray Stein                   -2-                   March 30,  1971
Since these companies were never listed by Michigan as coming under the
jurisdiction of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference (See February 25, 1969
proceedings,  p.  108-109,111) there should be no Conference impediment to prevent
a suit under the 1899 Refuse Act.

I would appreciate being informed when suit is filed against these companies.  I
would also request that this letter be made a part of the Conference record of
the sessions of March 23-25, 1971.
                                             Very truly yours,
                                           / Jacob D.  Dumelle
                                             Member
JDDrrj                                / /

-------
                                                               479
   r
 1* j                          Mrs* L.  Botts
 2-'              What do you feel in  Indiana?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 !
22
23
24
25
 3 j              MR.  MILLER:   Let's proceed with the testimony
 4 \    from the power people  on the thermal question,,
 5               MR.  STEIN:   Mr. Purdy.
   i
 6 i              MRo  PURDY:   I would like to hear from the utili-
   i
 7 i    ties now with  respect  to the thermal problem.
   i
                 MR.  STEIN:   I think I kear a ground swell for
 9     that.  May we  proceed  on that basis?
10               Are  there any other —  I just want  to go through
11 ;    this for the record — there are  no other people from
   i
12     Indianaj no other people from Illinois; or Wisconsin who
wish to make statements now?
          I do have one statement in addition —- a state-
ment I would like to put into the record, addressed to Mr«>
Pancoe from Associate Professor Thomas B. Roos of Dartmouth
College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
          I think a good portion of this was covered in
Mr. Pancoe1s statement.  I will distribute it to you,
but without objection this will appear in the record as
if read.
          (The above-mentioned statement follows in
its entirety.)

-------
                                                              430

                                 T.  B. Roos
 1
                                                   22 March  1971
 2
       Reconvened  Third  Session  of  Lake Michigan  Enforcement
 3     Conference
       c/o Mr,  Arthur Pancoe
 4     1020 South  Wabash Avenue
       Chicago,  Illinois   60605
 5
       Gentlemen:
 6
                The  proposed  use of Lake  Michigan  onshore  surface
 7
       water as a  coolant for  power-generating nuclear  reactors
 a
       poses a  potential threat  to  the lake  for at  least  two
 9
       reasons:  1) damage to surface plankton  and 2)  long-term
10
       thermal  disturbance.
11
                Constant cycling of virtually all  onshore
12
       surface  waters through  the reactors will expose  sensitive
13
       planktonic  organisms, both plant  and  animal, to  a  profound
14
       thermal  shock.  Although  their duration at elevated
15
       temperatures will be  short in terms of  a human life,  evert
16
       two to five minutes is  long  in the  life of a single-cell
17
       organism.  The process  of cell division, necessary for cell
18
       continuity, requires  only 5  to 30 minutes, depending on
19
       the species.  Planktonic  organisms  have evolved  in a
20
       relatively  stable environment, in which temperature  changes
21
       are slow or absent.  Indeed, many minute plants  and  animals
22
       use small (less than  2°)  fluctuations in temperature as
23
       signals  for developmental change.   Brief exposure  to elevate
24
       temperatures is sufficiently likely to  produce change in
25
       ism physiology and maturation to  warrant a detailed  study  of

-------
 1"|                           T.  B.  Roos


 2 *    the effects of temperature on all of the organisms  involved


 3 jj    in the specific waters to  be  affected.   I know of no  such


 4     detailed study on Lake Michigan plankton, but  one should


 5 i    be done before risking major, permanent  damage.   It should


 6 l    be emphasized that the surface algae are the sole base  of


       the food chain on which all lake animal  life depends:   a


       reduction in available fixed  carbon (i.e.,  starch and


 9     cellulose) will propagate  proportionally through the  entire


10     ecological pyramid.


                 Thermal pollution itself poses a special  problem
   i
   ii

12 !|    for the Lake Michigan Basin.   The V-shaped profile  of the


13     lake favors a high thermocline, with a  shallow layer  of


14     warm water overlying a deep mass of cold water:   mixing


15     between these two water masses is slow.   Complete turnover


16     requires 10,000 years in Lake Michigan.   Calculations of


17     heat dissipation must take into account  only this limited


18     mass of available diluent  water, and not the entire water


19     volume.  It is even possible  that adding to the heat  of


20     the surface layer will slow down water  turnover,  intensify


21     thermal stratification, and speed the process  of deoxygena-


22     tion of the lake bottom.


23               I hope that this letter expresses the basis of my


24     concern as a biologist for the planned  use of  Lake  Michigan.


25     The potential damage is great and irreversible.   I  doubt

-------
                                                                432
 1                               T.  B.  Roos
 2     that adequate information is  available to prove that the
 3     changes will be benign.   Such changes ought not be made
 /,.     until their safety is ascertained.
 5               Sincerely yours, Thomas B, Roos, Associate
       Professor.
                 MR. STEIN:  With that, let us recess for 10
       minutes.
                 (Short recess.)
10               MR. STEIN:  I have  a few statements here; one
11     of Mrs. Mary Helen Dunlop.  (See p. 4$3)
12               Then I have a statement of Mr. Polikoff of the
       Businessmen for the Public Interest which will be put in
       the record, as if read,  without objection.  (See pp.
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                             433
  the Committee on Lake  Michigan Pollution  ~e

     A STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAKE .MICHIGAN POLLUTION
                         TO THE
          FOUR STATE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
I am (speaking for) Mary Helen Uunlop,  chairman of the sub-
committee  on  pesticides of the Committee  on Lake Michigan
Pollution.

Our committee is composed principally of  citizens of the
suburbs on the Lake shore north of Chicago.  Our concern is
to maintain the quality of Lake Michigan  and therefore to
prevent anytiiing which might prove deleterious to the Lake.

Therefore,  we recommend to the conferees  of the Enforcement
Conference that they take whatever action is necessary to
prevent the use or discard of any persistent oesticide xvhere-
or in such mann-.-r as—it might enter Lake Michigan by wind
drift or flo\v or runoff.

-------
£^
|e%Mi
          FOR IMMEDIATE

          MARCH 24,  1971
               CONTACT:  Alexander Polikoff or
                         pavid Dinsmor^ Comey
                         109 N, Dearbozn Street
                         Chicago, 111, 60602
                          (312) 641-5570
                   RUCKELSHAUS  CONGRATULATED  ON  THERMAL
                   POLLUTION, CRITICIZED  ON INDUSTRIAL "  -'"',' ''•"'!" ',.
                            POLLUTION, BY  BPI      , ' ""     ;

          The federal  Environmental  Protection Agency. 1nay/,be.. standing fast
     against the  thermal pollution of a dead  lake,.according' to Businessmen
     for the Public Interest, a Chicago based environmental and urban
     affairs organization.

          In a letter  today to  EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus,
     BPI congratulated the  federal agency on  its firm  stand,  taken at
     yesterday's  session of the federal-state Enforcement Conference on
     Lake Michigan, against the prospective degradation  of Lake Michigan
     from future  thermal pollution sources.  But in the  same  letter BPI
     criticized the agency  for  its failure  to deal  with  present and
     continuing degradation of  Lake  Michigan  from PXJ"•H ng industrial
     pollution sources.

          Alexander Polikoff, BPI's  Executive Director,  said  in the
     letter to Ruckelshaus  that two  facts about  Lake Michigan must never
     be forgotten.   The first is that the Lake is "already well along
     the road to  eutrophication," and is  probably at the "break point"
     of ''drastic  and most likely irreversible changes."

          The second,  according to the BPI  letter,  is  the "frightening
     prospect" that the degradation  of Lake Michigan may be irreversible
     because, unlike the other  Great Lakes, there is practically no
     "flow through" or flushing of Lake Michigan.

          For  these, reasons BPI  called "with the intensity of
     desperation"  for vigorous  enforcement of the federal Refuse Act
     with respect  to industrial  pollution  of Lake Michigan or, as  an
     alternative,  for a  "best  technology"  requirement in the Refuse
     Act permit program  now under consideration  by the Nixon Adminis-
     tration.  Under the "best  technology" requirement industry would
     be required to use  the best available technology as quickly as
     possible  to reduce  or eliminate  its pollution.

          Unless one of  the two  courses of action was taken immediately,
     BPI told  Ruckelshaus, the  federal agency might soon be dealing
     with a "dead  lake."

-------
GORDON SHERMAN
 President
  •XANDER POLIKOFF
 ^xecutive Director
MARSHALL PATNER
 General Counsel
DAVID DINSMORE CoMtv
 Director of
  Environmental Research
FRANCES SEBASTIAN
 Associate Counsel
FREDRICK BLUM
 Director of Urban Research
JOHN BEAR
 Director of Communication
JEFFREY FITZGERALD
 Research Associate
DUANE LlNDSTROM
 Research Associate
                          BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
                               109 NORTH DEARBORN STREET
                                     SUITE 1001
                                 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
                                    (312)641-5570
                                        March. 24, 1971
Hon. William Ruckelshaus,  Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency-
Washington,  D.C. 20240
Dear Mr.  Ruckelshaus:

        We congratulate you on your strong  and
forthright letter, read yesterday at the Lake
Michigan  Enforcement Conference, concerning the
thermal pollution danger  to Lake Michigan.  'Your
recognition that the condition of Lake Michigan
requires  prompt and vigorous protective action
and a  "course of caution" where ecological  harm
may be involved is precisely correct and an
important expression of principle.

        In view of your strong position on  the
prospective problem of thermal pollution, we
cannot understand your weak position on the
present problem of industrial pollution.

        It is not thermal pollution that has
brought Lake Michigan to  its present degraded
condition.   Industrial pollution is one of  the
principle causes of that.   And industrial pollution
may be dealt with promptly and effectively  because,
as you know, the Refuse Act prohibits the discharge
of industrial waste into  Lake Michigan.  Yet  your
office has taken the position that the Refuse Act
should be subordinated to the ineffective Federal
Water  Pollution Control Act..  Nor has it to our
knowledge supported the position of Congressman
Henry  Reuss and other leading environmentalists
that if the Administration's proposed permit
program under the Refuse  Act is substituted for
vigorous  enforcement of that Act, the standard to
be applied should be "best technology" - that is,

-------
                                                               436
Hon. William Ruckelshaus              March 24, 1971
                                            Page Two
no permits should be granted except upon the
condition that industrial pollution be reduced
and stopped altogether as rapidly as technology
permits.

        In this connection I call to your
attention Congressman Reuss's letter of
February 26, 1971 to Russell Train, a copy of
which was sent to you on that date.  Congressman
Reuss there urges the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Corps of Engineers to require
as a condition of any permit to be issued under
the proposed permit program that the permittee
provide the best system of pollution control
available within an established time table.  His
specific suggestion is that permits require,

            "that the permittee shall install,
             use, and maintain one or more
             systems or methods which, using
             the best available technology,
             provide, within the shortest
             feasible time, for the elimina-
             tion, or the maximum feasible
             reduction, of the refuse discharged
             or deposited by the permittee."

        Two facts about Lake Michigan must never
be forgotten.  First, the Lake is already well
along the road to eutrophication.  Recent studies
conducted under a federal grant show that all
of the plankton diatoms associated with "extreme
water quality degradation in the Great Lakes
system" are already present in Lake Michigan.  One
of those studies concluded that Lake Michigan is
probably at the "break point" of "drastic and most
likely irreversible changes in the entire ecosystem."
(Stoermer and Yang, Plankton Diatom Assemblages in
Lake Michigan, pages 209-10.)

        Second, the frightening prospect is that this
degradation of Lake Michigan may be irreversible.
There is practically no "flushing" action in Lake
Michigan.  Pollutants which accumulate there, stay
there.  A U.S. Public Health Service official told

-------
Hon. William Ruckelshaus              March 24, 1971
                                          Page Three
tha very first session of z Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference that once concentrations of pollutants
reach levels which interfere with water use in Lake
Michigan, it may not be possible to bring about "any
significant improvement in the quality of the Lake
waters."  (Conference Proceedings, March 2-9, 1965,
Vol. 1, pp.  279-81.)

        For these reasons it is essential to halt
present and continuing degradation of Lake Michigan
from existing industrial pollution sources as well
as to prevent prospective degradation of the Lake
from future thermal pollution sources.

        With the intensity of desperation Businessmen
for the Public Interest urges you to call for prompt
and vigorous enforcement of the Refuse Act with
respect to Lake Michigan.  If you cannot do this, we
urge you to include in any Refuse Act permit program
the "best technology" permit requirement.

        Unless one of these two courses of action is
taken immediately, the Environmental Protection
Agency may well be in the position of standing fast
against the thermal pollution of a dead lake.
                        Very truly yours ,
                        Alexander Polikoff
ALPreo

P.S.  Enclosed for your information is an article on
      this subject, "Last Chance for Lake Michigan,"
      which will appear in the "Perspective" section
      of the Chicago Sunday Tribune on March 28,
      1971.

-------
 1 :!                       P, Zlatoff-Mirsky

 2
   Ij
 3 I             STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA ZLATOFF-MIRSKY,

 4 \\                    HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS

 5 i            (PRESENTED FOR THE RECORD BUT NOT READ)

 / ll
   j|             What do I expect from the Four-State Conference:

 7 !!
   ij             1,  Restrictions on all industry so that Lake
 d
      Michigan will not be used until after proof has been
 Q
      presented that whatever they do will not upset the balance

   I   of nature in any way,
   i
i -i i
   jl             2,  A committee to monitor Lake Michigan'with

12 I!
   |i   representatives from the Conference, industry, science,

      ecology, including representatives of the surrounding
11 '
   I   community.  This committee must be properly funded so it

      can do the job effectively for a period of time to equal

   jj   the life of the industry or the lake,
~\ ^7
   •             3.  Cooling towers,

                4»  Complete safety from radioactive accidents

19 "
      at every level, from mining to transportation and storage,

   ij            What do I expect from industry such as Commonwealth
20

21
      Edison:
22
                1,  An immediate effort to find safer and less
23
      wasteful ways to supply electrical power regardless of
24
      previous commitmentsc
25

-------
                          P.  Zlatoff-Mirsky
 2*|              2.  Public and private recognition that  the
       environment is more important than an unlimited supply of
       electricity to everyone for any reason.
                 3«  As our electrical supply is in danger  of
       blackouts or brownouts (Commonwealth Edison information),
       I expect full-scale public education on  the wisest use of
       electricity.  Commonwealth Edison will no longer promote
       the extended use of electricity on one hand while  resorting
       to unproven and possibly harmful methods of producing  it.
   i
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                             Murray Stein
               MR. STEIN:  We will call on this end of the table  _
 3   first*
 4             Let's reconvene,
 5             I think we are going to change the order in calling
     the industry and I will start at the other end of the table
     first.  I will be calling on Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana,
     and then Michigan for the power companies.  We will go from
     the inside out the other way aroundo  I want to say
10 ,  that  even though this was deferred, I do think this
11   situation on the chlorides is a very important one.  I think
12   this  merits a full  discussion, and we  certainly will have
13   it at the conclusion of the power company
14   testimony.
^5             I  would  just  like  everyone to bear  one thing in
16   mind:  We seem to  have  a seamless web here.   We are  talking
17   about chlorides  in Michigan; we  are also  talking about
18    closed cycles or essentially closed cycle systems  for
19    powerplants.  These essentially  so-called closed cycle
20    systems have a sneaky little word in them called "essen-
21    tially," and this means you are going to have a blowdown and
22    if you have a blowdown in that water you are going to have
23    a possible  cloride problem to contend with, and I think we
24    have to keep this all in our mind together.
25              To call on the power companies, first we will call
   I   on Illinois.  Do you want to call on your power company	

-------
 1" !                           C. A. Bane

 2" |   representative?
   i
   I
 3              MR, CURRIE:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  I have a card
   !|
 4 !|   here that informs me that Mr. Charles A. Bane would like to
   i.

 5 i   be heard.
   ll
   l!
 6

 7              STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BANE, OF THE

                FIRM OF ISHAM, LINCOLN AND BEALE, ONE

 9              FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, CHICAGO,

10               ILLINOIS, COUNSEL FOR COMMONWEALTH

11                        EDISON COMPANY


12

13              MRC BANE:  Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the
   I
14    Conference, my name is Charles Bane.  I am a member of
   i
15 |   the law firm of Isham, Lincoln and Beale, general counsel

16 i   for Commonwealth Edison Company*

17              We wish to cover certain points with respect to
   i
lg    the matters that have been brought out at the hearings in

19    these past few days, and we will begin as the hearings

20    began with comment on the letter that was submitted and

2i    read into the record by Administrator Ruckelshaus of the

22    Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

23              We take it that it was that letter which caused

   i
24 i   this Four-State Conference to begin its concentrations as

25    of yesterday morning on requirements for the closed cycle

-------
   	490
   r	•	•	
   I
   I

 1 jj                          G, A. Bane
   II
 2     systems for electric utility generating stations.

 3              Mr, Ruckelshaus1 letter relied, as we heard it

       read  into the record, primarily upon the "white paper"

       prepared by the Department of the Interior and presented to

       this  Four-State Conference in September of last year*  We

       were  surprised that the Administrator would rely upon the

       "white paper" in view of the circumstance which may not

 n     have  been brought to his attention since he was not the

10     Administrator at the time of its preparation by reason

11     of the circumstance that the "white paper" was proved to

12     lack  validity at the hearings that were held by this Four-

13     State Conference in September and October,

                As a matter of fact, the first order of business,

       as I  recall, at the September hearings, was a revision and

       modification of the "white paper" presented by its authors

17     who had in the original "white paper" failed to take

       account of a principle which I believe is well known to

19     every high school student of physics, and that is that heat

20     is not stored in the water but indeed utilizes the water

       as a  conductor of the heat on its way to the atmosphere,

22              And, as I say, one of the first orders of

23     business at the September Conference was the presentation

24     by tne authors of the "white paper" of substantial modifi-

25     cations in the "white paper" by reason of that error and

-------
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                             	 491

                              C, A. Bane
       fundamental mistake*
          The second reason that surprises us in Illinois
that the Administrator would be willing to rely on the
"white paper," arises from the circumstance that the authors
of the "white paper" were unable or unwilling or both to
defend their work in hearings before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, at which our company among others was pre-
senting evidence in contradistinction and on the same sub-
jects as that presented in the "white paper."
          The authors of the "white paper" were invited by
the Illinois Pollution Control Board to appear before the
Board's hearings so that there could be a confrontation
and a direct dialogue between the authors of the "white
paper" and the witnesses being presented in Illinois,  and
that invitation was declined.
          We, therefore, believe that it can fairly be
said that when the Administrator Ruckelshaus relies upon
the "white paper" for his recommendation of closed cycle
systems, he is relying upon the document, and it is the
only one that he cited in his letter, the validity of which
has been seriously disputed and which has not been proved.
          We come now to the regulations as proposed by the
Federal Environmental Agency, and we must say that by
reason of the study that we have been able to give them over

-------
     	492

   j
 1 \\                          C, A.  Bane
   l|
 2    the past few days — they were not made available to  us

 3    until yesterday and indeed we had to scrounge in order to

 4    obtain a copy — by reason of the study that we have  been

 5    able to give to them, we are unable to perceive the theme

 6 i   or the objective or the thrust of the regulations*

 7              We would have assumed from Administrator

      Ruckelshaus* letter that the point and objective of the

 9    regulations was to prevent the discharge of heat and  heated

10    water into Lake Michigan,

                However, the very first sentence of the proposed

12    regulations indicates that  neither in part A nor in part

      B — and those are the only two parts of the proposed

14 i   regulations — no attempt is to be made to control heat

15    discharges by municipal waste  systems, water treatment

16    plants, nor by vessels.  Therefore, some conclusion seems

17    to have been arrived at  somewhere along the line that

      some amount of heat can  be discharged into the lake but

19    no  clue is given as to the principle upon which the line

20    is  drawn,

2i              Furthermore, the discussions yesterday with

22    respect to pump  storage  systems  indicate to us that, again,

23    if  the matter was thought of  at  all, there is an  inclina-

24    tion on the part of  the  Federal  people to believe  that  pump

25     storage  systems  ought  to be allowed — at least to some

-------
 2
 5 i
 6

 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
15

16

17
19
20
21
22
 23

 24

 25
	493

                       C. Ao Bane

 extent — despite the fact that they also discharge heat
 3 I    into the lake, or would do so if they were under con-
   i
 4 jj    struction.
          And, then, of course, as a third point, the

permission which is given to plants discharging less than

a half a billion B»t,u, per hour — the situation which is

covered in part A of the regulations, indicates that those

plants also subject to the stated limitations in part A are

to be permitted to discharge heat into Lake Michigan,

          Consequently, as I say, it seems to us that the

object of the regulations cannot be to prevent the heat

discharge into Lake Michigan because of these very sub-

stantial exceptions which are.not covered, and as to which

the discharge of heat is to be permitted.

          It then occurred to us that perhaps an object

of the regulations was to carry out what seemed to be the

concern of the "white paper" that the shoreline of Lake

Michigan should be protected to the greatest extent

possible from being heated, and that perhaps we thought,

then, that the object of the regulations, as proposed

here, was to achieve that objective.  And yet, if I

analyze part B of the regulations, in connection with part

A, you find that whereas the requirement for a closed circui

system applies to those plants utilizing a half billion

-------
                                                              494
 1
 2
 3



 4



 5




 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13



14



15



16
17
19
20
21
22
23



24
25
                               C. A. Bane
      B.t,u. per hour or more.  The same restriction, of course,



      is now applied or proposed to be applied to plants that




      discharge less than that quantity.



                We have not made any precise computations but



      the fact of the matter is that by reason of the distinction



      drawn between part B and part A of the regulations, an



      SO megawatt nuclear plant probably would not reach the half



      billion mark and consequently would be allowed under part A.



      So that, whereas the regulations seem to impose restric-



      tions upon the large plant, the fact of the matter is that



      the plants of a size of SO megawatts or thereabouts would



      be permitted without restriction as to number, and it is



      possible that the  entire rim of the lake,  under these



      regulations, could be  filled with SO megawatt  plants or
       less.
                 And indeed,  the  thrust  of the  regulations,  if
       they were to become effective,  might be to produce that



       very result.  Those who wish to generate nuclear power



       under these regulations can do  so, given the establishment



       one SO megawatt plant, they wish to establish ten SO megawatt



       plants.  And so it seems to us  that that object of the



       "white paper" is not achieved by the proposed regulations.



                 Then, we come up with a third objective which



       might sim-ply be the protection of plankton and fish, if that

-------
                                                        495
 !•
 2-
12
15



16
17
19
20
2i
22
23



24
25
                       C. Ao Bane
is what the objective of the regulation is.   And yet upon



closer study, we find that that cannot be the case,  because



in the Technical Committee Report of January 1971 » which



most of us assumed was to be the subject of this Conference,



there is a paragraph 10 in which the conferees expressed



their concern — and I must say in our view quite properly



— - that the benthos and the phytoplankton and the zooplank-



ton and the fish might be affected in Lake Michigan  by



reason of the intakes of various industrial  and municipal



water supplies.  And yet we find that that paragraph 10 is



ignored, not taken account of, in the regulations as pro-



posed here for study.



          Consequently, it seems to us clear that it cannot



be concern for fish and plankton life that the regulations



are attempting to base themselves upon.  Consequently,  in



summary, we are confused as to what the regulations  are



attempting to achieve, and certainly there are no guide-



lines because within the regulations themselves nor  in the



statements that have been made here which can give any



guidance to the conferees.
          If the object of the regulations is not to



prevent the discharge of heat into Lake Michigan; if it



is not to prevent the diffusion of heat discharging



facilities around the shore of the lakej if it is not to

-------
                                                              496
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                       C. A, Bane
protect fish and plankton,  then it is confusing as to  just
what it is that an attempt  is being made to accomplish,
          One further matter has been ignored*   We would
not have expected that regulations of this magnitude and.
having the ramifications that they have would have been
presented without full studies of their effects upon the
existing points of discharge of heated water into Lake
Michigan, and upon the areas that are proposed.  We would
have thought that the Federal Government in all of its
majesty and with all of its resources could have accumu-
lated some valid estimates of what it is that they are
proposing to be spent in the way of capital expenditures
in order to carry out these restrictions that are imposed
or proposed in the regulations,
          We would have thought that a proper concern  for
the power situation and the energy situation in this
country would have led to some sort of an assessment of
what these proposals would have meant to electric gener-
ating capacity throughout the country and in the midwest
region, wiiich is interconnected as a source of supply and
as a receiver of electric energy with the rest of the
United States except for the State of Texas,
          Attempts were made, I think, by questions directed
to the Federal witnesses, to ascertain information along

-------
                                                               497
   {,	—	_	.	
   11
   ii
   ii
 T !;                           Ge A. Bane
   I
 2«     these lines.  The most that was given by Mr» Tichenor
   i

 3 i    yesterday was a recalled statement of his as to what the


 4 j    evidence at the previous Four-State Conference showed with


 5 ii    respect to Zion.
   II
   i
 6 j|              We do not have the facilities for collecting the


 7 j    overall results or the effects of these proposals*   But

   i
 $     we do believe that it would be a great mistake and  would


 9     be an unfair matter for this Conference to reach any con-


10     elusions until it does know what the ramifications  of its


11     proposals are in terms of construction costs, additional


12     construction costs to comply with the proposals, unless


13     information is presented as to the down-time that will be


14     required for generating stations to be out of operation


15     while these modifications are taking place*  That is with


16     reference to existing stations and also with respect to


17     the question of whether and to what extent the provisions


1$     in the regulations — particularly the monthly maxima that


19     are expressed in part 1 ~ may actually require the gener-


20     ating stations be operated on something less than a year-

   I
21     round basis, and that an analysis be made of what that


22     means for the power situation*


23               Dr« Langura this morning was complimentary — I


24 •    don't know that he intended it as a compliment -- but he


2$     complimented the Commonwealth Edison Company, among others,

-------
                                                        493
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 5
 7
10
11
12
13
15
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
                       C,  A*  Bane
on its financial stature,  on its high regard and the  high
prestige with which it is  held in the financial  circles,
which enable it to raise the amounts of money that  it needs
for its construction and service program*
          There is one other area in which the Commonwealth
Edison Company is proud of its record, and that  is  its
record — and this is more important than its financial
standing — its record of  service to its consumers.  The
public utility, you know,  has to stand ready to  serve all
who call upon it, and we do not get advance notice, nobody
sends us a letter or a telegram before a switch  is  turned
on, and the result is we must stand ready to serve, and
in the past we have been ready and able to do so.
          We have not had duplicated in the middle  west
the situation that exists in New York and on the East
Coast.  But I will say that the reserve situation for this
company is at a seriously low level, and promises to  be so
for this summer.  That condition may continue for a year
       despite all of the efforts that management can
make, and anything that would lead to a turning down or a
slowdown or a shutdown of generating facilities could have
the most important implications.
          As a result of all this, and the importance of
it, Mr. Chairman, I am asking, and well I do ask, that the

-------
      __	                                                 499
        '	—
                              C, A. Bane
 2     Commonwealth Edison Company be  given  2 weeks in which to
 *
 3     file a statement  with this Conference in which we will
 /. l    reaffirm and reconfirm the cost that  we have previously
 ^ i
       submitted for Zion as to the costs  and the ramifications of
 6     installing a closed circuit cooling system.  We will submit
 7     information as to what the proposed regulations will require
       at Waukegan and the State Line  Station, as to both of which
 9     the Federal Government simply  stated  that in their view,
10     without  having made any study,  all  that we would have to do
11     would be to revise some discharge  structures, and there was
12     some mention that perhaps in  some  circumstances — I don't
13     know if this has  particular relation  to our company -- as
       little as the installation of  an additional pump would do
15     the job.
                 Well, we are not  satisfied, and I don't think
17     that you gentlemen of the Conference  ought to be  satis-
       fied with speculation of that  kind. And we will propose
19     to give you the facts as to what is required  of us, what
20     it will cost, for what period of time, if any, we will
2i     have to shut down the stations in  order to make the modi-
22     fications that are called  for,  and other relevant informa-
23     tion.*
24               I might just say,  having mentioned  Waukegan,
25     that we are particularly puzzled about  the  purpose  of the
     *Mr. Bane's further statement follows on pp. 499a-499gg«

-------
                                                                  49.9a
                    ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
                           COUNSELORS AT LAW
                  ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA FORTY-SECOND FLOOR
                         CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O67O

                     TELEPHONE 312-786-75OO  CABLE:MAHSI
                              April 29,  1971
Mr. Murray Stein, Chairman
Four-State Lake Michigan
  Enforcement Conference
c/o Environmental Protection Agency
Water duality Office
Crystal Mall, Building No. 2
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia   20242

Dear Mr. Stein:

          We have enclosed the  statement  of Mr.  0.  D.  Butler,
Assistant Vice President of Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  dated
April 23, 1971, which presents  the additional  evidence for the
record of the conference meeting  of March 23-25,  1971, which
you granted us time to submit at  Mr. Bane's request.

                              Very truly  yours,
                              Mark  H. Virshbo
MHV:hh
Enclosure
cc:  All conferees
     Mrs. Marilyn Hall,  Stenographic  reporter

-------
                                                                 499b
         STATEMENT OF O.D.  BUTLER,  .ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT

                     COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                            April 23,  1971
          To the Conference in the Matter of Pollution
          of Lake Michigan and its tributary basin in
          the states of Wisconsin,  Illinois, Indiana
          and Michigan—Third Session

Gentlemen:
          I have submitted statements to this session of the
Conference un three previous occasions.   First, at the September
28, 1970, workshop, I presented a preliminary rebuttal of the
Federal Water Quality Administration's report, "Feasibility of
Alternative Means of Cooling for Thermal Power Plants Near Lake
Michigan," which I had received just a few days earlier.  My
rebuttal was based upon a preliminary report on the environmental
effect of cooling towers at our Zion nuclear generating station,
prepared by the Sierra Research Corporation, and I demonstrated
the inapplicability of many of the generalizations of the FWQA
report to that particular plant, which the FWQA subsequently
acknowledged to be so.
          Second, I submitted a comparison of the cost elements
supporting the estimates made in the FWQA report with the cost
elements which the engineering firm of Sargent and Lundy estimated
for the backfitting of cooling towers at the Zion station to
illustrate the vast deficiency of the FWQA estimates with
reference to such a project.  Third, I corrected some details
of this comparison, bearing out my original contention.

-------
                                                                499 c

                               (2)
   «
          The exhibit attached to ray third statement evidenced
a total estimated cost of $463,882,000 (or $210.85 per kilowatt)
to backfit the Zion station with dry mechanical draft cooling
towers and $116,855,000 (or $53.12 per kilowatt) to backfit it
with wet hybrid mechanical-natural draft cooling towers.  My
statements, and the testimony of many other witnesses before the
Conference, provided ample reasons in addition to cost why such
alternatives to once-through cooling should not be required to be
backfitted onto existing plants and those in advanced stages of
construction.
          Although Commonwealth Edison Company has presented
comprehensive and detailed evidence before this Conference,
we have not previously submitted cost estimates for backfitting
our other two existing, fossil-fuel, plants which use Lake
Michigan for once-through cooling—the State Line Station and
the Waukegan Station.  Until the federal conferee presented his
proposed regulations on March 23, 19?1> there was no hint that
the cooling systems of those two plants might be considered in-
adequate.  The thermal limit and the monthly maximum temperatures
proposed by the federal conferee have raised that prospect, and
the Conference's adoption of that proposal as its recommendation
without regard to evidence of the cost of achieving the standard
requires my further testimony on that subject to put the record
in order.  Mr. Charles A. Bane, our counsel, requested of the
Chairman of the Conference the right to make this submission after

-------
                                                                 499d

                               (3)

the federal conferee's proposal had been made and asked that
the Conference postpone a recommendation until it had considered
this evidence.  The Chairman granted us time in which to put
our evidence into the record but refused to await the evidence
before calling for a recommendation from the conferees.  Mr.
Bane protested that ruling then, and we protest it now, as highly
irregular, capricious and prejudicial, and we tender this evidence
now without prejudice to our protest.
          The Waukegan Generating Station, located at Waukegan,
Illinois, is a fossil-fuel station with an operating history of
more than 40 years.  It has a generating capacity of 104? megawatts
and uses 875*000 gallons per minute of condenser cooling water
under full load.  The State Line Generating Station, located in
Hammond, Indiana, is a fossil-fuel station with an operating history
of more than 40 years.  It has a generating capacity of 944 megawatts
and uses 830,000 gallons per second of condenser cooling water under
full load.
          Mr. Dale S. Bryson, a principal federal witness,
acknowledged that the thermal standards proposed for these
existing generating stations would likely require alteration
of their discharge and pumping apparatus  (S.M. l4o), but implied
that this would be a nominal expense  (S.M. 155).  w"e have obtained
from the engineering firm of Sargent and Lundy detailed estimates
of what could be required and the costs to our Waukegan and State
Line stations.  It is clear from those figures that Mr. Bryson's
implication was unfounded.  Exhibit A, attached hereto, demonstrates

-------
                                                                  499e
that the total cost involved in altering discharge and pumping
apparatus at the Vaukegan Station would be in excess of $9
million and at the State Line Station would be in excess of
$11.5 million.  Exhibit B illustrates the form which the altered
discharge system would take at each station.
          Mr. Bryson did not point out that, in view of the
monthly maximum temperatures of the recommended standard , these
existing plants might well be barred from discharging into the
lake at all.  Dr.  Donald I. Mount, another principal federal
witness, had implied as much (S.M. 121).  In that event, in order
to keep Urem on the line to supply essential power in the critical
summer period, it would be necessary to backfit these plants with
cooling towers.  Sargent and Lundy have provided us with detailed
estimates of the cost of backfitting natural draft wet cooling
towers and mechanical draft wet cooling towers for each station,
and also with an estimate of the cost of using Wolf Lake for once-
through cooling of the State Line Station if that should prove
feasible and permissible.  The cost of dry cooling towers would,
of course, be considerably greater.
          Exhibit C demonstrates that the initial capital
investment alone, without allowance for escalation, at Waukegan
would be in excess of $16 million for a natural draft cooling
tower and in excess of $12 million for mechanical draft cooling
towers.  Exhibit D demonstrates that the initial capital invest-
ment alone, without allowance for escalation, at State Line would
be in excess of $33 million for the natural draft cooling towers,

-------
                                                                  499f

                            (5)

in excess of $23 million for mechanical draft cooling towers,  and
in excess of $46 million using Wolf Lake for once-through cooling.
Line 49 of Exhibit E demonstrates that the total of initial capital
investment, plus equivalent capital investment (detailed in
Exhibit E), again without allowance for escalation, would be in
excess of $25 million for natural draft towers ana in excess of
$19 million for mechanical draft towers at Waukeganj and in excess
of $45 million for natural draft towers, in excess of $33 million
for mechanical draft towers and in excess of $59 million to use
Wolf Lake for once-through cooling at State Line.  Exhibit P
represents Sargent and Lundy's estimate of the time required to
backfit each of these alternative systems.  Page 3 of Exhibit F
contains their time estimate and estimate of station outage for
backfitting cooling towers at our Zion station which we present
here to supplement the record with regard to that station,
          I think that, had the conferees taken this evidence
into account before making their recommendation, as they properly
should have, their recommendation would have been different.
Studies of existing stations on Lake Michigan have not shown any
ecological damage as a result of many years of operation.  We
submit that, though the Conference failed to do so, the Administr-
tor must weigh the economic and environmental costs of cooling
alternatives for existing plants and those in an advanced stage
of construction against the at best marginal environmental
advantage provided by the arbitrary standards recommended by the
conferees.  I emphasize that my testimony relates the effect of

-------
                                                                  499g

                               (6)
   ,                                                                 \
the conferees' recommendation on Commonwealth Edison Company
only and does not account for the substantial additional costs
which would be borne by the other affected companies.  The
grand total of all such costs would render the position which
I have stated here that much more imperative.

-------
Sargent & Lundy, Engineers
Chicago
                        WAUKEGAN AT.'D STATE LINZ STATIONS
                           COM10NWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
Mechanical Analytical Division
S. L.
4-2-71
Page 1 of 2
Rev. 4-14-71
                      PROPOSED CIRCULATING WATER INSTALLATION FOR
                           HIGH VELOCITY UNDERWATER  DISCHARGE
                          499h
      Station

      Unit Numbers

      1.  Total Circulating Water Quantity

      2.  New Circulating Water Discharge Piping:
            (a)  Pipe Diameter
            (b)  Length of Pipe Run into Lake

      3.  Velocity in Discharge Pipe

      4.  Number of New Circulating Water Discharge
          Pumps Installed

      5.  Total Head on Discharge Pumps

      6.  Pumping Power Required

      7.  Additional Auxiliary Power  Required

         CAPABILITY

      8.  Evaluation of Loss  in Sent-Out Capability
          Due to Discharge Pump Power, at $10G/Kw
              (Item 7 x $100)

         FUEL COST DUE TO AUXILIARY  POWER

      9.  Equivalent Investment Value of Fuel for
          1 Kw of Auxiliary  Power
              (Data from Commonwealth Edison Co.)

     10.  Incremental Equivalent Capital Investment
          due to Discharge Pump Power Required
              (Item 7 x Item 9)

         MAINTENANCE

     11.  Annual Cost of Maintenance
         (Item k x $1000/Pump/Yr)

     12.  Present Va^ue of Maintenance Cost
          for 20 Years
         (Item 11 x $10;'Gee Note Bclow^


Gprn
Ft.
Ft.
Ft/Sec

Ft.
HP
Kw
$
$
$
$/Yr
$
Waukegan
5, 6, 7, & 8
720,000
14
1,200
10.4
3
8.0
1,720
1,378
137,800
77.22
106, 400
3,000
30,000
State Line
1, 2, 3, & 4
946,000
16
1,000
10.5
4
7.5
2,100
1,683
168,300
71.11
119,700
4,000
40,000

-------
Sargent & Lundy, Engineers
Chicago
Mechanical Analytical Division
S. L«
k-2-71
Page 2 of 2
     Station

         MAINTENANCE (CONT'D)

    13.  Incremental Equivalent Capital Investment
          due to Maintenance                           $
         (Item 12 f (1.28 x 1.15); (See Note Below)

    NOTE:
         (a)  The Present Value of an Annuity of $1.00
              for 20 Years is $10.00;
         (b)  The Present Value of Carrying Charges on
              an Investment of $1.00 for 20 Years is
              $1.28;
         (c)  Use 15% Indirects;
         (d)  Then Equivalent Capital Investment
              = P.V. of Annuity for 2^ Years
                   1.28 x 1.15

         SUMMARY

    14.  Equivalent Capital Investment due to
          Capability Loss                              $

    15.  Equivalent Capital Investment due to
          Annual Auxiliary P-'-'-r Costs                 $

    16.  Equivalent Capital Investment due to
          Annual Maintenance Costs                     $
                    V
    17.  Capital Investment for Piping, Pumps, Motors,
          Including Installation and Top Charges       $

    18.  Total of Equivalent Capital Investment and
          Initial Capital Investment Required to
          Purchase, Install, and Operate the Proposed
          New Circulating Water Discharge System       $
        Waukegan
         20,UOO
        137,800


      . 106,UOO


         20,400


      8,986,000




      9,250,600
  State Line

      4991


    27,200
   168,300


   119,700


    27,200


11,293,000




11,608,200

-------
                                   SARGENT & LUNDY
                                       ENGINEERS
                                         CHICAGO
                                 WAUKEGAN POWER STATION
                              COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

                                      Estimated Cost

                        Proposed Installation of a New Pumping
                        Station to Take the Present Circulating
                        Water Discharge and Pumping it into Lake
                        Michigan to a Distance of Approx. 1200'.

                      (Prices are Present Day and a 40 Hour Work Week)

Item      Item Description
  1.  New  Pump House Complete with Appurtenances

  2.  Alterations of Discharge Flume

  3.  Control Valves, Etc.

  4.  Circulating Water Pumps
     a.   Three(3)  240,000 gal/m  Pumps and Motor Drives
     b.   Erection

  5.  Electrical Connection, Lighting, Heating, Etc.

  6.  Road to Pumping Station

  7.  14'  Diameter Steel Pipe - Installed @  $1300/ft
     a.   Safe Harbor
     b.   1200' af. 14' Pipe - Layed in Lake Michigan
     c.   Discharge Structure at the End of the Pipe
          Layed in Lake Michigan

          SUB-TOTAL  7

  8.  Contingency  10%

     TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

  9.  Top  Charges  12%%

     TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
                                                                     Est. No. 6606
                                                                     Project No.
                                                                     Date:
                                                                                      499J
L.W.
        •/I .
       Amount
      $1,800,000

         100,000

        ' 250,000


         690,000
          75,000

         275,000

          10,000


       1,500,000
       1,560,000

       1,000,000

      $4,060,000

         726,000

      $7,986,000

       1,000,000

      $8,986,000
                                      - 1 -
                                      Final

-------
                                 SARGENT & LUNDY
                                     ENGINEERS
                                       CHICAGO
                                 STATE LINE STATION
                            COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

                                   Estimated Cost
Est. No. 6605
Project No,
Date:
L.Vi./
:///•
                   Proposed Installation of a New Pumping Station
                   to Take the Present Circulating Water Discharge
                   and Pumping it into Lake Michigan to a  Distance
                   of Approx.  1000'.
                                                                                    499k
 tern          Item Description

 '..    New  Pump House Complete with Appurtenances

 2.    Alterations of Present Break Water and Discharge
      Flume                     x x

 3.    Control Valves, Etc.

 V.    Circulating Water Pumps
      a.   Four(4)  237,000 gal/m  Pumps and Motor Drives
      b.   Erection

      Electrical Connections, Lighting, Heating, Etc.

 i.    Roadway to Pumping Station

 7.    16'  Diameter Steel Pipe Installed
      a.   Safe Harbor
      b.   1000' of 16' Dia. Steel Pipe Layed in Lake
           Michigan
      c.   Discharge Structure at End of Pipe Layed in
           Lake Michigan

           SUB-TOTAL  7

,8.    Contingency  10%

      TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

 9.    Top  Charges   12%%

      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
         Amount

      $3,000,000


         350,000

         300,000


         920,000
         100,000

         350,000

          10,000


       1,500,000

       1,500,000

       1,100,000

      $4,100,000

         913,000

     $10,043,000

       1,250,000

     $11,293,000
                                      - 1 -
                                      Final

-------
                                  SARGENT & LUNDY
                                      ENGINEERS
                                        CHICAGO
                                WAUKEGAN POWER STATION
                             COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

                                Revised Cost Estimate
                                                                                      499n
              Est. No. 6365-1
              Project No.
              Date: 5-12-70
              Rev: 4-2-71
          NT/RL/DB/DR/
                   Proposed Installation of Cooling Water Facilities
                                  for Units 5,6,7,  & 8

                   Scheme 1:   One(l)  Natural Draft  Cooling Tower  Total
                              Capacity 720,000 gal/m Located  on Land
                              Fill at Stations Present Intake Pond.

                   Scheme 2:   Three(3) Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
                              Total Capacity 720,000 gal/m Located  on
                              Land Fill at  Stations Present Intake
                              Pond and Land East of Intake Pond.

                   (Prices are Present Day  and Based on a 40  Hr.  Work Week)
  I - Estimated Construction Cost of Present
      Estimate #6365  Dated 5-12-70

 II - Additional 5% Contingency

      TOTAL  I Plus  II

III - Escalation from 5-12-70 to 4-2-71
       - Plus 8%

      TOTAL

 IV - Top Charges   12.5%

      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST  - (Present Day
      Prices & a 40 Hour  Work Week)

  V - Escalation Allowance  - Plus 16%
      (Note 1)

      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
   Scheme 1

$13,180,000

    624,000
$13,804,000


  1,104,000

$14,908,000

  1,860,000
  2,680,000

$19,448,000
   Scheme 2

 $9,600,000

    458,000

$10,058,000


    805,000

$10,863,000

  1,358,000
  1,953,000
$14,174,000
 NOTES:
         1.  Allowance  for Escalation
            a.   Construction  Period - Assume Completion by  10-1-73.
            b.   Time Period - Today to  10-1-73  is Approx.   30 Months.
            c.   Assume Median Point for Escalation of 2 Years.
            d.   Rate Increase Per Year:  Assume Labor Rate  Increase  in
                 Cost of  15% and Equipment and Materials at  4%.  A Composite
                 Average  on this Basis is about 8%.
            e.   Allowance for Escalation is therefore 16%.

         2.  No Allowance is Made for an Overtime Work Schedule.

                                     -  1 -
                                     Final

-------
                             SARGENT & UUNDY                                     499-O
                                 ENGINEERS                             ,,,c
                                   CHICAao                      Est' N°-  6365
                                                               Project No.  4170
                                                               Date:  5-12-70


                          WAUKEGAN POWER STATION
                       COMMDNWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

             PROPOSED  INSTALLATION OF COOLING WATER FACILITIES
                           For Units 5, 6, 7, & 8

     SCHEME 1:   One  (1) Natural Draft Cooling Tover  Total Capacity
                720,000 G.P.M. Located On Land Fill At Stations
                Present Intake Pond.

     SCHEME 2:   Three  (3) Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers Total
                Capacity  720,000 G.P.M. Located On Land Fill At
                Stations Present  Intake Pond And Land East Of
                Intake Pond.

         Prices Are  Present Day And Based On A 40 Hour Work Week.

                                                     SCHEME 1     SCHEME 2
L.  LAND
    1.  Land Acquisition                             Not Req'd.   Not Req'd.



S.  STRUCTURES

    1.  Ground Improvements
        a.  Fill and Grading                             $5,000      $10,000
        b.  Roads                                        5,000       10,000
        c.  Yard Drainage System                         10,000       15,000
        d.  Sewer Drainage System  )
        e.  Tracks                )                      	          	
        f.  Fence                 )
        g.  Seeding                                      1,000        3,000
        h.  Roadway Bridge Over Existing                100,000      100,000
            Intake Flume To Pump House
        i.  Underground  Interference-                      -          10,000
                            Total  1                    121,000      148,000

    2.  New Fill Area
        a.  Cofferdam For New Fill  Area                 600,000      600,000
        b.  Earth Fill             )                    „._.. „„„      „„„ .._„
        c.  Rip Rap Slopes         )                    800,000      800.000

                            Total  2                  1,400,000    1,400,000

    3.  Pump House                                     925,000      925,000

    4.  Cooling Tower Bearing Piles and Pile
        Caps Incl. Pipe Riser Foundations               350,000

    5.  Cooling Tower Basins                              -         675,000

                                     -1-

-------
                             SARGENT & LUNDY
                                 ENGINEERS
                                   CHICAGO
                           WAUKEGAN  POWER STATION
                        COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
           Est. No. 6365
           Project No. 4170
           Date:  5-12-70
                                 499P
    6.  Alteration To Existing  Intake And Dis-
        charge Flumes Incl.  Closing Off Entrance
        And Outlet Of Flumes

    7.  Discharge Outfall Structure

    8.  Circulating Water Pipe  Support Over
        Intake Flume

    9.  Earth Work For Circulating Water Pipes
        And Make Up Line


                             Total Structures

M.  MECHANICAL

    1.  One (1) Natural Draft Cooling Tower
        Furnished, Delivered and  Erected

    2.  Three (3) Mechanical Draft Cooling
        Towers Furnished, Delivered and
        Erected

    3.  Circulating Water Piping  For Cooling
        Towers
        a.  From New Pump House To Towers   )
        b.  From Towers To Intake Pond      )

    4.  Cooling Tower Circulating Water Pumps
        And Motor Drives

    5.  Service Water Modifications

    6.  Circulating Water Make  Up Piping

    7.  Miscellaneous Instruments and Controls

    8.  Painting

                             Total Mechanical •

E.  ELECTRICAL
    1.  138 kV Oil Circuit Breaker and
        Appurtenances

    2.  138 kV Feed To 4160V Substation (Aerial)

                                     -2-
  SCHEME  1     SCHEME 2



  $ 100,000    $ 100,000

     75,000       75,000


  Incl. Sl-h   Incl. Sl-h


    100,000      175,000

  3,071,000   3,498,000




  7,000,000



              2,400,000




    675,000   1,100,000



  1,200,000   1,200,000

    200,000      200,000

     50,000       50,000

      5,000        5,000

     10,000       IP,000

$9,140,000  $4,965,000



  Existing     Existing

     13,000       13,000

-------
                         SARGENT & LUNDY
                             ENGINEERS
                               CHICAGO
                       WAUKEGAN POWER STATION
                    COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
 3.   4160V  Substation

 4.   480V Substations

 5.   480V Motor Control Centers

 6.   Control  and  Instrumentation

 7.   Power  Cables and Terminations

 8.   Control  and  Instrument Cables and
     Terminations

 9.   Conduit  and  Duct Runs

10.   Lighting

11.   Grounding

12.   Testing

13.   Temporary Light and Power

14.   Contingency


                         Total Electrical

     Miscellaneous and Contingency - 57,

     Total  Estimated Construction Cost

     Top Charges-


     Total  Estimated Cost
                                                            Est. No.  6365
                                                            Project No. 4170
                                                            Date:  5-12-70
                                 499q
SCHEME 1
180,000
31,000
3,500
8,000
16,000
16,000
23,000
19,500
7,500
9,000
11,000
7,500
345,000
624,000
$13,180,000
Not Incld.
SCHEME 2
205,500
170,000
7,000
10,000
30,000
25 , 000
102,500
41,500
25,500
15,000
20,000
14,000
679,000
458,000
$9,600,000
Not Incld.
$13,180,000   $9,600,000
 NOTE:  1.   Allowance For Future Escalation Of Equipment, Material and
            Labor Is Not Included.

        2.   Allowance For Increase Labor Costs Over 40 Hour Work Week
            Are Not Included.

        3.   Necessary Earth Fill Is Assumed To Be Purchased From A
            Local Source And Constructed With Mobile Land Equipment.
                                  -3-

-------
                                   SARGENT & LUNDY
                                      ENGINEERS
                                         CHICAGO
                                   STATE LINE STATION
                              COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

                                 Revised Cost Estimate
                                                  499r
                              Est. No. 6364-1
                              Project No.
                              Date: 5-12-70
                              Rev: 4-2-71
                                                               RL/NT/DB/DR/'
                           Proposed Schemes  for Installing  Cool-
                           ing Water Facilities.
                      Scheme No.  1;
Two (2) Natural Draft Cooling
Towers, Total Capacity 946,000
gal/m.  Located on Land Fill in
Lake Michigan. Adjacent to
Present Discharge Flume.

Cooling Water Facilities Using
Wolf Lake.

Four (4) Mechanical Draft Cooling
Towers, Total Capacity 946,000
gal/m.  Located on Land Fill in
Lake Michigan.  Adjacent to
Present Discharge Flume.
                      (Prices  are  Present  Day  and  Based  on  a  40  Hour Work Week)
                      Scheme No.  2;
                      Scheme No.  3:
  I - Estimated Construction Cost
      of Present Estimate #6364
      Dated 5-12-70

 II - Additional 5% Contingency

      TOTAL  I Plus II

III - Escalation from 5-12-70
      to 4-2-71    - Plus 87,

 IV - Top Charges  - 12.57=
      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (Present
      Day Prices & a 40 Hour Work  Week)
        Scheme #1


      $26,200,000

        1,228,000

      $27,428,000


        2,194,000
  Scheme #2


$36,800,000

  1.766,000

$38,566,000


  3,085,000

  5,210,000
  Scheme #3


$18,275,000

    871,000

$19,146,000


  1,532,000

  2,580,000
                      $46,861.000j)(^ $23,258,000^)
  V - Escalation Allowance
      - Plus  16%

      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
        5,330,000

      $38,657,000
  7,500,000

$54,361,000
  3,725,000

$26,983,000
                                       -  1  -

-------
                             SARGENT & LUNDY
                                ENGINEERS
                                   CHICAGO
                             STATE LINE STATION
                        COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                                                                      499s
Est. No. 6364-1
Project No.
Date: 5-12-70
Rev: 4-2-71
NOTES:
      1.  Allowance for Escalation
          a.  Construction Period - Assume Completion by 10-1-73.
          b.  Time Period - Today to 10-1-73 is Approx.  30 Months.
          c.  Assume Median Point for Escalation of 2 Years.
          d.  Rate Increase Per Year:  Assume Labor Rate Increase  in
              Cost of 15% and Equipment and Materials at 47..   A Composite
              Average on this Basis is about 8%.
          e.  Allowance for Escalation is therefore  16%.

      2.  No Allowance is Made for an Overtime Work Schedule.
                                     - 2 -
                                     Final

-------
                                SARGENT & LUNDY
                                    ENGINEERS
                                      CHICAGO
                                STATE LINE STATION
                           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                             499t
                              Est. No. 6364
                              Project No. 4170
                              Date:  5-12-70
                                                                RL/NT/DB/DR/
                PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF COOLING WATER FACILITIES
             Scheme No. 1:  Two (2) Natural Draft Cooling
                            Towers, Total Capacity 946,000 GPM.
                            Located on Land Fill in Lake Michigan.
                            Adjacent to Present Discharge Flume.

             Scheme No. 2:  Cooling Water Facilities Using Wolf  Lake.

             Scheme No. 3:  Four (4) Mechanical Draft Cooling
                            Towers, Total Capacity 946,000 GPM.
                            Located on Land Fill in Lake Michigan.
                            Adjacent to Present Discharge Flume.


             (Prices Are Present Day and Based on a 40 Hour Work Week)
LAND

1. Land Acquisition

2. Piping and Electrical
   Right of Way
                                        Scheme No.  1     Scheme No.  2
  Not Incl.
Not Incl.
                   Not Incl.
                                  Scheme No. 3
Not Incl.
STRUCTURES

1. Ground Improvements

   A. Off Site

      a. Fill and Grading

      b. Access Roads to Structures

      c. Bridges
         1.  Across Present Flume
         2.  Roadway Bridge at
            Wolf Lake
         3.  Track Bridge at
            Wolf Lake
      d. Yard Drainage System

      e. Sewer  Drainage System
                 $     5,000

$    25,000          150,000      $    25,000
    200,000
     10,000
  300,000

  500,000
   25,000

   25,000
                   200,000
   10,000
                                       -1-

-------
                                SARGENT & LUNDY
                                   ENGINEERS
                                      CHICAGO
                                STATE LINE  STATION
                           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                             499u
                              Est. No.  6364
                              Project No. 4170
                              Date:   5-12-70
                                        Scheme  No.  1
STRUCTURES (Cont'd)
1. Ground Improvements (Cont'd)
   A.  Off Site (Cont'd)

      f.  Toilet Facilities for
         Crib House  at Wolf Lake
      g.  Fence

      h.  Seeding

            TOTAL  A
$    25,000
$   260,000
                 Scheme No. 2
$    15,000
     10,000

      5,000

$ 1,035,000
                 Scheme No. 3
$    25,000
$   260,000
   B.  On Site

      a. Fill and Grading

      b. Road Alteration and
         Maintenance

      c. Yard Drainage System

      d. Sewer Drainage System

      e. Track Work
      f. Underground Interferences

            TOTAL  B


                TOTAL 1
      5,000
      5,000
$   265,000
      3,000

     25,000
      5,000


     50,000
     50,000
    133,000
$ 1,168,000
$     5,000
$     5,000
$   265,000
2.  Lake Work

   A.  Cofferdam for New Fill Area

      a. Sheeting & Steel
         Wale Bracing
      b. Gravel Fill
      c. Capping Sheeting
         Cellular Cofferdam
   B.  Fill for New Cooling
      Tower Area

   C.  Dredging Lake

            TOTAL 2
$ 4,800,000           -           $ 5,050,000
  1,700,000           -             1,750,000
                 $   100,000

$ 6,500,000      $   100,000      $ 6,800,000
                                       -2-

-------
                                SARGENT & LUNDY
                                    ENGINEERS
                                      CHICAOO
                                STATE LINE STATION
                           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                             499v
                              Est. No. 6364
                              Project No. 4170
                              Date:  5-12-70
STRUCTURES (Cont'd)

3. Pump House

   A. Cooling Tower Pump House

   B. Booster Pump House for Circ.
      Water Pipes to Wolf Lake

   C. New Intake Crib House
      at Wolf Lake

            TOTAL 3


4. Cooling Towers Bearing Piling
   and Pile Caps Incl. Pipe Riser
   Foundations

5. Cooling Tower Basins

6. Alteration to Existing Intake
   and Discharge Flumes

   A. Pipe Openings for Intake
      and Discharge Pipes

   B. Close Off Existing Intake and
      Discharge Flume Entrance
      or Outlet

            TOTAL 6
7. Discharge Spillway and Ice
   Melting By Pass Valve Vault
   Structure

8. Earth Work for Circulating
   Water Pipes and Ice Melting Pipe

   A. Tunneling Below Existing
      Railroad Tracks Off Site

   B. Temporary Sheetingj Excavation,
      Backfill,Disposal and Dewatering
      Including Interferences

            TOTAL 8
                TOTAL STRUCTURES
                                        Scheme No. 1
$   925,000
                 Scheme No. 2
$   925,000
$ 1,300,000
 Incl. S-2
$   300,000

$   300,000
$ 9,290,000
$   925,000

  1,125,000

$ 2,050,000
$   350,000



$   100,000




  3,800,000


 12,000,000

$15,800,000

$19,568,000
                 Scheme No. 3
                 $   925,000
$   925,000
                                  $   875,000
Incl. S-2
Incl. S-2
$ 150,000
200,000
Incl. S-2
Incl. S-2
                                                                           Incl.  S-2
$   250,000

$   250,000
$ 9,115,000
                                       -3-

-------
                                    SARGENT & LUNDY
                                        ENGINEERS
                                          CHICAGO
                                     STATE  LINE STATION
                                COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                            499W
                              Est.  No.  6364
                              Project No. 4170
                              Date:   5-12-70
M    MECHANICAL

     1. Natural Draft Cooling Towers
        Furnished Delivered and Erected

     2. Cooling Tower Circulating Water
        Pumps and Motor Drives

     3. Circulating Water Piping for
        Cooling Towers

        A. From New Pump House
           to Towers
        B. From Towers to Existing
           Crib House Forebay

     4. Circulating Water Pumps
        and Motor Drives

        A. Pumps and Motor Drives at
           Wolf Lake Pump House (6)
        B. Pumps and Motor Drives at
           Existing Circulating Water
           Discharge Flume (6)

     5. Circulating Water Pipe

        A. From Existing Discharge
           Flume to Wolf Lake
        B. From Pump House at Wolf Lake
           to Existing Crib House
           Forebay
        C. Ice Melting

     6. Service Water Modifications

     7. Traveling Screens (8) at
        Wolf Lake Pump House

     8. Two (2) Screen Wash Pumps
        and Motor Drives

     9. One (1) Twin Basket Strainer
        for Screen Wash Water

    10. Miscellaneous Instruments
        and Controls
                                             Scheme  No.  1
$11,000,000
  1,500,000
                 Scheme No.  2
  2,500,000
    200,000
                 $ 2,250,000
      5,000
12,000,000



   200,000


   130,000


     3,000


     2,000


    10,000
                Scheme No.  3


                $ 3,200,000


                  1,500,000
                  2,500,000
200,000
  7,000
                                            -4-

-------
                                     SARGENT & LUNDY
                                         ENGINEERS
                                           CHICAGO
                                     STATE LINE STATION
                                COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
              499x
Est. No. 6364
Project No. 4170
Date:  5-12-70
A    MECHANICAL (Cont'd)

     11. Circulating Water Make-Up Gate
     12. Painting
                     TOTAL MECHANICAL
     ELECTRICAL

     1. 138 kV Oil Circuit Breaker
        and Appurtenances

     2. 138 kV Feed to 4160 V
        Substations (Aerial)

     3. 4160 V Substations

     4. 480 V Substations

     5. 480 V Moi:or Control Centers

     6. Control and Instrumentation

     7. Power Cables and Terminations

     8. Control and Instrument
        Cables arid Terminations

     9. Conduit aad Duct Runs

    10. Lighting

    11. Grounding

    12. Testing

    13. Temporary Light and Power

    14. Contingency


                     TOTAL E - ELECTRICAL
Scheme No. 1
$

$15
$













$
10,000
10,000
,225,000
72,000
13,000
204,000
31,000
4,000
8,000
18,000
16,000
18,000
26,000
12,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
457,000
Scheme No. 2
-
$ 20,000
$14,615,000
$ 72,000
65,000
394,000
64,000
7,000
10,000
17,000
116,000
30,000
20,000
9,000
15,000
15,000
17,000
$ 851,000
Scheme No. 3
$ 10,000
10,000
$ 7,427,000
$ 72,000
13,000
205,500
226,000
7,000
11,500
35,000
29,000
115,000
55,000
34,500
18,000
24,000
16,500
$ 862,000
                                            -5-

-------
                                SARGENT & LUNDY
                                    ENGINEERS
                                      CHICAOO
                                STATE LINE STATION
                           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                             499y
                              Est.  No.  6364
                              Project No.  4170
                              Date:   5-12-70
Miscellaneous & Contingency - 5%
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Top Charges
Scheme No. 1
$ 1,228,000
26,200,000
Not Incl.
Scheme No. 2
$ 1,766,000
36,800,000
Not Incl. ,
Scheme No. 3
$ 871,000
18,275,000
Not Incl.
   TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$26,200,000
$36,800,000
$18,275,000
NOTES:   1. Allowance for future escalation of equipment,  material and  labor  is  not
           included.

        2. Allowance for increased labor costs over 40 hour work wpek are not
           included.

        3. Necessary earth fill for new cofferdam area in Lake Michigan is assumed to
           be had from Burns Harbor Ditch location and the construction being
           completed with use of lake barges, scows, etc.
                                       -6-
                                      Final

-------
                                                                                              499 z
  H:  81
   :':'-  *
;i
i^
.» sSss s t -
fi6^ g t
5 S1
ro(^ *3 X tr» «* OEiKirt
J ° j ^ ^ ° J
if
•H
rv ^ -| S i *
,o
- $5 , .
" - i s;r
d *J H i« ir» o O
rr^asjca^x * - i i
• 'it '-so C* -9O
Q *-! l-t " CO CO
^ *-• o iri r-
.;> 5 *-*
*p »
^Cpotr'^oo o ^
c/^*'oc. ^^ — 'O
fH VT •? 1 It
^ A
5. ff
o
*"«
S^
•3 S
« Q
- -g a
$ :g
s :«
H t> C
s. . n
5 fc JAfc
g1 6 C£
5 H i » 5
o c e o
• ** =>^ H
•J 5 4J O J=
• S "33 4
+> E -H o a
£ s^ wOtJ
X:H-H Ht,j=
*o c» *v tft • *"^ i-4 t> u
5 flx 5 xP1" 6 ft a
,-t - *i ^ (TV *> w
O %- J « s o u. tu
* <."eiiS"Hv^cMS
*> OO3-^*«4 t, ti Q O.-tlt>CjC
U t) Jj 4; H tfpClklX)^ C*
f,S llaof^^^y^
w-o sS^H— asisc,
C^P -H VO ^ S Q
IT* ifX W lA h- O fc"
ON J^ " vO 03 *"t O^
»r\ in i *A to o ro
sc . ,, a s
UN if\ CO J% r»- m M
O ^ -H ^ O1^ r-l O
rr\ t^ r4 O CO  •- O O i-t t--

ature for Design: Dry Bulb *
Wet Bulb
gn Approach to Wet Bulb *
Jsed for Design *
culating Water to Condenser *
ser (Average for All Units) "
culating Water Leaving Condenser *
£ •£ - 5 & 43
a £j t> o -c o
t, » t. t> « v
3D O 1. M L
H 1- 3 £ 3
c S ? S S I g
3 1 i i & s i
5 § o J t, a fi
^ 	


-------
2
6
r-1 -H tO O O
£*"& °
S
"3 ^ o
1
x o
3 ?! So °.
H *> 2 in o t-
O  *-^.
r
aj ^5 u\ ^ O
H^tOO IT* "p r^
o
£
Aen*
sscription
Ratio of Rise Across Condenser to Kax. Temperature Diff. (»<•)
Condenser Tube Data:
a. Cleanliness Factor £
b. Tube Size Used to Represent AU Units
Velocity Through Condenser Tubes ft/sec.
0 a r; o> o\
S
VO
S
ft
s
(M
OJ
I
~

?
1
I
1
DJ
CO
S
OJ
3
8
S
5
Condenser Pressure at Design Conditions "Kg. A.
tt
vo
1
5 ?
1
fc 3
* 5
1
« 5
°* 5
tf\ CO
c& u"\
rn *"•"
1
s s
.§•
n.
e s,
a s§
•s ^ »
1 *8
a T"
s
^ •
I !
s s
§ g
3 3
U U
V 4)
M ta
9 Q
0 &
3 •*.
\O o O O
ov u> m -»
• «B UN H
o «S i
OX r^ ^* t
• O fl ^H
O Ch 1
S5 S 8 &
vo HI ri JH
o S V
mo «o
u> jf M n
^ « S S
O Sv
"^L **
Ov vo m w
O f^ V
fti m ir\ r*i
vo • *, •
CT> ^ j tn
• 
                                                                           499aa

-------
"3
f\

I
c
* ||o|
* «
5-
°* "d
<*! CJ
eg S
>. o
« s
§ I

cu H Jjj o
H Li


- 1!
i
3 5 ° S
& 1
«• ^ I
1 ~ IP!
I 1 1
3:
41 X
H 3l








i
«

0
£
1
ition
lea*
•cription
CILIARY POWER REQUIRED FOR
S 3 & 3
\O O O O " S *
O -* &N < J 3
ro cy « ra i m CQ


- g s § 1 s i 1
w H s"



^S. £ S S 8 S S
vo t- ^f *-i d •(
•H H * I A A
5 3

V U 4) V « •) •)
n w n a « w S

m O O O «> o I*
o5 r- ^r « « »»
o -* rn « 44
r^ CM » I « «
SI


H c-- u\ tf ry cO
CM H OO W J1

lllll.ll


§3 S S 5 §3 2




«
S to
2 1

a -H «^
•-4 C +* ON
a a « •

k S in,
S. 5 >- * oS
| S a « -^
O* V IA T) C t)
fe 1 3 * S 1 i^'
£ 1 & « t « g-S
1 « « V f a *s
! I f 1 s i i l£
ii 1 1 1 * i is
H tti H CO * r-4
^5&i!*i|i^
•.|3aa»l<~
« s •-< -i p -d «> H a
| ? i H i 1 s 31
ilig^ss^^
racxjoicgoicvictjcvi
S 3



0 ,
s ^



c& »-^
* ^1
s< f-

3 d
4 .£
£ ™.
Si ^


O ry
^t cy

« (M
i £


£ «•




1 I
« »--»
"S 5 *
I ^
•a £

** e? @
. Total Change in Auxlliar
Traveling Screens, and F
(Iten 2k + Item 25 + Ite
Equivalent Capital Inves
Auxiliary Power (Data fr
S R



























s
S
to Auxllll
1
|

H
4J
1
Difference in Equivalent
A
1

2?
?
s
A
CM
t-4

4

«
*
s
&
s
w
?

§
a
o
V
I


-*»•









a
S B
S £
x i
s? i
! a
•2. S
Q
I *
A 0
g
R R
CM VD


a R
ey -j



M? £
cy \Q


H lTt

81TN
.-t



cy rn

r*i in
-* t-
M 0

1
= >*


M
2
I
\


?!
*> it
3 *
Condenser Pressure (Repei
Correction to Net Turbini
~
£
°. '


,-
H



i*-
o i


m o
irv *H

g i



m

O- uS
8 oo
_£.
>
£
M
+J
•a
D
3
^
D
a>
--* r)

•h f
fX i
9 <
4> •
M ly
+ .
Correction Multiplier (1
Station Heat Rate at 1.0'
• •
R
3"


g
s"



a
m

s

s

s



ON

«
f
M
a








5
2
1* «*
3n
!f ^
«
499bb

-------
                                          O   ffl
                                          tis   m
                                          ro   «
                                                             499 cc
S
                             I

- II
<«
&h

z
chanical
Draft
&


I
2*
:*
t Cooling
Tower
V
S 2? g
*-
ro *O co
t-- CO
S;
CJ
O aO Q
P^ CO
3

S g S S S g

IS - § S § §
« W rn *S
ou <-t

» (3 • - • ^
irt 1— • »/N t~- O H

                                     S  S
!  1



*
i
^
I
A
1
+J
«
X
1
+J
s
VI
5
1
fi
m
^
t>
&
^
o
1
>
a
B
«
s
c
•JS
V
a. 4
o x
ss
V -rl
p
fl ^
ft
1
M
£**
** CO

> H
(J^
vt **
Sii
c
*i
*j
•au
3S
s!
IS
uw
la
R

                 ta


                 S*
                 SI
                 c 2
   S
   •H    •-
   S    °.

   5    *



   * i  1

   88"
   Oca
   .id
   S °  S
   S I  S

   i 3  n
                                              M

                                              •3
                                              +*
                             ^•o   E.g.   &?
                             -35  3  3  8  5-.  "I
                             s«3  ,,  1  s  28  if

                                              3S
                 ** ^j
                 C d
                 « u i4
                 M X iH  ^-1
                 V  O  V
                 i. -c a  >
                 g »-  «
|  S  §
                      A £



                      3 3
v

See No
                                                       B
                                          5

                                          *
                                           8M
                                                      *!..
                                                         "
                                                      . =

                                                      S °=
                                                      O M l-l
                                                      $9*
                                                       J"  s-
**«
** **

818

-------
I
                    §  §  i  §  i § .1!
             s
                            (xi *n
                      S
                      fO CM
                      CM 3
                    VO   IA
                            S S?
                            sT 3 R
                                             4'99dd
£
•a -
             2
                    § K H S
                            888
-• i !
m «H G g S
M W S t o 5
£ j: a (<
3 o *>
? £ >
g
O
a
t-
"
888
.H VO t^
O CO -H
m m IA
O 

   i
   E


   S
Capital Inve

0/Kv — See
llty
                      I  1?
                      «  It  V
                      S  5  S

                      II1
                      *  *  s



                      «  U  Q
                       I I
                        « H


                       H
                       M -J
                       IT*
                       5^
                       *a:
                       aiL
                       a»|s
                       "1>8
                     "- alla
                       gA5;
                       • 0»
                       S 31
                         SO H
                         H*-*
                              3

-------

-------

-------

-------
                                                              500
   f
                             C. A. Bane
       proposed regulations  in dealing with and proposing severe
       restrictions with  respect to a plant like Waukegan which
 •      was built in 1927,  which has been  studied and restudied as
 c      to the effects of  its thermal discharge into Lake Michigan
       and nobody —  nobody  has found any adverse  effects from
       that discharge over that period of time of  operation.
       Indeed it is well  known on  the north  shore  community that,
       in fact, fishermen seek out the Waukegan plume  just as I
       gather from testimony this  morning from Miss McKee that
       the same thing happens in the Traverse Bay  area<>
-,2               At this  point, I  think also  I might clarify
TO     several matters that  were raised this  morning in connection
-,,      with Dr. Langum*s  testimony with respect to our presenta-
       tion of customer costs at the previous hearing  held —
       customer costs from the installation  of a mechanical or
27     natural draft  wet  tower cooling  system at  Zion.
                 Dr.  Langum  beat us over  the head  — or tried to
       — because he  said that we  had  seriously misled everybody
       by presenting  a bar chart in which we had  distributed
       those costs of a mechanical draft  wet tower to  the resi—
22     dential customers  only of the  Commonwealth Edison  Company,
23     whereas he stated those  costs would,  of  course, be borne
2JL.     not only by the residential but  also  by  the commercial and
25 i    the industrial customers.

-------
    	501





 1.                            C, A. Bane



 2.               I think Dr, Langum suffered by not having been



 3     present at the previous Four-State Conference.     I.f he



 4     had been, he would have realized that we presented the bar



 5     chart ~ the page which he reproduced as page 17 in his



 6     testimony and exhibits —• we presented that bar chart in



 7     response to a bar chart that had been presented by the Fed-



 B     eral Water Quality Administration through Mr, Tichenor,



 9     and that chart had been prepared on exactly the same basis



10     as the chart that we presented} namely? it distributed the



11     costs of cooling systems to the residential customers,



12               Since we were with our chart responding to the



13     Federal Water Quality Administration, we felt that, in



14     fact, it would be misleading if we adopted any basis other



15     than the basis which the Federal Water Quality Administra-



16     tion had adopted.  Consequently, if there is misleading —



17     if this is a misleading method  or one that does not present



lg     the facts truly, then the accusation should be made against



19     the Federal Water Quality Administration,



20               I also will take a minute on Dr, Langum1s sus-



21     picion ~ I think that was his word — that there was



22     something wrong with our $53«12 figure as the cost per



23     kilowatt for the installation of a wet mechanical draft



24     cooling system at Zion, as shown on our material that has



25     been presented and which he reproduced as page 16 of his

-------
                                                               502





 1                            C. A*  Bane



 2     testimony,  and you will recall that  he  said primarily that



 3     his reason  for being suspicious of the  $53  figure, which



 4     the Chairman of this Conference, then,  with the  help from



 5     Dr. Langum, transmuted into a 10-to  15-eent monthly  increase



 6     for residential customers.



 7               Dr. Langum was comparing our  $53*12 figure with th



 g     $21 figure  which had been shown as the  cost for  the  Con-



 9     sinners installation —- Consumers Power  installation  —



10     at Palisades.



11               The fact of the matter is  —  and I think Dr.



12     Langum really ought to have known  this  — is that the  $21



13     figure of Consumers Power did not  include operation  and



14     maintenance costs, loss of capability,  and certain other



15     items shown on page 16, and that consequently his compari-



16     son of the $21 Consumers Power cost  should have  been made



17     not with our $53.12 figure, but with the $32.73  figure



lg     which is likewise shown on page 16 as the cost before



19     taking account of these items that were not taken account



20     of in the Consumers Power $21 figure<,



21               Furthermore, Dr.  Langum was frank to say that



22     he is not an engineer.  I think it must be perfectly clear



23     that these cooling systems are not like loaves of bread,



24     and you can't just assume that an installation at the



25     Palisades plant is comparable with the installation that

-------
                                                              503
 j,                           C« A.  Bane
 2.   would be required at Zion,  There are great differences*
 3             We have presented full testimony, as a matter of
 4   fact, in this hearing, as to the basis for our figures and
 5   our estimates at Zion, based in part upon the peculiarity
 6   of design that we must engage in at Zion by reason of the
 7   air traffic on the north shore of the State and other cir-
 g   cumstances„
 9             Consequently, any attempt to assume that the 10-
10   "to 15-cent figure is based upon any valid information or
H   comparisons made by Dr« Langum is, we think, out of line,
12             We would like to state, in conclusion, Mr,
13   Chairman, that we believe that in lieu of the regulations —
14   the Federal regulations, as proposed here—that the conferees
15   ought to give serious consideration to the statement and the
16   recommendations made by United States Senator Adlai  Stevensor
17   whose statement was read and incorporated in the record
lg   yesterday,
19             Without getting into a discussion — on which I am
20   not  an  expert — of the pecking order in Washington, I think
21   it can  fairly be said that Senator Stevenson is the highest-
22   ranking Federal official to present testimony or a statement
23   in these proceedings, and it consequently  should not be dis-
24   regarded.
25             That  statement  also, of course,  was — not of courso

-------
   	504




 1                           C« A, Bane



 2    but was reasonably  close to the proposal embodied and



 3    adopted and recommended to this Conference by the Illinois



 4    Pollution Control Board, as embodied in the letter of March



 5    15, 1971, from Chairman Currie to Mr. Stein,



 6              We do ask that the  conferees, in view of the cir-



 7    cumstances which we have outlined here, the lack of factual



 g    data  to  support the Federal position, and in view of the



 9    data  that we will  submit as to the  ramifications of these



10    proposals — at least so far  as Commonwealth Edison is



11    concerned — we would ask the conferees to adopt Senator



12    Stevenson's proposal.



13              MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



14              Before I throw this open  for discussion, I would



15    like to  say — I would like to hear from the people before we



16    decide on that 2 weeks'operation.   I would like to hear the



17    comments from the conferees before  we give you a ruling.



lg              MR. BANE:  I might  just  say before you do take a



19    vote that Mr. Comey asked this morning for  2 weeks to  submit



20    a statement of — ^ comment  on part A, and  there was no



21    dissent from the conferees on that request  of  his.



22              MR. STEIN:   There was no agreement  on that.   Now,



23    we — I am not against this,  but let me  ask you:  Will your



24    figures that you talked about include  in that  analysis what



25    it is going to  cost the residential consumer each month?

-------
                                                              50.5
 1-                               C.  A. Bane




 2-               MR. SANE:  We will  be glad to work that out,



 3     surely.




 4               MR. STEIN:   Now, I  want to really say one thing



 5     before I open this.  I wasn't trying to translate anything



 6     — 10-cent or 15-cent cost of anything.  I was just trying



 7     to understand what Mr. Langum was trying to say, and I  think




       I did understand it when it related to the two plants.




                 Before I open this  up,  I don't know, Mr.  Bane,  if



;J_Q     I understand your rules here.  Maybe I am not familiar  with




       the Illinois practice.  But is it your view that since  the




       United States Senator came up with something, he is the rank-




       ing man?  I don't know what you are trying to do in protocol:



ni      1) figure he outranks an Administrator 2) whether you are throw-




er     ing out a challenge to Mr. Ruckelshaus to go to the White



       House to trump him, or 3) ascertain who has the greatest



       expertise?  I don't understand this approach.




                 MR. BANE:  I told you I wasn't an expert  in



•jo     pecking order, but I  would assume that the Administrator



2Q     ranks below the United States Senate since his —



                 MR, STEIN:   I am not talking about the pecking



22     order; I am talking about the whole philosophy of the way




       you approach this is  the man  who  can produce the highest



2,      ranking officer coming in with a  statement.  If that is the



__     way we apply the law in Illinois  I am glad to know that,




       The next time I assure you I  will come equipped.

-------
   	506

 1                            C.  A*  Bane
 2              MR, BANE:   Well,  are we to assume that when the
 3    Federal Government makes a  presentation that is contrary
 4    to the recommendations of the United States Senator that
 5    those recommendations of the Senator are to be ignored?
 6              MR. STEIN:  No, this is again what I want to do.
 7    When you talk about  the Federal Government making  a recom-
 3    mendation, you have  two:  1) you have a letter from Mr.
 a    Ruckelshaus, which,  of course, is an Administrator's
10    recommendation which was rather general; 2) you also had
11    what you kept calling regulations, which are requirements
12    which were presented by the Region.     I would like to
13    say before I throw this open for discussion ,  I didn't
14    see these before either.     I don't know which lawyer
15    saw them, but I went through the same analysis you did,
16    and I think the Region and the people who did this should
17    be very thankful for you, Mr, Bane, because you have given
lg    them a thorough legal analysis.
19                  I would hope that they would take your
20    criticisms and your comments today in careful account to
2i    perfect these for the Executive Session, which we will have,
22    because I think these questions surety need answering.  I
23    think I have given  them  the same  comment myself, but I am
24    glad to have it fortified  by you .    I know it isn't often
25    that the  Government can afford the legal talents that  some

-------
   	507
 1,                           C, A, Bane
 2.   of our clients can afford, but I think I for one should
 3    think the Region should be appreciative of your analysis of
 4    their proposal,     I think they can be well advised to take
 5    your analysis into account to be sure that it answers those
 6    questions.
 7              MR, BANE;  Well, the importance is not the legal
 B    analysis, the importance  is the factual consequences.
 9    I don't  think it is reasonable to expect that we or any
10    utility  can  analyze the effect on our Waukegan and State
11    Line stations, for example, of a proposal that we learned
12    about yesterday.  And whereas these regulations seem to
13    have been  5  or 6 months in the making, I do not think it
14    is unreasonable for us to be allowed 2 weeks to tell the
15    Federal  Government what these regulations mean to us,
16              MR. STEIN:  May we have comments or questions?
17              Mr, Purdy0
lg              MR. PURDY:  Just one comment, Mr, Stein and Mr,
19    Bane,  It would seem that you emphasize to the conferees
20    that the first priority of consideration on the matter of
21    backfitting  ought to be the  cost that might be required on
22    the  backfitting,
23              And my  comment, from my standpoint, I think the
24     first  priority is to determine the need, and then the cost
25    must come  along and we must  design our program so that we,

-------
                                                             503
   [}—	•	—


 1                             C. A. Bane


 2     say,  have the least  disruption  of those facilities.
   i

 3               But I  think,  first of all, in my view,, the priori tjjr


       must  be the need for the backfittingo


                 MR. BANE:   I  agree with you, sir, and  that was


       the reason that  I mentioned —  I probably should not have


      • done  it in the order in which I did — that one  of the things


       that  confuses us and puzzles us with respect  to  Waukegan,


 9     for example, is  what is the need for backfitting on


10     tfaukegan, no matter what the  cost might be, when the


11     Waukegan plume has been operating since 1927  without any


12     visible sign of  any damage?


                 MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?


                 MR. MAYO:   I  think  that the variety of Mr.


       Bane's comments, as they are  directed to Mr.  Ruckelshaus*


       letter, require  a response.


iy               I think perhaps the best  I  can do — I could ask


lg     you to do this for yourself,  but I  will do it here in the


19     context of a response to you — by  reading a  portion of


20     the Administrator's letter — because  I think it says


       very well what it is he recommends  this  Conference address


22     itself to.


23               "... The Great Lakes  are  an irreplaceable


         National asset.  One of these lakes, Lake Erie, has


25       already suffered serious harm.   The quality of Lake

-------
                                                              509

 1                            C. A, Bane
  •
 2      Michigan waters, though still high, has begun a steady
 3      and measurable decline, with associated damage to its
 4      biological  systems.  Although several other sources of
 5      ecological  damage to the lake exist, thermal discharges
 6      are increasingly important and may well accelerate the
 7      harm  caused by other pollutants*  It is my conviction
 g      that  if there are feasible methods to avoid this serious
 9      risk  of harm posed by thermal discharges, those methods
10      must  be adopted*
11              "We must recognize that many unknowns exist in
12      the problem we now confront.  Much research is required
13      before we can fully understand the nature and extent of
14      effects from thermal discharges.  More must be known also
15      about the specific water quality conditions of Lake
16      Michigan,   In the face of such unknowns, however, we must
17      choose the  course of caution.  For far too long precau-
lg      tions against environmental damage have awaited a full
19      understanding of the threat.  The march of progress has
20      aggravated  environmental damage while proposed safeguards
21      were  under  consideration or studies were being performed*
22              "In the case of Lake Michigan, we cannot afford
23      further delay*  Stringent standards must be established
24      to  prevent  damage from thermal discharges*  In particu-
25      lar,  I believe that limitations should be placed on large

-------
                                                              510
1                               C. A. Bane


2     volume heated water discharges by requiring closed cycle
                            r

3     cooling systems using cooling towers or alternative cooling


4     systems on all new powerplants and addition of such cooling


5     facilities to plants now under construction.


6               "In addition to the development of stringent therm
                                                                    l
 7     standards for Lake Michigan,  I would like to direct  your


       attention to the need for setting implementation  schedules


       for plants now under construction or in operation such that


10     their discharges will be brought into compliance  as  soon


11     as possible.


12               "I urge your consideration and adoption of clearly


       defined temperature standards and look forward to your


       submission of the conferees '  recommendations to me in the


       near future."


                 So I think the Administrator verv eloquently stated


17     the basis for the concern.  I think he very straight forwardl


       stated a charge to the conferees.


                 MR. BANE:  Well, no one can quarrel with the


20     Administrator's high regard for Lake Michigan, and,  as a


       matter of fact, to match in eloquence, we might quote


22     Justice Holmes who said with respect to the Great Lakes that


23     they constitute a good deal more than an amenity.  They were


       in fact, a treasure; and indeed they are a treasure,


25               MR. STEIN:  Didn't he say that about a  river?

-------
    	311





 1-                            C.  A.  Bane



 2-            MR.  BANE:   I don't  know whether he  said  it about  a




 3    river or the Great Lakes.



 4            MR.  STEIN:  That's  the way I  read that case.



 5            MR.  BANE:   At any rate, he was talking about bodies



 6    of water.  Bodies  of water, whether they  be rivers or lakes,



 7    are there for the  use of the community.   So long as no



 g    damage is done to  them,  and those uses, I think, include



 9    not only the interests of  swimmers, fishermen, but to the



10    extent that no damage is done, they are a treasure for  the



11    commercial and industrial  life of the community<,



12            Consequently, unless damage can be  shown — and our



13    quarrel with the Administrator is that he relied upon what



14    we regard as a discredited document,  the  "white  paper," to



15    reach his conclusion that  electric power  generation does



16    damage that has to be corrected.



17            MR. STEINj  I want  to ask Mr. Mayo  that  question



18    because you have raised it several times.



19            I think there was an assumption made in  Mr. Bane's



20    statement, Mr. Mayo, and I would like you to comment on



21    this, that the basis of the Commissioner's  or the Adminis-



22    trator's letter was the "white paper."  Is  that  your under-



23    standing?



24            MR. MAYO:   No, the basis obviously  for the Adminis-



25    trator's letter is the — I just read it, and I  don't think

-------
 1                           C. A. Bane
 2    I  need to repeat it.  It is stated there in the paragraphs
 3    that  I read.
 4           MR*  STEIN:  But answer the question, because I think
 5    Mr. Bane has repeatedly said — and I am trying to elicit
 6    from  you people the point of view — that the basis of the
 7    Administrator's letter was the "white paper."  I think I
 g    heard that  5 or 6  times in his original statement.  He
 9    just  said  it againe
10            In your opinion, is this  the case?
11           MR. MAYO:   No.  The letter makes reference to a
12    portion — makes  a couple  of  quotes from the  "white paper,1*
13    but certainly this does not  constitute  the  basis for his
14    concern,  the basis for his recommendation.  It  is much,
15    much broader than that.
15            MR. BANE:   The "white paper"  is the only  document
17    that the Administrator cites aside from himself?
18            MRC MAYO:  S.o?
19            MR. STEIN:  I think you have answered it.
20            MR. MAYO:  I would have to say:  So what?
2i            MRe STEIN:  Are there any other comments?
22            You know I am learning something about the power
23    industry all of the time, and I thought I heard you say,
24    Mr.  Bane, that the electric company here, Consolidated
25    Edison, was  connected to the whole country except Texas.

-------
   	513



 ,                             C.  A*  Bane
 1-

 2.    Is that by the grid system?


                MR. BANE:  Yes, that is right*   Our company is


 ,     Commonwealth Edison not Consolidated,
 4

                MR, STEIN:  I am sorry.  I stand corrected.


 x               But Commonwealth Edison is connected to the whole
 o

 7    country except Texas by the grid system?


 g              MR, BANE:  That is correct.   We have in this


      country a National grid system for power.  The reason that


      Texas is not in it is because they are still unwilling to


•Q    subject themselves ~


                MR. STEIN:  How about southern Florida?


                MR. BANE:  Southern Florida?


,.               MR. STEIN:  Yes.
14

                MR. BANE:  I believe that is connected in, sure.


16              MR. STEIN:  It is?


1?              MR. BANE:  Yes.


lg              MR. STEIN:  Well, that is interesting.


                I  will let you — does anyone want to —


                MR. DUMELLE:   Mr. Stein, I would like to  comment


      on Mr.  Bane's request  for  2 weeks.  It seems to me  that


22    this is entirely reasonable.  As I understand  it, these


23    recommendations by Mr. Ruckelshaus were  given  out at a


2A    meeting of the conferees the  night  before the  Conference


25    opened.  I am sort of surprised of  how the public members

-------
    	514


                             Co A, Bane

 2 j   have  picked this out, because they have been insistent of

 3    their rights to be present whenever the conferees got

 4    together,  and  it  seems  to me that the  company is entitled

 5    to take a  few  weeks  to  get some additional  facts and submit

 6 |   them0

 7              MR,  STEIN: Are there any other additional facts
 ' j

 $    on that?  The  Chair  has no objection  to  2 weeks,   I think

 9    that is reasonable unless  I  hear  an objection
   i
10 |             MR.  MILLER:  Mr. Chairman,  we  heard this morning

11 ||   the comment that the government  did  not  move fast  enough,
   il
1?    and we come here hoping to arrive at  some decisions  as c-o
   !|
13 |   thermal standards, and now we are being asked to slow down

14    in the process.     I am sure before we get through why we,

15    at the government level, will be blamed for slowing down
   i
16 j   the  process and not arriving at them.

-|7              I certainly agree that there may be need to study

18    this,  but in  going  over it, I don»t see a great deal of

19 !   difference aside  from  the table of information that has

20    been available in the  Technical Committee's report.     I

21    certainly think  there  was ample time  provided from the time

22    the Technical Committee*s report was  submitted to review

23    and determine what  the effects would  be  upon the  various
   I
24     companieso

25               MR. STEIN:  Well,  I have given my view.  I  would

-------
                                                              515
                                   C.  A.  Bane




 2*      like to hear 'the  others.   I think we  can  go  around,  if you



 3      want, to make the judgment on whether they need  2  weeks,




        Now, let me give  this  to  the  conferees — we heard an



        economic analysis from Mr, Langum.  Presumably it  is indi-




        cated by Mr. Bane that he will give us another kind of



        analysis or perhaps  a  rebuttal — I am not saying  it will.




        be — but another kind of economic analysis.



                  Now,  if the  conferees  think that is desirable




        we can do this, if not, we can say what we are going to



        do.  But I am not saying  that you cannot  come up with




        a determination before that.



                  MR. BANE:  I wonder if I could  just say  in




        clarification that we  are not concerned just with  reworkiiif



        the material we put  in before but these proposals  in part



        as they affect  our Waukegan and  State Line stations,  wort.5



        brand new to us as of  yesterday  morning,  I  see  nothinr in



        the Technical Committee report that bears upon thf/m,  and I



,Q      believe that we are  entitled  and indeed I believe  the




20      conferees would want to know  what they are proposing,  or



        what is being proposed with respect to existjnrr  rer f r.-:t i




22      plants in the way of cost, down-time,  the effect OP  our



        capacity, the possibility of  producing power shortages





24




25

-------
                                                              516






                               C. A. Bane




 2     Those  are  things  I  think you  ought to  know.



 3               MR,  PURDY:  Mr.  Stein,  as I understand  this



 4     Conference,  we cannot set  standards as such  through this




 5     Conference procedure. The  standards in themselves  will



 6     have to be set back at  the State  level unless we go through




 7     another Federal procedure  —  set  at the State levels,  under




       State  law, and the  Federal law requires that public hear-




 o,     ings be held by the States under the  State law in  the




10     stardard-setting process.



11               So,  therefore,  it seems to  me that the  additional




12     information that some of the  witnesses would like  to



13     present could be presented to the various States  prior to




14     the public hearings, if they so desire, or presented at



       the States' public hearingr,      I don't see that a 2-week



       delay to  present additional information ought to delay the



17     conferees from any decision.



                 MR. BANE:  It seems peculiar to me that the



       conferees could reach a conclusion without having the type




20     of  information that I am  proposing to submit, and indeed,




2i     I would think you would want to ask of every utility and




22     every  discharger who falls within part A whether a  utility,




23     industry, or whatever.




24  !             MR.  STEIN:  Mr. Bane, if you deem  it appropriate,




25     let me try  to  poll the conferees.

-------
                                                            517
                              C» A, Bane
 2»             Mr. Mayo.
 3              MR. MAYO:  I agree thoroughly with Mr. Purdy's
       suggestion  that the  conferees — I think we are obliged at
 5     this point  in time to make their recommendations to the
 6     Administrator, and we should proceed to make those recom-
 7     mendations  at this session.
                I would not raise any objection whatsoever to
 9     the Commonwealth  Edison or any of the other utilities
10     having an additional 2 weeks to provide the conferees with
11     additional  data.
12              There will be ample time for the States to address
13     themselves  to  any of this additional data in terms of the
       legislative processes that they must follow, and I agree
15     with him 100 percent.
                MR.  BANE:   I  fail to understand the  procedure.
       If this were a rule-making procedure within the —
                MR.  STEIN: Mr. Bane,  please —
                MR.  BANE:   If this  were a procedure  within —
20              MR,  STEIN: May I  check with Wisconsin first?
                 MR.  BANE:   I  wonder if I might  respond —
22               MR.  STEIN:  You can;  if you think you are helping
23     your cause, go ahead.
24               MR.  BANE:   If this were a  proceeding governed
25     by  the Federal Administrative Procedure  Act,  you

-------
 1                           C. A. Bane
 2    gentlemen would have  been required to publish notice to give
 3    a full opportunity for hearing  on these proposals,  something
 4    certainly far beyond  — due  process  requires  something more
 5    than a 43-hour submittal of  a proposal and then no  opportunitjy
 6    to evaluate their effects.
 7              MRo STEIN:   Wisconsin?
 3              MR. FRANCOS:  Mr.  Chairman,  let me suggest that
 9    perhaps the conferees take this matter under advisement,
10    and make a determination at the same time that they discuss
11    and make a determination of what the recommendations of
12    this  Conference will be.
13              MR. STEIN:  All right.
.„              Let me  —  we can't decide this today, but we have
15     had precedence on this before.   I think Mr. Purdy points
16     this  out, and it  was seconded  — I  think three  of the States
17     indicated this and the  Federal conferee.
•j^g              We have made determinations before,  such as the
19     voting regulation which required action  by the States,
20     other requirements which  required action by  the States,
2i     either administratively,  to put an  order into  effect,  or
22     get a standard in operation,)
23               If the conferees feel that  it  can come to a
24     judgment now and the conferees want to keep the record
25     open for 2 weeks, I can assure the conferees that the

-------
    	519

 1.                             C. A.  Bane
 2 .    information presented in the record, which will be kept
 3     open,  will be sent to the Administrator for his consider-
 4     ation.
 5               Now,  I think we should again look at the mechanics
 6     of this*  I do not intend — and I think  we can all  recog-
 7     nize this — in conformance with the standard procedure  —
 g     to send the recommendations up to the Administrator  without
 9     a complete transcript of the Conference*
10               Now, maybe we can put this on the record if you
11     want to.  Mrs. Hall, what is your estimate.   Two  weeks
12     before we get it?
13               MRS. HALL:  At least.
14               MR* STEIN:  All right*  We won't have this
15     transcript for 2 weeks*  In other words,  if you get  this
16     additional information, as far as I  can see,  this informa-
17     tion will be in writing, and I think as far  as getting the
lg     recommendation to the Administrator, there won't  be  any
19     delay.
20               Now, again, I don't want to make any judgment, anc
21     if the  conferees want to set this over,  I will be glad to
22     wait until you have had more time to think about  it  before
23     we make a ruling, unless, as I feel here — unless Wisconsin
24     and Indiana wish to  express themselves differently at this
25     time, we  can dispose  of the matter.

-------
                                                               520
 1                                C. A. Bane




 2                MR. BANE:  I wonder if I can just say that I




 3      don 't believe your proposal meets the requirements of due



 4      process.  I think we are entitled to have the information



 5      that we wish to submit in the hands of the conferees while




 6      they are deliberating what conclusion they are going to




 7      arrive at.



                  MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, have we decided any-




 9      thing?



10                MR. STEIN:  Not yet.



                  MR. CURRIE:  Are we planning to?




12                MR. STEIN:  Well, it depends whether you want to




        decide it now.  As I see, we have two proposals here:




        1)  to hold the record open for 2 weeks before we decide



        anything; and 2) a recommendation from the Wisconsin




        conferee  that WP take this proposition under advisement,



17      think about  it, discuss  it, and have a ruling later tomorrow,



                  MR. CURRIE:  Tomorrow?  When is it contemplated



        that the  conferees will  decide on what their recommendatior



20      will be on the main  issue before us:  thermal pollution?




                  MR. STEIN:  I  hope we will present that tomorrow




22      unless you want to defer it,



23                MR. FRANCOS:   Mr. Chairman, what I would like to




2JL      do  this afternoon  is  perhaps hear the witnesses, and  I





25

-------
      	521
                               C.  A,  Bane
       think we are kind of getting into the  area  of discussing
       matters that we would be doing at the  Executive  Session.
 •      So I would urge that we go  on  with  hearing  the people  that
 e     are here,
 >               MR, STEIN:  Without  objection may we do  that?
 o
       Yes, we are going to defer  that.
                 Are there any other  comments to Mr, Bane's
       statement?
1Q               With that, Mr, Bane, thank you very much,
,,                MR. BANE:  Thank  you,
                 MR, STEIN:  We will  now call on Wisconsin,
                 MR, FRANCOS:  Mr, Sol Burstein with the  Wisconsin
       Electric Power Company,
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25

-------
                              	522


                               S.  Burstein
               STATEMENT OF SOL BURSTEIN,  SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,

                      WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,

                           MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
   i

 6 !
 7
 9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16
17
20
21
22
23
 25
          MR. BURSTEIN:   My name is Sol Burstein.   I am

with Wisconsin Electric  Power Company and I have been here

before.  In fact, almost all of us have been here before and

I apologize if some of us are beginning to sound a little

tired and tiresome.  I came to discuss the report of the

Technical Committee on Thermal Discharges issued in January

of this year pursuant to the conferee's instructions follow-

ing the Workshop Sessions here on September 28-October 2, 1970,

          In my opinion, the Technical Committee has made

two basic errors in its report.  Firstly, it equated the

weight and credibility of the evidence presented on behalf

of the zero-heat proponents with that presented by the

opposition.  I believe that material presented in support

of no heat additions was contained almost exlusively in

the so-called "white papers".  The material was and remains

highly speculative.  On the other hand, presentations by

utilities, and their consultants, including hard, scientific

and engineering  data.  It  is disturbing that the Technical

Committee should evaluate  these  presentations as having

-------
                                                               523





                               S. Burstein




 2    equal authenticity and precision.



 3              Secondly, having made this unfortunate evaluation



 4    which leads to the contradictions emphasized in the report,



 5    the Committee makes the recommendation for no heat additions,



 6    This conclusion cannot logically be drawn from the content



 7    of the report and I therefore assume it has its basis in




      some other source,



 9              If we were to assume for the moment that such



10    comparisons of speculation versus real-life data are not



11    invalid, then the following summary of the report's conclu-



12    sions are pertinent to the conferees' attention:



                1.  The committee believes the large amount of



14    technical data presented to the Conference is largely



15 j   contradictory and is inadequate upon which specific thermal



15 j   criteria can now be based.



17              2.  The committee concludes, although no damage



      to the ecology of Lake Michigan has been demonstrated from



      existing or presently authorized facilities, adverse



20    ecological effects may occur with increased input of waste



21    heat to the lake.



22              3»  The committee states there is a period of



23    time between the present — where no demonstration of



24    damage exists — and the future, when it is possible that



2$    proliferation of heat inputs to Lake Michigan might cause

-------
                                                               524





                               S.  Burstein



      damage.



                4.  The committee  accepts the fact that heat



      additions to Lake Michigan have no direct biological impact



 5    on man and any effects thermal inputs might have on aquatic



 6    life are reversible on reduction or elimination of the heat



 7    sources.



                On this basis, it  appears essential that the



 9    Enforcement Conference recommendations allow for a period



10    °f time during which actual  observations of operating power-



11 j   plants on Lake Michigan will provide the factual basis for



12    realistic criteria.  If adverse effects are detected and



13    deemed in need of correction, I know of no responsible utility



14    management that would not take prompt steps to make the



15    necessary changes.  In view of the reversibility of thermal



16    effects, permanent damage to the aquatic environment of



17    Lake Michigan is therefore not at stake.



lg              I believe it is fair to state that the reasons



19    this Conference  created the Technical Committee and the



20    reasons for this session lie in the significant technical



21    presentations made by the utilities and their consultants



22    at the  last Workshop.  I submit that the work reported on



23    to the  conferees was sponsored by the utilities in a



24    sincere desire to provide objective information upon which



25    these  power companies could  confidently base their

-------
                                                               525
                               S.  Burstein



      operations and future designs.   Hopefully,  these  studies



      would also assist regulatory authorities  by adding to a



      better understanding of Lake Michigan characteristics and,



      hence, better criteria for its  long-term  protection.



                Unfortunately, there  has been some undeserved



      criticism of these efforts as having been funded  by vested



      interests, and hence arbitrarily or capriciously  designed



 o,    to obtain predetermined conclusions.  This  is,  of course,



10    not true and impugns the professional reputations of  highly



11    competent scientists and engineers.  I ask  the  conferees



12    "to give these eminent experts due  consideration.   If  all



      these time-consuming and costly activities  do not receive



      the attention due them,  then obviously there is no point



      in their continuance.



16              One final comment  on  the Technical Committee's



17    Report and one more on a real-life situation.  Recommenda-



      tions of the Technical Committee on chlorine discharges



19    from powerplants  on Lake Michigan  appear  insupportable.



20    Concern has been  expressed that marine organisms  may  be



      damaged by the mechanical and thermal shock of  condenser



22    transport.  I believe many mechanical cleaning  methods  for



23    condenser systems would contribute substantial  mortality



24    potential to these organisms.  As  an aside,  my  company



25    has participated  in a proposal  to  study condenser transport

-------
                                                              526
 1 j|                            S. Burstein




 2    effects at Point Beach Nuclear Plant in an effort to




 3    provide specific data on these phenomena.




 4              I presume everyone here is familiar with the




 5    recent decision by Consumers Power Company to add cooling




 6    towers to the Palisades Nuclear Plant, on the basis of




 7    which the intervenors in the AEC licensing proceeding have




      withdrawn their opposition.  This decision to install




 9    expensive cooling towers, I note, was made by a power




10    company not because that company had evidence of any poten-




      tial adverse thermal effects on Lake Michigan waters from




12    its original once-through cooling system.  Rather, it was




13    made on the basis that the implementation of the AEC




      licensing regulations would economically penalize this




15    utility and its customers beyond the alternative of instal-




16    ling cooling towers.



17              I trust that the conservationists who succeeded



13    in requiring Consumers Power to install cooling towers will



19    be just as vigorous and tenacious in support of the rate




20 ij  increases which necessarily must follow.  Anything less




21    would cause serious concern as to the integrity of these




22    motives.




23              My remarks at the 1970 fall workshops remain




 24    applicable.  The cost to the electric ratepayer of this




 25    region for a no-heat standard remains very substantial and

-------
                                                              527

   n	"	•—~~

   |l

 1.                             S. Burstein

   j

 2.!   the benefits from these added financial burdens are for
   I


 3    the present, by the Technical Committee's own words,



 4    doubtful.



 5              It must be clear to the conferees that decisions



 6    related to thermal effects on Lake Michigan are being



 7    imposed in the absence of clear and precise recommendations



 g    upon which the respective States can act.  Further reasons



 9    for prompt and realistic conclusions by 'this Conference



10    should not be necessary.



11              Mr*  Chairman,  with your indulgence,  and that of



12    the conferees,  as the result of the remarks made at the



13    last 2 days I  would like to add some things not in my  pre-



14    pared statement,



15              MR.  STEIN:   Go right ahead,



16              MR,  BURSTEIN:   It shouldn't take very long.



17              But  we  have keard a lot,  sir,  about  scare tactics



      or alleged blackmail on  the part of both power companies



19    and conservationists,



20              Let  me  say that the dollars required for other



21    than once-through cooling are real and vast, as are the



22    other environmental effects from cooling towers,  I



23    estimate that  it  will cost my companies between $30 to $40



24    million for cooling towers at Point Beach and  for the



25    replacement capacity of  the 80-odd megawatts it will take

-------
                                                             523
                             S. Burstein
 2 I   to  run them, and  from about $115 million for the other power-
 3    plants using Lake Michigan for  cooling at Oak Creek, Lake-
      side,  and Port  Washington.  This together with additional
 5    operating costs amounts to $40  million per year or roughly
 6    17  percent of our last  year's revenues*
 7              Over  the  next 30 years,  these dollars for Lake
      Michigan no heat  additions are  into  billions, and they are
      realj  they are  not  imaginary  or speculative*
                You will  note that  I  disagree with the figures of
11    Dr. Langum by  something like  a  factor of 10, and, as has
12    been indicated  before,  he did not  include  operating,
13    maintenance costs,  fixed  charges,  on some  portions, nor
      the replacement power for the electricity  to run the  equip-
      ment.
                Mrc  Gomey's announcement in regard to possible
17    intervention in the Point Beach AEG licensing  proceeding
      I also take to be real, and if he proceeds, the  delays in
19    providing the output from this plant will impair the
20    abilities of my companies to meet the electrical demands
      of Wisconsin.  This is not imaginary; it is a fact.
22              And, incidentally, I don*t understand Mr. Comey's
23    concern  about legalisms, particularly if he proposes to
24    intervene in a nuclear issue in an AEG proceeding in order
25    to obtain a thermal discussion, a thermal decision.

-------
    	529
 1-                            S. Burstein
 2.              I do not believe I am quoting from the letter
 3    presented by this same organization — Businessmen for the
 /,.    Public Interest — distributed to you and entered into the
 5    record,  sir, from Mr. Polikoff, addressed to the Honorable
 5    Administrator William Ruckelshaus, when I quote from the
 7    third paragraph:
 g              "It is not thermal pollution that has brought
 9    Lake Michigan to its present degraded condition* ...M
10              MR. STEIN:  That is a different outfit, isn't it?
11              MR. BURSTEIN:   No, sir, it is Businessmen for
12    the Public Interest —
13              MR. STEIN:  Okay.  Go ahead,
12f              MR. BURSTEIN: — and it is the same organization.
15              MR, STEIN:  Thank you.
15              MR. BURSTEIN:   I find myself in a  strange or
17    ironic position of agreeing substantially with Secretary
lg    Klein, with  whom  I have publicly  disagreed before, par-
19    ticularly when  Mr« Klein  affirms  that we must know what
20    the vast sums to  be  spent will produce.   This is exactly
2i    my point.   I believe this is also the dilemma faced by the
22    Technical  Committee.
23               I  know,  at this moment, the best  fishing in Lake
24    Michigan is at  the Point  Beach  nuclear plant, and I wish  I
25     could show everyone these pictures  of the  beautiful lake

-------
   	530





 1                            S. Burstein



 2    trout taken just yesterday or the day before at our Lake




 3    Michigan outfalls.



 ^              Similar to the histories at Oak Creek and Port



 5    Washington, it has been a year or more since we offered the



 6    facilities of the Oak Creek powerplant to evaluate the



 7    thermal effects from the largest existing powerplant on




      Lake Michiganc



 9              Again, I would repeat, sir, there is a period of



10    time  between now when no damage due to thermal discharges



      exists, and some future time when additional sources are



12    feared by some might cause adverse effects that are



13    reversible.



                Echoing Secretary Klein's comment, I believe



15    this  affords and indeed demands that  we use this period



16    to determine what we should intelligently  do before we



17     start  doing it*



                Thank you, sir.



19              MR.  STEIN:  Thank you, Mr.  Burstein.



20              1 think your  statement is very clear.  I feel



2i     I understand it.



22              Are  there  any comments or questions?



23              MR.  FRANCOS:  Yes.   Mr.  Burstein, I am wondering



24     if I could  ask you to repeat  the figures that you presented



25     in your unprepared remarks at the  end in terms of the  costs

-------
    	531
 1 ,                           S. Burstein
 2 ,   to  Point  Beach  and to your system,
 3             MR. BURSTEIN:  Our  very preliminary data indicates
 4    that  Point  Beach would  cost between  $30 and  $40 million for
 5    the addition of cooling towers  and the replacement power
 6    necessary to make up for pumping the water and powering the
 7    fans,
 g             MR. FRANGOSj   Is that for  both units, sir?
 9             MR. BURSTEIN:  That is for the plants,  yes,  sir.
10             MR. FRANCOS:   For the plants.  All right.
11             MR. BURSTEIN:  I anticipate  similar costs on the
12    other plants I  mentioned that use Lake Michigan for once-
13    through cooling would  be approximately $115 million,
14             MR. FRANCOS:   So what you  are  saying is almost  —
15             MR. BURSTEIN:  $150 million  for  some 3f?00
16    megawatts of capacity,  which  is substantially different
17    from Mr.  Langum's figures  of  that  same amount for 15,000
lg    megawatts of capacity,
19             MR. FRANCOS:   Yes,  I  understand*
20              MR. BURSTEIN:  I am saying in  addition  to  the
21    fixed charges of this amount, which relate to  or  which
22    translate rather to about  $30 million a  year, we  will incur
23    an additional $10 million annually for operating  costs.
24    So that the additional revenues required from the rate-
25    payers in the State of Wisconsin is in the order  of $40

-------
                                                               532
 1                                3. Burstein




 2       million per year for these existing and operating facilitie-s




 y                 MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions or




 /,,       comments?



 5                 I have one observation, Mr. Burstein, and I say



 6       this because maybe we are going to meet many more times.



 7       Mr. Bane referred to due process, and I guess fortunately



        or unfortunately a man in my job in the water pollution



        business h?s the job of preserving due process for the very



        rich as well as the poor.  It is not the most attractive



        job in the country these days.  But you are going to have




        due process.  As other people who come here, you are going



        to meet each other time after time.  When you came in,




        you said you were tired about this, and maybe we will tire



,c       more.  But let me call attention to one statement — this




        isn't a question of criticism — but I think until this



        is resolved we are going to be seeing a lot of each other.




                  When you talk about the opposition, from your



        point of view, you talk about this material and say



2Q      this material was and remains highly speculative; you say,




        on the other hand, presentations by utilities and their



22      consultants include hard, scientific, and engineering data.




                  Now, it has been my experience, as long as





24




25

-------
                                                                533
                                  S.  Burstein



 2       you have  this  attitude  on either side,  you are  going to firjd



 3       yourself  continually meeting the other  side while  I  am




 4       going to  be  sitting here  with the gavel to adjudicate.




 5                 I  think the first  sign for  an agreement  that  I



 6       have found in  these cases is when both  sides at least have



 7       respect for  the  other people's experts  and data.




                   Now, I will give you my view.  I stated  all




         through that workshop,  I  think a good portion of the data



10       was contradictory.   As  I  said,  in 25  years or more,  this




11       is  probably  the  kind of case where the  testimony was as



12       contradictory  as any I  have  ever witnessed.   When  one



         person said  "white" the other man said  "black".  When one




         person said  "the jets should go up and  do less  damage",




         the other one  said  "it  would go down."   When one person



         said "if  you just put out a  jet laterally,  it would  go



         up",  the  other one  said "it  would go  down",  and  a  third



         one said  "it would  go sideways."  Then  we had a  special



         one that  said  "it would go up most of the year,  except



2Q       when the  temperature got  to  a certain level,  and then it



         would take a flip and go  down like a  roller coaster.'1




22                 I  think it might help to resolve  this  if



23       we  really give due  respect,  as  I have,  to the testimony




21        on  all sides.  I believe  the people came  in  sincerely;



         they gave  their  best judgment and best  views.

-------
    	53/t




                               So Bur stein



 2               Now, I am not making any judgment,  but I say



 3     when I see this, this portends to me that we are not very



 4     close.     I hope we can get closer before long if we are



 5     going to resolve it.  Really I do think I understand what



 5     you are saying .     I think you have made a proposal; you



 7     have made a clear onej you have made a logical one,  I



 $     donft know that the people would agree with it, but I



 9     understand what you are saying, and I am not disputing



10     the internal  logic of it.  But I think at the same time



11     the people who have different views are making a proposal



12     and the notion that one is based on speculation and the



13     other is based on hard, scientific fact may not be con-



14     ducive to getting an agreement<>



15               MR. BURSTEIN:   Mr*  Chairman, I do hope we get



16     to an agreement, and I hope we get to those kinds of



17     analyses and  studies that will be realistic and will



13      show actually what  we  are doing.  But  this is the matter



19     of the whole  Conference and the  whole  controversy and



20     the  predicament.   We  have taken  a few  isolated laboratory



21      things  and  we have predicted  what might  happen.   We  have



22      taken  a few actual operating  powerplants and  we  have said



23      this is what  is happening,,



24                Now, really, sir,  I think that is the key to our



25      great concern:  the fact that we can equate these two

-------
                                                               535
                                                             •
                                 S. Burstein

 2 |    different types of investigations and say they are equally

 Q      as precise and equally as important and applicable to our

        concerns.
                  I hope we get the kind of agreement and under-

        standing of what we need to arrive at an agreement, and go

        ahead and do it.
                  MR. STEIN:  Now, at the risk of oversimplifying,

        let's see if I can reduce your statement down to a point.

                  You have said there is no shown damage now, and

        in any event you have a period in between where there

,2      won't be damage.
.,                Therefore, we should go to the plants as ->

        propose them now with the once-thrcnfT.h cooling r.y.^tpr

        Then if any problems develop they will be corrected,

_,      there is no self-respecting power company which has demon-
lo
        strated its interest in the public weal which wouldn't

, <*      immediately go ahead and put in remedial facilities.
18
                  Isn't that correct?

                  MR. BURSTEIN:  That is correct, sir.
20
                  MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments?
21
                  MR. FRANCOS:  Yes.  I have one other question
22
        of Mr. Burstein which I think follows your comment, Mr.

        Stein, and that is perhaps the other side of the coin,
24

25

-------
                                                             536

         *'
                               So Burstein

       And let  me put  it  in  its simplest terms and perhaps not

       as eloquently as Mr.  Ruckelshaus.  But if indeed the

       evidence to date is contradictory, and if indeed there is

 5     a question, and if you  followed this through one more step,

 5     and if indeed whatever  cost may be incurred can be passed

 y     onto the consumer  without consideration of what that cost

       is — whether it is 10  cents, 20  cents or 50 cents — the

 o,     discussion we have had  today, and if we somehow can

10     accommodate  the question of maybe maintaining power and

       power reserves, then  what becomes the problem  for the power

12     industry to proceeding  with  some  kind of  cooling devices?

13               MR. BURSTEINj  Probably none, if all your "ifs"

14     are  answered, Mr.  Frangos.  But I again say,  in going back

       to what we said earlier, there  is question.  I have quoted

       a number of references  in my own  remarks  previously*

       There is question  as  to whether the thermal inputs from

       these plants do the kind of  damage—have  demonstrated any

19     opportunity for doing the kind of damage  about which you

20     and the Administrator are speaking.   We have not yet

21     equated the chemical  contributions with those  of the

22     thermal contributions.

23               I have spoken at the last workshop —  if you

24     may recall — that if what was said about power  companies

25     merely passing these costs onto their consumers  and then

-------
   	537
 1                             2. Burstein
 2    earning a percentage on top of that, we could make more monej
 3    for the stockholder,  What's our purpose in opposing this?
 4    We honestly believe that the billions of dollars that the
 5    people around Lake Michigan are going to be required to
 6    pay for this will not derive any benefits — absolutely —
 7    otherwise I wouldn't be here,
 g              I think there is no question that where we have
 9    indicated opportunity to provide pollution control devices,
10    whether it be air pollution or water pollution, you have
11    seen  dramatic investments on the part of the utilities for
12    non-income-producing apparatus and equipment in that interest,,
13              MR. FRANCOS:  Thank you,
14              MR. STEIN:  Any other comment?  I am
15    going to  zero in because I think Mr, Frangos is going to
16    have  to make a  hard decision,
17              On the assumption you make, if the evidence is
lg    contradictory,  as Mr, Burstein says if you take all of the
19    "ifs" is  great; but the first "if" is the one I don't
20    believe we have,
2i              You  see, Mr, Burstein indicates that the material
22    on  one  side, which you say is contradictory, was highly
23    speculative.   On the  other hand, presentations by the
24    utilities and  their  consultants include hard, scientific,
25    and engineering data*  But on this place you really, with

-------
                                                             53*
 1                              S.  Burstein
 2      that assumption,  you don't  satisfy one  of your HifsrH
 3                MR.  FRANCOS:   Well,  I  was just responding
        generally, not necessarily  to  the statement.
                  MR.  STEIN: Right.
                  All  right. Well, thank you very much,  Mr.
        Burstein.
                  May  we go to  Indiana?
                  MR.  MILLER:  Mr.  Chairman, I  have Mr. Robert
10      Mowers, representative  of the  Thermal Study Committee
11      from Indiana.
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
 1
   II
 2 !i
                               	539



                               J. R. Brough
          STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BROUGH OF THE NORTHWEST INDIANA


       INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE ON THERMAL STANDARDS FOR LAKE MICHIGAN,
 4

               INDIANA.. (READ BY ROBERT G. MOWERS)



 6

                MR. MOWERS:  Contrary to what it says on the


 H    statement, my name is not John Brough.  Mr. Brough had to


 Q    leave to catch a plane and he asked me to read his statement


._    instead.


                My name is Robert Mowers, and I speak today on


      behalf of the Northwest Indiana Industrial Committee.  Thi


      group was formed late in 1970 after several companies in


      Northwest Indiana decided to combine their efforts to fund


      and direct a study on the effects of thermal discharges to


1/.    southern Lake Michigan.  The committee was appointed by


      the participating companies to arrange for and supervise


, g    the study


                Limnetics, Incorporated, Environmental Engineers


      of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were engaged to perform the study


...    It had the following objectives:


                1.  Collect, review and summarize thermal effects


      of industrial effluents on southern Lake Michigan with the


      aid of an infrared flyover and surface and sub-surface


2/5    temperature measurements

-------
                                                              540
 1
 3
 4
 5
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                         J.  R.  Brough
 9 ji             2,  Review and summarize existing scientific
 «• 11
literature on thermal discharges with particular emphasis
on the papers relevant to Lake Michigan and testimony
presented at the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference in
Chicago during September and October, 1970.
          Some of the conclusions reached are:
          1.  The methodology for surveying the physical
characteristics of thermal discharges to Lake Michigan proved
to be very useful.  Results from a mid-winter survey showed
that the discharges lose their heat rapidly by mixing with
the cold lake water and that the resulting plume areas
are surprisingly small.
          2.  The amount of heat discharged to the lake by
the companies was calculated to be insignificant relative
to the heat to the lake from natural sources.
          3,  Some data on the effects of temperature on
biological and fish life have been reported in the litera-
ture; however, conclusions reached to date are often con-
flicting and  can be misleading because of a lack of basic
data from well designed field experiments.  A particular
need is for more data on the effects of passage of water
through condensers and coolers on the plankton and fish
 larvae.
           4.   Further studies should be started promptly

-------
                                                              541





 1  •                          J. R. Brough



 2  *  to provide proper data and criteria for setting new



      standards.



 /,.              The last two conclusions are similar to those



 5    reached by the Technical Committee authorized by this



 6    Conference on October 29, 1970, to study the matter of



 7    setting standards for thermal inputs to Lake Michigan,  On



      the basis of the literature review conducted in this study,



 9    we must agree with and endorse their statement that, "a



10    lack of specific data and an abundance of general contra-



il    dictory information on the effects of thermal inputs prevent



12    assignment of specific numerical input limits at this time."



                We also support the contention of the Technical



      Committee as expressed on page 4 of their report, which is



15    as follows:  "It was the consensus of the State Representa-



16    tives that it would be their responsibility to enforce such



17    limits and their laws require controls to be set on the



lg    basis of demonstrated damage or potential damage to water



      uses.  The committee recognizes the value of receiving



20    water temperature standards, but since there has been no



2i    demonstrated significant damge at existing Lake Michigan



22    thermal plume sites from artificial heat inputs, the assign-



23    ment of numerical effluent values or other engineering desigr



24    requirements at this time would be arbitrary and not



25    defensible,"  Thus, we believe that the existing State of

-------
 1
 2
 3



 4
 6



 7




 3
10
11
12
20
22
25
                                                                542
                         J. R. Brough




Indiana's thermal standards are adequate at this time for



the portion of Lake Michigan adjacent to our plants. Only




after in-depth studies are completed to establish a




criteria should any new standards be set.




          We also believe that there is ample time for




development of the sound data and criteria needed for setting




of sensible, realistic controls.  Many warm water discharges




from industry have existed for 20 or more years and to our



knowledge have not resulted in any harmful effects on the



overall biological and fish life.  As evidence of our



position, we have noted the recent reports of how the fish



life is abounding in the warmer waters of southern Lake




?4ichigan.  For example, I quote from a recent article on




page 9B in the March 7» 1971 issue of the Hammon (Indiana)




Times:  "Experts agree that fish taken from the  'big water



this season will be better than average in size and quality



Harold White, one of the Region's most knowledgeable angler1



said a number of big fish of all varieties should be caught




on the lake this year... White said you can fish almost




anywhere from the lake shore or you can use a boat... you




can fish from around the Edison plant at the State line,"



White said, "or at places like Burns Harbor."  Such a report




although without scientific expertise, and attached to our




report is certainly in line with the Technical Committee's



statement that "there is limited concern about persistence

-------
     	543



                                  J. R. .Brough


 2,      or  buildup  in  the  water environment  —  or  about  a  direct


 3       effect  upon the  health  or safety  of  men."


                  iLastly,  our study has strongly substantiated  the


         recommendation of  the Committee that in-depth  field  and lab-


         oratory studies  be made to determine the effect  on the  ecology


         of  Lake Michigan of these thermal inputs.   Limnetics have


         indicated that there is ample scientific information and


         engineering technology  to design  studies which could help


         resolve much of  the controversy and  confusion  of this subject
         The  techniques  developed  in  this  study  should  be  quite  use
12       in  further  efforts  to  obtain  meaningful  data,  and  the  resultf


         from our  study  in winter can  be  of  value in  planning  future


         work.


, c                Our study also has  given  us  a  background and an


1/r       awareness that  would be  helpful  in  conducting  future  studies.


         We,  therefore,  suggest that the  technical steering committee
as proposed in Recommendation No. 5 by the Technical Commit
,Q       include  one  or  more  representatives  from industry.   Tf  given


20       the  opportunity,  we  would  be  glad  to suggest  the  names  of


__       appropriate  industry representatives and also to  assist th<


22       steering committee  in other ways toward  the devr loprnent


20       and  completion  of a  meaningful  program of study


ol                 I  wish  to  thank  the Conference for  the  ooportunil
24

,,,.       to talk  to you  today.  A copy of the reuort of our  study


         will be  made available to  the State  of Indiana Stream
                                                           ul
                                                                    tee,
         Pollution  Control  Board.

-------
          THE
TIMES
W ^SacFy"^ w TWW?m¥*?$^W$#mml

• 'Hr^y, "$s

Going fishing can be fun

if you catch enough fish
                                       the fifth run,
                                    tlu>
                             fey
            farw
             8? w* w a&? a*i*»fefcirssH
            'fd« teti jf HIS sff •&& sftcr l^e, i^j«-r r** ^> *~¥««rw«!f

-------
                              	544


                              J. R. Brough
 1

                 Thank you


                 MR.  STEINj   Thank  you.


                 Are  there any comments  or questions?
 4

                 Thank you very much.  I wish you would give my
 5

       appreciation to Mr. Brough for  this,  and also I wish


       sometimes one of these committees would give me a funda-


       mental contradiction of one operation of the Stein Law
 o

       of Committees.  And I would like to see it reversed once.


       I refer to what happens in all committees.  In Item No.


       4 you say furth-er  studies should be started promptly.


   I              Okay.  Thank you very much.
12 I

                 Let's go to Michigan.  Mr0 Purdy.


                 MRC  PURDY:  The Indiana and Michigan Electric
14

       Company, Mr.  Robert Kopper.


   I              MR.  KOPPER:  The  presentation  on behalf of the
16

       company  will  be made  in  three  sections:   first,  by  myself;


   I    and Mr.  Miskimen will cover a  specific  subject;  and it
18

       will be  closed by  our counsel  in this matter.


                 MR. STEIN:   Pardon me,,  Just for purposes of
20

       procedure here.  It is getting close to 5:00 o'clock.
21

       We will  go with this, but how long will that take?
^ fe

                  MR0 KOPPER:  I don't think it will take over
23

        30 minutes for all three0
24

                  MR. STEIN:  How many more will we have to go

-------
                                                             545
 -,,                            S.  Keane
 2-     after this?  Would the conferees consider recessing until
       tomorrow morning to hear the rest?
 4               MR, MAYO:  How many more are there?
 5               MR. MILLER:  I have one,
 6               MR. PURDI:  Two,
 7               MR, STEVEN E, KEANE:  We have one from Wisconsin.
       Mr, Frangos isn't there.  You have about a 4~ or 5-minute
       statement is all thereo
10               If there is any possibility of getting it on
11     tonight it would certainly be appreciated,
12               MR, CURRIE:  I have no others that I know of«
                 MR. STEIN:  How much will the two that — you
       have got three,
15               MR, PURDY:  I have got three counting Indiana
16     and Michigan; a half hour for Indiana and Michigan,  I
17     will have to  check with the others,
                 MRp STEIN:  I think it would be, again — maybe
       if — and you will have to check this with Mr. Frangos.
20               Let's go with this presentation and hear the
21     one from Mr.  Frangos, and unless there is objection, I
22     think the better part  of  valor would call for a recess
23      so we can approach this freshly tomorrow,
24               MR. KEANE:  Mr. Chairman, before this starts,
25      could I rise  to a point of order and ask a question on

-------
                                         	546

                              So Keane
 2    behalf of two utilities from Wisconsin who have very short
 3    statements.  We have  spent 2 days here thus far.  To go
      back  home tonight and come back again in the morning to
      spend the sum total of about 10 minutes in representation
      would appear to be somewhat useless.
               Would the Chairman accept our statements  in
      writing  —
 o,             MR.  STEINj   We  would accept —
10             MRC  KEANEj   —  in the next 2 or  3  days?   We  won't
      bother  the  conferees.
12             MR.  STEIN:   We  would accept it in  writing, but I
13    was going to suggest  to the  conferees this:   We have several
      utilities here with very  short statements.  Would it be
15    possible to put those on  first so they have  an opportunity
15    to go home and then we can see where we  go0   Is that
17    agreeable?
lg              MR, KOPPER:  Sir,  I have problems, too.  We  were
19    scheduled to be on yesterday and I have a firm commitment
20    to be in New York tomorrow for a very important meeting,
2i    and  I would like to  get my statement on now on behalf pf
22    my company.
23              MR. STEIN:  I understand all your wishes, and I
24    recognize that sometimes the wishes of the various utility
25    companies may come in conflict with each other, but I am

-------
                              	547
                              R« Kopper
 2,    asking the conferees to make the judgment*
                MR. PURDY:  I would like to proceed as called.
                MR. STEIN:  All right.  You may proceed.
 c              (Robert M. Kopper's statement follows.)
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                             543

                              R, M. Kopper
 2
 3               STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. KOPPER, EXECUTIVE
 4           VICE PRESIDENT  AND  CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
 5                INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY,
 6                        FORT  WAYNE, INDIANA
 7
 g               MR.  KOPPER:  Mr. Chairman,  conferees,  ladies
 9     and gentlemen, my name is Robert M. Kopper and I am
10 |    Executive Vice President  and the  chief operating officer of
       Indiana and Michigan  Electric Company.  I  appreciate  this
12     opportunity to present I&M's views on the  recommendations
13     of the Lake Michigan  Enforcement  Conference Technical
       Committee on Thermal  Discharges to Lake  Michigan dated
15     January 1971,  and to  commend the  Committee on the construc-
16     tive and thoughtful nature of its  report which,  although
17     we cannot but  it whole,  is a refreshing  contrast to the
       confusion which preceded it.
19               Indiana and Michigan  Electric  Company supplies
20     electric energy to more  than ±88  communities in the States
21     of Indiana and Michigan.,   The  demand  for electric energy
22     in our service area has  been doubling every B 1/2 years.
23     As a public utility,  we  have an obligation under the law
24     to see that the power requirements of the  1,600,000 people
25     whom we serve are satisfied  in  a  reliable  manner.  In

-------
	549





                         R. M.  Kopper



 meeting this  obligation, we  also  fully recognize  that we



 have the additional responsibility, the same  as any other



 responsible citizen, to protect our environment.   This



 dual responsibility of supplying  the  power needs  of the



 people without wasting resources  and  simultaneously providing;



 for the protection of our environment must be the major



 consideration underlying any  recommendations made  by this




 Conference.



           A substantial part of the growing demand for



 electricity is to operate equipment and devices  used to



 control, reduce or eliminate discharges to the air and



 water that are known to cause harmful effects.  It is now



 eminently clear that millions of additional kilowatts of



 power will be required to operate new facilities  being



 installed by industry and municipalities to overcome known



 pollutants.  Our job, as I indicated  before,  is to provide



 the power requirements of our customers for whatever use,



 and at the same time to perform in a  responsible manner



 with respect to our environment.   To  meet this twofold



 responsiblity all of our new powerplants are  designed and



 are being built to have a minimal impact on the environment.



 We wish it were possible to produce electric power with zero



 impact on the environment, but it is  not as of today.



 Consequently we have two goals — 1)  meet the needs for

-------
                                                               350





 1                            R.  M.  Kopper



 2    electric power, a substantial  amount of which is for



      improvement of our environment; and 2)  generate this power



 4    in a manner compatible with environmental considerations.



 5    This is what all of us are  striving for.



                As we advised the conferees during the Conference



      Workshop last September, we presently have under construction



      on the shore of Lake Michigan at Bridgman, Michigan, the



 9    Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.   This $400 million facility,



10    °f which about $150 million has already been expended, will



11    consist of two 1,100 megawatt units.  The plant will



12    utilitze the once-through method of condenser cooling, and



      is being built in accordance with a construction permit



14    issued, after a public hearing, by the Atomic Energy



15    Commission and a permit issued, also after a public hearing,



16    by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.  The design



17    of this cooling system is based upon what we believe to



      be the best information and the best technical advice



19    available to eliminate any possibility of significant



20    adverse effects to the ecology of Lake Michigan.  In additior



21    the Michigan Water Resources  Commission  has  authorized our



22    use of the  lake for  cooling water discharges,  subject to



23    the condition  that if injury  to the lake should  result from



24    such  use, the  Indiana and Michigan  Electric  Company would



25    take  whatever  corrective action might be necessary.  I

-------
                                                              551





                              R. M. Kopper



      want  to assure this Conference that we are fully in accord



      with  this stipulation.  The record will show that the



      Indiana and Michigan  Electric Company has been responsible



      for substantial  scientific study of Lake Michigan.  I



      think it is worthy to note that our studies indicate that



      the once-through method of cooling that we are using for



      the Cook Plant will not injure Lake Michigan.  I must also



 Q    point out that we have had considerable experience with



10    alternative means of  cooling and these, depending upon



      location, can have adverse aesthetic, land use, and meteor-



12    logical effects.



                With regard to  the primary purpose of this



      Conference — the establishment of thermal standards for



      Lake  Michigan — this has indeed been a most difficult and



      trying year.  Difficult and trying for those of you who



17    have  the official responsibility for preventing damage to



      Lake  Michigan; difficult for the environmentalists (including



19    ourselves) who are concerned that the lake be safeguarded;



20    and most difficult of all for those of us who have the



      responsibility for ensuring that this region is provided



22    with  an adequate and  reliable supply of electric energy —



23    and who, therefore, must  undertake to construct, well in



24    advance, the facilities which are necessary to assure the



25    provision of this essential service.

-------
   ^______	552





 1                            R, M. Kopper



 2    In this  connection, let me point out that the construction  •



 3    of this  plant was  commenced in April of 1969 pursuant to



 4    the  then existing  Michigan antidegradation thermal  standard,



 5    which  is still  in  effect and which requires "no injurious



 6    effect".  However, not content with this standard,  during



 7    the  past 12 months, a multitude of conflicting thermal



 &    standards have  been proposed.  A number of these  proposals



 9    were conspicuously absent of any scientific or research



10    basis  and, if adopted, would have unnecessarily delayed the



11    construction of all generating stations on Lake Michigan.



12    I think  a review of the rapid rise and fall of the  standards



13    proposed for Lake  Michigan over the past year will  clearly



14    show that this  approach to the establishment of thermal



15    standards can only lead to chaos and beyond this,  and more



16    important, in no way has served the public interest —•



17    neither  in terms of protecting the environment nor  in



IS    meeting  essential  power requirements.



19               For us at the Cook Plant, it all began  about mid-



20    March of last year when the staff of the Michigan Water



21    Resources Commission  proposed fairly reasonable numerical



22     limits as a  substitute  for the Michigan antidegradation



23     standard. In response, the Federal Water  Quality Adminis-



24     tration  came in with  two  sets of numerical limits of its



25     own  — both  much more  restrictive than those  propo'sed by

-------
                                                    	553




 1                             R. M. Kopper
  *


 2    the Michigan staff„  However, before the Michigan Water
 ~ .


 o    Resources Commission could act upon these proposals, two



      officials of the Department of the Interior proposed and



      announced a 1° temperature rise limitation.  This proposal



      was made public in a most casual, off-the-cuff manner, and



 7    completely undercut the numerical limitations which FWQA's



      technical staff, not much more than one month before, had



      proposed for the Michigan segment of the lake,  I believe



      it must be generally agreed that the 1° policy pronounce-



11    ment was somewhat less than the kind of responsbile action



12    we have the right to expect.



                That was in May of last year.  In mid-Septei'iber,



      shortly before the Workshop Conference, a different concept,



nc    also having its origin in Interior, was introduced — the

  '

16    concept of "no significant discharge" of heat to the lake.



17    What did this new concept mean?  Did it in fact mean no



lg    discharge of heat whatsoever?  Was it perhaps simply a



19    restatement of the 1° proposal?  Or *vas it more flexible than



20    the 1° proposal?  There was little way of knowing.



2i              Then, during the period from September 28 through



22    October 2 of last year, very extensive technical data on



23    thermal pollution effects were presented to the conferees



24    here at the Sherman House by a number of highly qualified



25    scientists.  After that, in response to nothing presented

-------
                                                              554
 1                           R. M. Kopper



 2   at the Conference Workshop, the conferees in Executive



     Session  came up with what appeared to be a totally new



     approach to the problem — a series of Bot.u. input limita-



     tions — and established a Technical Committee to evaluate



     this  concept.



               At approximately the same time, one State proposed



     a  5-year moratorium on "further construction of thermal



 o,   powerplants on Lake Michigan" and another in effect pro-



10   posed that no man-made heat be permitted to enter the lake.



11             It was  against this background of rapidly shifting,



12   often conflicting, proposed thermal standards that the



      construction of the Cook Plant had to proceed.  I am sure



     all will agree it would have been physically impossible to



     alter our plant design as often as changes have been



16   proposed in the thermal standards for Lake Michigan.  We



17    cannot  impose this kind of irresponsibility on the  consumers



      of electricity who, in the last analysis, must bear the



19    cost.  Nor  can those  of us responsible  for power  supply,



20   which is essential to the  preservation  of the  environment,



21    accept  the  imposition of  such  irresponsible standards.



22             MR»  STEIN:   Let  me  interrupt  there.  What we



23   will hear today will  be the  representatives of the  other



24    power companies.   If  you  want  to  have  a statement put  in



25    the record,  you  may make  your arrangements accordingly.

-------
                                                               555



 1                             R. M. Kopper


 2.               Would you continue, sir?


                 MR, KOPPER:  We had hoped that all of this


 A     confusion was now behind us.  In the Recommendations of


 5     the Technical Committee dated January of 1971, we thought


       we perceived the light at the end of the tunnel.  That was


       before the announcement of a new Federal proposal yesterday,


       I'm sure the Technical Committee's Report will not please


 Q     everyone.  I would like to point out some of the problems
                ,,E^

10     we have with this report.  At the bottom of page 3 it gives


11     no recognition to the  studies of actual thermal plumes from


12     Lake Michigan powerplants, the results of which were


       described  by Dr. John C. Ayers of the University of


       Michigan during the Conference Workshop.  Also, we seriousl]


       question Recommendation No. B which apparently would


       eliminate  the use of  chlorination as a means of preventing


17     the buildup of algae  growth in the condensers.  Mr. T. A.


       Miskimen will explain our position on this in detail.  On


19     a more fundamental matter, we disagree with Recommendation


20     No. 4 which purports  to shift this burden of proof by


2i     requiring  the conclusive demonstration of a negative —


22     the absence of ecological damage.  No such burden could be


23     sustained, least of all in the absence of actual operating


24     experience at the respective plant sites.  This is like


25     requiring  a person to prove the non-existence of ghosts

-------
     	556





                              R. Mo Kopper




       or  that he  is not  a  criminal.   Such a  requirement  violates




       due process.  Recommendation No.  4, also  if adopted  by




       the conferees,  must  speak in terms of  "significant"  or



 c     "material"  ecological  damage.




 5              However, the foregoing  not withstanding, we




 y     nevertheless regard  the Technical Committee's  Report on




       balance as  a significant step forward. It  has,  in our view,




       begun to  deal with possible problems on the basis  of facts,




10     technical information, and reason.  It has  laid  to rest  a




11     number of misconceptions with respect  to  thermal effects




12     on  the lake.  It has helped to  clear the  air.   For example;




       the Technical Committee recognized that "there has been




12^     no  demonstrated significant damage at existing  Lake Michigan



       thermal  plume sites  from artifical heat inputs"  (page  4).



       This is  progress.



iy              And the  committee recognized that in the absence



       of  such  demonstrated damage,  the  establishment of  numerical



19     effluent  values or other engineering design requirments




20     would be  "arbitrary  and not defensible" (page  4).




2i               It  also  recognized  that, under  the  law,  controls




22     must "be  set  on the  basis  of  demonstrated damage or  potentia




23     damage to water uses" (page  4).  In this  connection, I




24     would point out that Recommendation No.  4,  which would




25     require  the installation  of  supplemental  cooling facilities

-------
                                                               557





                              R. M. Kopper



 2     at all  powerplants on the lake unless the industry is able



 o     conclusively to demonstrate the absence of  ecological damage




 i      appears to  be at variance with this basic legal  principle.




 c     I would again point  out emphatically that in the absence of



       a demonstration of significant damage, any  requirment that




       would force scrapping of millions  of dollars of  existing




       investment, expending millions more, and delaying the



       operational date of  generating plants would materially




       prejudice the rights of millions of citizens to  adequate



       and  reliable electric power at reasonable rates  and would



       violate the rights of millions of  people — consumers of



1-3     electricity as well  as stockholders — protected by due




1 i      process of  law.




, r              It was not too long ago  that a great deal of




       concern was being expressed regarding a possible cumulative




       buildup of  heat in Lake Michigan over a long period of




       time and the possible lake-wide adverse effects  which such



•jo     a cumulative buildup might create. We believe that the




20     Technical Committee's Report has laid this  fear  to rest




       once and we hope for all.  The report recognizes that




22     persistence or buildup of heat in  the lake  is of "limited




23     concern"  (page  5) and that to the  extent that discernable




24     thermal effects may  exist, they will be primarily local




25     in nature "lying mainly at or very  near the  heat  source"

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 S
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                              553
                        R.  M.  Kopper
(page 5).  This shifting of emphasis from lake-wide
cumulative heat buildup effects to the specific characteris-
tics of each plant site is, we believe, a salutary develop-
ment.  This is in accord with the evolving body of scientific
knowledge as reflected in the recently publicized report
entitled "Effects of Thermal Discharges on the Mass/Energy
Balance of Lake Michigan."   Its author, Dr. J. G. Asbury,
worked under the direction of Argonne National Laboratory's
Center for Environmental Studies.
          The Technical Committee also correctly recognized
that no emergency exists which would justify the precipitous
promulgation of hastily considered restrictions on the use
of the lake for cooling purposes and that in fact the situa-
tion is such as to "allow a period of time for the establish--
msnt of sensible controls" (page  5).  Presumably, such
"sensible controls" would be based upon a firmer body of
evidence than exists at the present time.
          Most heartening is the  fact that the Committee has
recognized that closed  cooling systems are not necessarily
the  only answer to thermal discharges and that properly
designed once-through  cooling  systems may be equally
effective in avoiding  any  possible  damage  (page  9).  This
is  very much a move in the right  direction.
          Also, the Committee  is  to be commended for its

-------
     	559





 1,                            R.  M,  Kopper



 2 -    restraint  in  resisting the  temptation  to  recommend  the



 3     imposition of specific engineering requirements  for cooling



 4     and discharge systems.  The Committee  apparently recognized



 5     that,  in view of the present state of  our knowledge,  it  is



 6     most desirable for the various powerplants to proceed on



 7     the basis  of  a diversity of approaches, rather than to



 g     attempt to lock all of the  plant into  one or two uniform



 9     engineering molds which might  later prove, on balance, to



10     be the least  ecologically desirable.  The wisdom of this



11     position received support recently from Dr. Asbury,  the



12     author of the Argonne National Laboratory study  to  which



13     I have previously referred, who was reported by  Nucleonics



14     Week as saying that **.., the effects of cooling  towers are



15     not fully known.  They could be far more  detrimental than



16     those of the  discharges."  With respect to the design of



17     our discharge system, model studies of discharge phenomena



lg     — involving  both physical  modeling and mathematical model-



19     ing — are presently in progress.  These  studies will



20     contribute to the body of knowledge regarding what



21     constitutes the most environmentally advantageous discharge




22     designo



23               Indiana and Michigan Electric Company  has funded



24     and will continue to fund an extensive series of pre- and



25     post-operational studies of the effect which once-through

-------
                                                             560






 1                             R. Mo Kopper



 2     cooling may have on the ecology of Lake Michigan.  These



      studies are being conducted by highly distinguished, inde-



      pendent researchers.  In this connection, we note that the



      Technical Committee's Recommendation No, 5 calls for in-



      depth field and laboratory studies to determine the effects



      on the ecology and that these studies would be conducted



      under the guidance of a technically competent steering



      committee to be appointed by the conferees.  I pledge to



10    you our company's fullest cooperation in such studies which,



11    as we understand them, will take about 5 years to complete



12    and evaluate.



                We have come a long way since the last meeting



      here in Chicago, 6 months ago.  Until yesterday morning,



      of course, the Technical Committee's Report reflects this



15    progress.  While we have some disagreements with the Report,



      we regard it on balance as a temperate and constructive



      document which will put an end to much of the emotionalism



19    that has been associated with thermal discharges.  With the



 20    Technical Committee's Findings and Recommendations now



 2i    before us, it will not be possible for rational people to



 22    return to the confusion of the very recent past when a




 23    proposed 1° effluent standard, unsupported by any evidence



 24    of ecological damage, occupied the center of the stage.  Nor



 25    would it be possible for us to support the newest Federal

-------
                                                               561






 1.                            R. M.  Kopper



 2'     proposal which viewed  in the light of the Technical



       Committee's  report  is  already  arbitrary, capricious and




 4     indefensible.




 5              We believe that scientific research and observatior



 6     particularly of local  effects  as they relate to  discharge



 7     design, should be intensified.




                We also believe that the public interest compels




 9     recognition  of the  distinction between plants in existence




10     and under construction, on the one hand, and future plants




11     on the other hand.  The costs  and delay associated with




12     backfitting  a plant with additional equipment are much



13     greater than if that equipment had been incorporated  in  the




14     original plant design.  Also,  equity end fair play forbid




15     continually  changing the rules in midstream and  applying




16     them retroactively.  Such an approach is particularly




17     unfair and unnecessary where,  as here, there has been no



13     evidence that any significant  adverse effects have resulted



19     from the warm water discharges of existing plants.  Plants



20     under construction  should be permitted to go forward  unde-




21     layed and be put into  operation.  Their operation should



22     then be closely monitored, and if it should be demonstrated




23     that modifications  in  the discharge design would be in the




24     overall public interest, such  modifications should be made,




25     We believe that this approach  is in accord with  the

-------
                                                               562





 1                            R. M. Kopper



 2     Technical  Committee's  Findings and Recommendations and  in



 •3     accord with due  process of law,



 .                Industrial cooling  is  a legitimate water use  on



 c     a par with other legitimate water uses.   The law recognizes



 5     this.  The Technical Committee recognizes this  (page  ?)•



 7     Those of you who bear  the responsibility for establishing



       thermal standards for  Lake Michigan also must recognize



 o     this.  In establishing such  standards,  you must take  into



10     account not only protection  of the  lake's ecology and the



11     region's need for electric  power,  but also the  effects



12     which alternative means of  cooling would have upon  the



13     meteorology, land use  and aesthetics  of the Lake Michigan



       shoreline.  For it is  all of these  elements that go into



15     making up the public interest — something that both



       Indiana and Michigan Electric Company and this  Conference



17     are  committed to serve.



                 MR. STEIN:  Thank youf Mr.  Kopper.



19               Are there any comments or questions?



20               If not, thank you very much.



21               And may we go on, Mr.  Purdy?



22               MR. KOPPER:   Mr.  Miskirnen,  please.




23



24



25

-------
                                                      563
                       T.  A.  Miskimen
          STATEMENT OF T.  A.  MISKIMEN,  SENIOR ENGINEER OF




             THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION,




           AMERICAN ELECTRIC  POWER SERVICE CORPORATION,




                       NEW YORK CITY,  NEW YORK








          MR. MISKIMEN:  Mr.  Stein, conferees, ladies and



gentlemen, I shall read only portions  of my prepared state-




ment.



          MR. STEIN:  Do you want the  entire statement to




appear in the record?




          MR. MISKIMEN:  Please, sir.



          MR. STEIN:  Without objection, it will be entered




as if read fully.



          (Mr. Miskimen's statement may be found in its




entirety on pp.  56S-572,)



          MR. MISKIMEN:  I am Thomas Miskimen of the



American Electric Power Service Corporation.  My remarks



here are directed to the chlorination of circulating water,




          Of the recommendations that were submitted to



this Conference by the Technical Committee, Recommendation




No. & calls for requiring the installation of mechanical




cleaning devices to replace chemical methods of coping




with the problems of organic growths in condenser tubes.

-------
                                                               564
 1                          T, A, Miskimen
 2     Of the recommendations submitted yesterday, this is No* 4o
 o               This is a restriction that was not discussed at
 A     the workshop last year; and this restriction is not supported
 5     in the body of the report of the Technical Committee*  The
 5     arguments for and against such a course of action have not
 7     been  explored adequately anywhere in a public meeting or
       hearing*
                 Chlorination is used to sterilize drinking water
10     supplies by adding sufficient chlorine to give 0*1 to 0,5
       p«p»m, of free chlorine after 30 minutes or more of con-
12     tact, Chlorination also is used in higher dosage to
       sterilize the discharge of sewage treatment plants.
                 However, for the circulating water of power-
       plants,  it is not necessary to feed chlorine in such a
16     quantity as to produce complete sterilization of the water,
17     And,  for such cooling systems, Chlorination is not main-
       tained continuously under  normal circumstances.  For the
19      cooling systems  of powerplants, Chlorination is used only
20     to prevent the accumulation of attached organisms which
2i      primarily cause  trouble when  they  grow on the  surface  of
22      the tubes in the condensers,  but which sometimes  cause
23      trouble by plugging  the  intake or  discharge structures.
24      To prevent organic  growths,  chlorine is fed at  dosages
25      similar to those for drinking water,  and typically  for

-------
                                                              565
 lf                        T. A* Miskimen
 2.   only two or three periods per day each of 30 minutes*  Thus
 3    the dosage is applied to the attached organisms for 30
 4    minutes, every & or 12 hours.  However, to free-floating
 5    organisms, this treatment is applied only for as long as
 6    is required for the floating organisms to pass through the
 7    treatment zone which would require only a few seconds and
 g    up to  perhaps 1 to 10 minutes depending on the plant layout*
 Q    This  short period of exposure is much less than a less
10    accepted sterilizing treatment*
-Q              This type of  chlorination of circulating water is
12    not used to remove organic growths that had accumulated at
•13     some  previous time; it  is used to prevent the first  growths
14    of attached organisms.
•L5              The mechanical alternates to chlorination  are
16     small balls or brushes  that  are  propelled back and forth
17     through the  condenser t-ubes  while the unit  is in  service.
13     These can brush  off  certain  types of organic growths.
19     However, such  devices  are applicable only to certain types
20     of condensers,  and they clean only the condenser  tubes.
2i     A trial of one type of such  device on  the AEP  System has
22     proved disappointing;  and other trials in the  United States
23     are reported to have given only limited success.
24               However, in contrast,  our  inquiries  about  chlor-
25     ination experiences have given consistently favorable

-------
                                                               566

                          T, A, Miskimen
 2    reports:
 3              1,  In the United States, on freshwater streams
 4    and lakes, we have found  not one report of damage to biota
 5    outside of the  condensers when  chlorine was applied with
 5    normal proper control  as  a "preventative" treatment,
 7              2,  At the powerplants of the AEP System, where
 3     chlorination has  been practiced for more than 30 years,
 o    there has been  no  observed instance of damage from
10    chlorination,
-,-,              The language of Recommendation No,  8 could be
12    thought to include chemical  cleaning  jobs as  well as the
13    chlorination of circulating  water.  To powerplant  engineers
14    and chemists, these are different  procedures*  The  language
15    of yesterday's Recommendation No,  4 was  somewhat different,
•^              But from this discussion,  we can conclude that
17    the recommendations of the Technical Committee either for
lg    the elimination of chlorination of circulating water or
19    for chemical cleaning — these have not been justified,
20    Such  elimination  has not been justified by any of the
2i    workshop  presentations;  it has not been justified by the
22    body  of the  report of the Technical Committee; it has not
23    been  justified in any other hearing or public session
24    known to  industry people; and it  has not been justified by
25    our own considerable  experience.

-------
                                         	567_
 i                         T. A. Miskimen
 2              Consequently, I urge that this ban against
 3    chlorination be withdrawn.
 •              Thank you for your attention.
                MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 6              MR. MISKIMEN:  Thank you, sir.
 7              And our next speaker will be Mr. James Henry.
                MR. STEIN:  Do you have a copy of your report,
 o,    Mr, Henry?
10              MR. HENRY:  No, Mr. Chairman, nothing but longhand
      notes which I prepared last night.
12
13
14
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                                       568
                               REPORT TO

          THE FOUR-STATE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

                           CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


                          March 23 & ?S 1971

                   CHLORINATION & CHEMICAL CLEANING


                 FOR INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC CO.

                                  BY


                             T. A. MISKIMEN
                          Senior Engineer of the
                  Environmental Engineering Division
                 American Electric Power Service Corp.


Mr. Stein,
Conferees,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

                                                  g
          This statement is presented in the interst  of  the  Indiana  &

Michigan Electric Company, which is building the Donald  C. Cook  Nuclear

Plant south of Benton Harbor, Michigan.

          I am Thomas Miskiraen, a  Senior Engineer  in  the Environmental

Engineering Division of American Electric Power Service  Corporation.

          My remarks here are directed  to the  chlorination of

circulating water

          Of the recommendations that were submitted  to  this Conference

by the Technical Committee, Recommendation No. 8 calls for requiring

the installation of mechanical cleaning devices to replace chemical

methods for coping with the problems of organic growths  in condenser

tubes.  ^ ft*- rv€«-«>-vv^,A^c/a^i1^ ^  .r^w*.,'/^ yesK*-
-------
                                                                        569
                                    -2-
   m
  a *course of action have not been  explored  adequately anywhere in a
  public meeting  or hearing.
           Chlorination is used  to sterilize drinking water supplies
  by  adding sufficient  chlorine  to  give  0.1  to 0.5 ppm of free chlorine
  after 30 minutes or more of contact.   Chlorination also is used in
  higher dosage to sterilize the  discharge of sewage treatment plants.
           However, for the circulating water of power plants, it is
  not necessary to feed chlorine  in such a quantity as to produce complete
  sterilization of the  water.   And, for  such cooling systems, Chlorination
  is  not maintained continuously  under normal circumstances.  For the
  cooling  systems of power plants,  Chlorination is used only to prevent
  the accumulation of attached  organisms,  which primarily cause trouble
  when they grow  on the surface  of  the tubes in the condensers, but which
  sometimes cause trouble by plugging the intake or discharge structures.
  To  prevent  organic growths, chlorine is fed at dosages similar to those
  for drinking water, and typically for  only two or three periods per day
  each of  30  minutes.   Thus  the  dosage is applied to the attached organisms
  for 30 minutes, every 8 or 12  hours.   But.^this treatment is applied -ta
f»free-floa_tin_g__oj:ganisms| for only  as long as is required for the floating
  organisms to pass through  the  treatment 7-one which would require only a
  few seconds and up to perhaps  1  to 10  minutes depending on the plant
  lay-out.  This  short  period of  exposure is much less than -fluffioiont
  to  kill  mony frau floating oi-ganiama.
            This type of Chlorination of circulating water is not used
  to remove organic growths that had accumulated at some previous time;  it
  is used to prevent the first growths of attached organisms.

-------
                                                                       570


                                   -3-
                                                                          *
          The mechanical alternates  to  chlorination are small balls or

brushes that are propelled back  and  forth  through the condenser tubes

while the unit is in service.  These can brush off certain types of

organic growths.  However, such  devices are applicable only to certain

types of condensers, and they  clean  only  the corv.enser tubes.  A trial

uf one type of such device on  the  -AEP System has proved disappointing;

and other trials in the United States are  reported to have given only

limited success.                     -    .  .
          Jlflw.^^. '~  Cwv^-fwrtS e-wr  n~^,,*>^t
          Luq.uixi&£ about chlorinatlon  experipn:"?? nave given consis-

tently favorable reports:

     1.   In the United  States,  on fr-esh water streams find lakes,

          we have found  not  one  report  of  damage to biota outside

          of the condensers  when chlorine  was applied with normal

          proper control as  a  "preventative" treatment.

     2.   At the power plants  of the At^P Syyfpm, where chlorination

          has been  practiced for more than ;0 years, there has been

          no observed  instance of damage from chlorination.

          The language of Recommendation No. 6 could be thought to

include chemical cleaning  jobs as well  as  the chlorinstion of

circulating water "$o power plant engineers and chemists,  "£hese are

different procedures.  Th« /•*«^i/*.^-e  «-f yesrfeyj *>'/ /?*«*»•«.»*, «*«. t/w.rk^v
 te?n  J- k^"f  <*«^ift <*»».•#-,
          I have spent most  of my career working in power plant chemistry.

I have engineered the  chlorination equipment for the circulating water

systems for several  power  plants;  and 1 have planned and directed many

chemical cleaning jobs.

          To me, chemical  cleaning is a process used to remove rust,

deposits, or ordinary  dirt from  power plant equipment, either before  the

-------
                                                                    571
                                -if-
   »
itei| of equipment is first put into service, or during some later
outage for maintenance.  Chemical cleaning jobs are not done
ordinarily while the equipment is in normal service.  Chemical
cleaning solutions can vary from the equivalent of a strong dish
washing solution to 10$ or more of hyrochloric acid - depending on the
job.  The cleaning solutions can and should be carefully disposed of,
after use, in such a manner so as to avoid all pollution.
          In a modern power plant, many pieces of equipment must be
cleaned occasionally with chemical solutions.  Boilers in many plants
must be cleaned once every two or three years.  Condensers must be
cleaned if they become seriously fouled with deposits such as iron
oxides or lime from the cooling water.  For many of these problems,
there is no satisfactory method of cleaning by mechanical methods.
Only chemicals will do the job.
          These chemical cleaning jobs are for the removal of
accumulated deposits,- and in a condenser, they may be for removal of
deposits that are largely or entirely inorganic.  These jobs are
altogether different from the preventative treatment throughout
routine operation of feeding chlorine periodically into the circulating
water to prevent the attachment and growths of biological organisms.
          From this discussion of power plant chemical cleaning jobs,
and of circulating water chlorination, we can conclude that the
recommendation of the Technical Committee either for elimination of
chemical cleaning, or for elimination of chlorination of circulating
water, has not been justified.  Such elimination has not been
justified by any of the workshop presentations; it has not been

-------
                                                                    572
                                -5-
justified by the body of the report of the Technical Committee;
it has not been justified in any other hearing or public session
known to industry people; and it has not been justified by our own
considerable experience.
          Consequently, I urge that Recommendation No. 8 should not
be adopted by this Conference.
          Thank you for your attention!
                                           T. A. Miskimen
TAM/dw

-------
                                                           . 573

                                J. B. Henry

              STATEMENT OF JAMES B. HENRY, VICE PRESIDENT
             AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER
              SERVICE CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
 6
 7              MR. HENRY:  My name is James B. Henry.  I am
      Vice President and General Counsel of American Electric
 a    Power Service Corporation, which furnishes legal and other
10    services to Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.  I am
11    also Secretary of Indiana and Michigan Electric Company,
12              Now, we understood that the purpose of this
      meeting was to comment on the recommendations of the Tech-
      nical Committee to this Conference.  Mr. Kopper has given
15    our comments on this subject.
                However, in typical fashion, when we arrived at
17    this Conference yesterday, we were confronted with a policy
      statement from Mr, Ruckelshaus, the recently appointed
10,    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, plus
20    ill-considered standards on thermal discharges, apparently
      concocted  overnight by the Federal conferees on this
22    Conference.
23              As I said, this appears to be typical.  I believe
24    in virtually all of these sessions, Federal conferees have
25    presented unanticipated standards at the beginning of the

-------
                                                            574
           •





 1                            J.  B»  Henry




 2    session,  whether purposely  or  inadvertently,  to create con-




 3    fusion, would be hard to say.   It is also hard to say whether




 A    it was  purposely or inadvertently that the proposals of the




 5    Federal conferees were designed to undercut the recommenda-




 5    tions of the Technical Committee.



 7              Those recommendations, in essence,  found that




 $    there has been no demonstrated significant damage at Lake




 Q    Michigan plume sites from artificial heat inputs, but that




10    further studies were needed in order to decide what, if any,




11    numerical standards as to heat inputs should be adopted,



•j2              In reaching those recommendations, the Technical




13    Committee has devoted vast study to the various issues.




IA    Yesterday, we heard representatives of the Federal Power




15    Commission and of the Atomic  Energy Commission who committed




15    those  agencies to much  the same  position  on the basis of



17    their  own studies.  Thus,  all agencies responsible for



lg    protection of the  environment from water  pollution and  for



      production of power  in  the Lake  Michigan  area  would  appear




      to have  a uniform  position with  the  exception  of Mr.




2i    Ruckelshaus  and  his  associates.



22              Mr. Ruckelshaus  has presented  his  policy  state-




23    ment in the  form of  a letter  to  the conferees of which



2/.     perhaps the  most significant  sentence is this appearing




25     on page 1,  and  I quote it:  "A  considerable  and growing

-------
     __	575




                              J. Bo Henry



 2  •   body of  evidence indicates that serious ecological damage



 o     will be  caused by the increasing  use of Lake Michigan



 •      waters to dissipate waste heat*,"  I submit that this state-



 c     ment is  flatly untrue and that there is no such evidence.



                On the contrary, available evidence indicates,



       as the recommendations of the Technical Committee state,



       that no  such damage can be shown.  To the extent that there



       may be problems with pollution in Lake Michigan, there is



       no evidence which suggests that heat from powerplants is a



       factor.  The feeding of nutrients to the lake from sewage



       plants and other sources is  the culprit here, and those



       interested in preserving the lake should zero in on these



11      true targets and stop concentrating their efforts on the



TC     powerplants, even though the powerplants present an easier



       target for emotional attacks.



                In any event, Mr.  Ruckelshaus, on  the basis of



       no evidence and without even dignifying by mentioning the



       recommendations of the Technical Committee,  sitting in his



       office in Washington, has perceived a mandate to halt



«,     immediately by fiat all once-through cooling for large



22     powerplants on Lake Michigan not yet in operation.  This



       position is obviously purely political, yielding to those



       vociferous groups who substitute emotion for information.



25     Can this kind of purely political position be sustained

-------
                                                              576





 1                            J. B. Henry



 2    legally?



 3              It is one thing to propose restrictive thermal



      standards for plants not yet under construction, even



      though one may doubt, as the Technical Committee doubted,



      that an evidentiary basis exists for setting such standards.



      It is quite a different thing to require the waste of assets



      and resources created by requiring the backfitting of



 n    existing plants and plants under construction.



10              The whole point of departure of the present effort



11    to set standards for thermal discharges into Lake Michigan



12    was a highly imaginative projection of what might happen by



      the year 2000 if powerplant  construction continued at the



      present compound rate of growth.



                In contrast to this imaginary framework, there



      is not a scintilla of evidence that any significant damage



17    to the ecology of Lake Michigan could be caused by permit-



lg    ting once-through cooling at plants now operating or under



      construction, and specifically by the Donald C. Cook



20    plant.  No grounds exist for ringing down an iron curtain




21    on water use in 1971 on the basis of what might happen by



22    2000 in the absence of regulation.



23              Now, I will not attempt to comment on the



24    specific proposals which the Federal conferees have thrown



25    together presumably in hasty response to Mr. Ruckelshaus*

-------
       	577


 1                            J.  B.  Henry
 •
 2    letter,
 •
 •2              These are but the latest of a series of arbitrary

      proposals which they have advanced.  It is sufficient to

      point out that each new set of arbitrary standards unsup-

      ported by evidence increases the credibility of all such

      proposals by the Federal conferees.

                A perversion of the administrative process is

 a    going forward here.  It is apparent from the statements of

10    Federal conferees yesterday that they will seek — and I

      quote — the cooperation of the State conferees, but that

12    absent conformity to their wishes, brass knuckles will be

13    brought forth in an effort to compel approval of Federal

      standards arbitrarily adopted for political reasons.

                To take the position, as the Federal conferees

15 I   do, that conclusive evidence that no damage by powerplants

      now under construction is a prerequisite to the use of a

      once-through system and refusal to permit operation of

19    such a system  even subject to a requirement that  corrective

20    action will be taken if significant damage is  shown, thus

2i    ignoring the existing  evidence that, in fact,  there will be

22    no significant damage, is to  abdicate  the responsibility

23    of reaching an informed judgment  based on the  best avail-

24    able evidence.

25              It is  to abdicate the responsibility of weighing

-------
                              J. B. Henry



 2     all  aspects of the public interest in making the best use



 o     of available resources.



 •                I urge this Conference not to participate in



       this abdication of responsibility.  I will say also that



       the  course which Mr. Ruckelshaus and the Federal conferees



       are  attempting to dictate at least insofar as it affects



 3     the  Donald C. Cook plant now under construction is



 n     arbitrary  and capricious within the purview of the Adrainis—



10     trative Procedure Act, and is in violation of due process



11     of law.   And I would like to associate myself with Mr.



12     Bane in requesting 2 weeks in which to file possible



       additional comments to be used by the Conference as a



       basis for  reaching a decision.



                 MR. STEIN:  I will make the same ruling as the



16     other.



17               Now, I hope we understand this procedure.



13     Constantly you have referred to Federal conferees.  Who



       are  the Federal conferees — plural — you are talking



20     about?



                 MR. HENRY:  Well, perhaps I don't have the



22     structure  firmly in mind, but I was thinking specifically,



23     I suppose, of Mr. Mayo.



                 MR, STEIN:  That is one Federal conferee.  I am



25     the  Chairman, and I am not — I have made no comment about

-------
            	579




                               J.  B. Henry




       the proposal  or what we  were going to do, and  so forth.



       Now,  we have  just  one  Federal conferee here, and if you



       impugn all that to the one  conferee  I am  going to have to




       give him a chance  to answer,



 5               One of the things I heard  you say that he



 7     apparently concocted his recommendations  overnight.



                 Mr. Mayo, do you  care to comment?



 9               MR. MAYO: It  is  patently  untrue.  I think that




10     is all I need to say.



11               MR. HENRY:   Well, if  it is patently  untrue,



12     may we ask why it  was  that  we were not afforded a  chance



13     to see this until  the  day the hearing  started?



                 MR. MAYO: The proposal came as a  companion-




15     piece with Mr. Ruckelshaus1 letter to the conferees.



                 MR. STEIN:   Are there any  further  questions?



                 You know, I  have  been sitting at these  Conferences




       a long time,  and I have  often  been tempted to  ask the



19     industry why I haven't seen their statement  before the



20     Conference eitherj but I never really have.



                 MRo MAYO:  I am surprised  at  some  of the language



22     you used, Mr. Henry,  when you  speak  to  the proposed regula-



23     tion as being arbitrary and capricious and conceived on



24     the spur of the moment,  when your fellow representatives




25     of the power industry in an earlier statement  spoke to

-------
 1
 o
 *•
 9
10
12
15



16
17
19
20
21
22
23



24
25
                        J,  B,  Henry




the consideration of very much the same kinds of numbers by
                                                           i


the State of Michigan almost a year ago, and referred at



that time to an FWQA input  into the development of those



numbers, and the consideration of those numbers by the



State of Michigan,  These are very much the same numbers,



and it seems inconceivable  to me that you can make that



kind of a statement in the  face of that kind of a record.



          MR. HENRY:  Well, it was my understanding —
          MR. MAYO:  I think you are going much,  much out
of bounds.



          MR. HENRY:  It was my understanding that the



purpose of the Technical Committee was to study various



standards that have been proposed, and come up with a



recommendation.  And when, in the face of such a recommen-



dation, you pulled together bits and pieces of earlier



proposals and present them as a reasoned set of rules, I



submit it is arbitrary and capricious.



          MR. MAYO:  I disagree with you.



          MR. STEIN:  Well, now, I wonder if you would care



to comment on this.  Now, I have been sitting around for a



long time on this in various cases,  I have heard Mr,



Kopper praise that Technical Committee.  He talked about



it being thoughtful and constructive.  Then you had a



little report in between dealing with chlorine, and then

-------
                              J. B. Henry



      you come up with the same company talking about Mr. Mayo



 o    concocting something overnight   and shifting it.  And



 .     back in Brooklyn where I come from and the age I come from,



 c    we always called that the Mutt-and-Jeff approach.



                MR. HENRY:  Well, I think we had no criticism of



      the Technical Committee report except for certain aspects



      which Mr. Kopper commented on.  My remarks were not addressee



      to that; my remarks were addressed to these Johnny-come-




      lately papers.



                MR. STEIN:  All right.



                Are there any other comments or questions?



                If not, thank you very much.



                I believe Mr. Petersen wants to put something




      into the record.



                Mr. Petersen.



                This will be the last one today.
19



20



21



22




23



24

-------
                                                               532





                            0.  K.  Petersen








                 STATEMENT OF 0. K.  PETERSEN,  ATTORNEY,



               CONSUMERS POWER  COMPANY,  JACKSON,  MICHIGAN








                 MR. PETERSEN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



                 Gentlemen, my  name  is 0.  K.  Petersen.   I am an




       attorney for Consumers Power  Company.



 o.               Yesterday, there  was some discussion of pump



10     storage plants.  It had  not  been our  impression that



11     hydroelectric facilities were intended to  be covered by



12     the standards under consideration.   The considerations



       involved are quite different.



                 Examples include  temperature differentials, the



15     length of time during which facilities are operated, and



16     feasibility of alternatives.



                 If this Conference determines that it will make



       recommendations applicable  to pump storage facilities,



19     proper notice should be given so that  a full review is



20     possible.



21               Also, according to my understanding, the Governor



22     of Wisconsin has suggested a 1973 deadline for the



23     installation of closed circuit cooling facilities on Lake



24     Michigan electric generating facilities.



25               In our opinion, material delivery dates and

-------
                    	533

                     0.  Ko  Petersen
.M. M. «n « +• wh-1 -^ y* 4- ^ ^> V^ T ^ Q ^ T n T
 1,
      construction feasibility would make it impossible to meet
 o    such a date,
                I might also say that Dr. Langum's testimony
 c    reviewing certain figures from Consumers Power Company's
      annual report were his own, and were not prepared as part
      of any Consumers Power Company presentation, and we do not
      necessarily adhere to his figures.  We have not examined
 o    them, and know nothing else about them.
 Q              We have examined, however, the recommendations
      of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Technical
12    Committee on Thermal Discharges to Lake Michigan, dated
      January  1971.
,,              That  committee,  as  you will  recall,  found, and
15     I will  come within  the 10  minutes  — the  committee
       recognizes  the  value  of  receiving  water temperature
17     standards,  but  since  there has been no demonstrated  sig-
       nifleant damage at  existing Lake Michigan thermal plume
       sites from artificial heat input,  the assignment of
20     numerical effluent  values or other engineering design
       requirements at this time would be arbitrary and not
22     defensible.
                 Also, unlike many other waste problems, there
24     is limited concern about persistence or buildup, and I
25     will not continue that quote, you will find it in the

-------
1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 o
10
12
13
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
 25
                          0. K« Petersen
      statement  —  only to  drop down to the next paragraph and
      the committee believes that the above characteristics of
      the waste  heat problem in Lake Michigan are  such that they
      do allow a period of  time for the establishment of  sensible
      control,
                Rather than comment in full detail,  at this time,
      we will submit a copy of our  comments immediately following
      my comments here*
                Generally speaking, we find that  the evidence
      available supports the already  quoted  conclusions,  and  we
      generally agree with the proposals  therein  except  for  cer-
      tain unsupported nontechnical political positions  which
      found their way into the comments  — the document,
                And we — then yesterday we  came  and heard a
      letter  from Administrator Ruckelshaus to the conferees.
      We appreciate Mr. Ruckelshaus1  commendation of our recent
      agreement to backfit the Palisades plant with cooling
      towers.  However, in candor we must inform you that we
      do not  believe  that the cooling towers were necessary in
      order to  protect the environment.
                 Further, reflection leads to the  conclusion that
      Mr,  Ruckelshaus* letter was based on the now  largely dis-
       credited  1970 "white paper" and does not reflect the sober
       consideration of all of the  evidence indicated in  the

-------
                                                              535
                           0. K. Petersen
 2,    quotations from the Technical Committee report,
 o              We have had a very brief opportunity to consider
 •     the latest discharge regulations proposed by the Federal
 c    conferee.  That time has not been adequate to enable us to
      prepare  appropriate comments.  Nevertheless, it is our
      opinion  that the broad approach taken is not supported by
      the evidence,  and that if the recommendations are adopted
 o    as standards,  they will not be enforceable by the statement
10    of Michigan, presumably by the other  States, or by the Federal
      Government under existing law,
12              I would associate myself with Mr. Henry's comments
13    concerning their arbitrariness and capriciousness.  We note
      also  that the  recommendation includes what appear to be
15      effluent values, of  the type which  are characterized by
16    the Technical  Committee as being, at this time, "arbitrary
17     and not  defensible."
,g              We urge the conferees to proceed along the path
ID     indicated by the Technical Committee subject to our
20     comments on the Technical  Committee  report to meaningful
21     enforceable standards,  and we,  too,  will  submit further
22     comments on the latest Federal  conferee  position within
23     2 weeks, and we understand the  ruling  which  has been  here-
       tofore given.   And,  of course —
                MR,  STEIN:   The ruling is that the record is

-------
                                                               536
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
                        0.  K.  Petersen
open again.
          MR. PETERSEN:   I understand that the record is
not open but that the conferees —
          MR. STEIN:  No, we haven't made a ruling yet,
Mr, Petersen.
          MR. PETERSEN:   Ah.1
          MR. STEIN:  We won't until tomorrow.
          MR. PETERSEN:   I did not understand then.
          MR. STEIN:  Right.  I wanted to make that clear.
          MR. MAYO:  I would like to make one statement,
Mr. Chairman, and that is to emphasize that the letter
from Administrator Ruckelshaus to the conferees was, in
fact, based on a considered appraisal of the material
presented at the workshops — the Technical Committee repoj
It was not politically motivated; it was motivated by
the desire on the part of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to strive to achieve
timely, meaningful  and corrective controls of thermal
discharges into  Lake Michigan.  That was the motivation.
          MR. STEIN:  Well, just as Chairman might say
that the  conferee prepares this and not the Chairman, so
I have nothing to do with this.  But I might say that the
people who were  talking  of no  scintilla of evidence,
to make accusations like this  of a personal nature of
                                                           t,

-------
                                                                537
 1                              0. K. Petersen




 2      the conferee, I didn't hear any supporting evidence either,



 3      Or maybe it is in the record and I missed it, and maybe I




 4      will, catch it when I read the record.  But so far I didn't



 5      hear anything exceot the bad statement of supporting




 6      evidence.



 7                Mr. Frangos,



                  MR. FRANCOS:  I have no questions.  I just —



 9                MR. STEIN:  I thought you had something you



10      wanted to put in.



11                MR. FRANCOS:  Well, are you finished with Mr.




12      Petersen?



                  MR. PETERSEN:  I would have to say that I do




        not recall having made any statement on behalf of



15      Consumers Power Company which personally attacked the




        Federal conferee.



17                MR. STEIN:



                  Your statement will appear in the record as if



        read, without objection.



2Q                (Mr. 0. K. Petersen's statement follows in its



        entirety.)




22




23




24




25

-------
                      COMMENTS REGARDING THE;

                 Recommendations of the Lake Michigan
                      Enforcement Conference
                       Technical Committee

                              on
                       Thermal Discharges

                              to
                           Lake Michigan

                            January 1971

             By:  Consumers Power Company - March 23-2^, 1971
          The action of the Conferees authorizing the formation of a technical

committee to again review the facts regarding thermal discharges into Lake

Michigan was encouraging.  Some misgivings were certainly justified.  Three of

the four Federal representatives appointed to the committee took an active part

in supporting the now infamous September 1970 White Paper of the US Department

of the Interior, which was drafted in an attempt to support Undersecretary

Klein's 1° proposal of May 7, 1970.  With a fresh approach, and the benefit

of considerable expert testimony given at the Lake Michigan Enforcement Work-

shop in Chicago on September 28 - October 2, 1970, there was hope that the

technical evidence would be properly weighed and supportable conclusions

reached.  It is our opinion, however, that the committee's performance falls

considerably short in several respects.

          The committee persisted in repeating some of the errors of the "White

Paper" authors.  Moreover, the committee went further than the scope of techni-

cal evaluation and reached improper conclusions as to political issues.

-------
                                                                             539
          Let us review the committee's conclusions and recommendations in

sequence.

          1.  "The committee recognizes that existing water pollution control
laws in the Four Lake Michigan States permit the use of Lake Michigan for
domestic and industrial water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish
and aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational,
and other legitimate uses including their use in the final distribution of the
water borne wastes of our economy.  The committee further recognizes that all
Four States can order the abatement of demonstrated pollution resulting from
thermal discharges as well as other sources.  The existing laws also permit
action to prevent pollution should there be reasonable assurances that such
pollution will occur.  The committee has agreed that there has been no demon-
strated significant damage at Lake Michigan plume sites from artificial heat
inputs, however, it is the concensus that the studies which have been conducted
at these plume sites are inadequate to thoroughly assess the possible effects."

COMMENT:  The single most important technical, finding of the committee is:

               "There has been no demonstrated significant damage
               at Lake Michigan plume sites from artificial heat
               inputs."

          This justified finding was made with the knowledge of thermal dis-

          charges which have existed for years.  The committee's concensus

          that the studies conducted to date are inadequate to "thoroughly

          assess the possible effects" is certainly true, and will quite likely

          always be true.  The areas of knowledge in which comprehensive theories

          exist or are imminent are extremely limited.

          2.  "The committee has determined from knowledge of (a) thermal
and biological principles, (b) field and laboratory studies of Great Lakes
fish and other organisms, and (c) field and laboratory studies in other areas,
that the use of Lake Michigan waters for the dissipation of waste heat may be
damaging to the ecology of the lake.  Of particular concern is the damage that
may be occurring to phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, and to egg, larval, and
juvenile life stages of important fish species.  The committee believes that
local adverse effects that may occur can be corrected by the reduction of the use
of Lake Michigan waters for waste heat dissipation."

COMMENT;   The committee thus expresses an opinion, based on general knowledge,

          that "the use of Lake Michigan waters for the dissipation of waste

-------
                                                                             590
          heat may be damaging to the ecology of the lake."  (emphasis  supplied)

          It must be borne in mind that this is a mere possibility.   Inasmuch

          as it has not been "conclusively demonstrated" that thermal discharges

          into Lake Michigan are not beneficial, the converse may possibly be

          true.  Nbnquantified possibilities, as opposed to a demonstrated

          likelihood, or probability, are inappropriate for use as a basis for

          regulatory action.

          3.  "In reviewing the waste heat burden to Lake Michigan the  committee
has concluded that discharges of waste heat from controllable sources other than
thermal electric power generating facilities are at present a relatively small
part of the total waste heat discharges to the Lake.  Therefore,  in  the judg-
ment of the committee, control of heat from such lesser sources as vessels, water
treatment plants, municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial installations
does not require waste heat control measures at this time."

COMMENT:  Considering the presumption of the committee, that heated  discharges

          per se might be damaging to Lake Michigan, without regard  to  quantative

          relationships, this is clearly an inconsistent position.  But, the

          committee apparently considered the position to be expedient.

          h.  "The committee therefore recommends that all thermal electric
power generating facilities using or planning to use Lake Michigan water for the
dissipation of artificial waste heat be required to have closed cycle cooling
systems, or such other techniques as may be approved by the Lake  Michigan Enforce-
ment Conference, under construction by a date considered reasonable  and appropriate
by the Conferees, unless it has been conclusively demonstrated to the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference that ecological damage does not or will not occur from
once-through cooling."

COMMENT;  This recommendation of the committee is nothing more than  a political

          conclusion, the apparent purpose of which is to avoid governmental

          responsibility for Lake Michigan research and to pacify certain vocal

          environmental groups which have been critical of past governmental

          action.  The committee's introductory remark that, "It  has also taken

          an approach that it hopes will tend to force adequate field and

-------
                                                                     591
laboratory research into an area where rhetoric is profuse but

information for judgment is either sorely lacking or strikingly

contradictory." indicates blatant political maneuvering to effect

research by coercion rather than by a common dedication to scientific

inquiry.

The usage of the conclusionary word "therefore" in the first sentence

shows that the recommendation is based, at best, only on the mere

possibility outlined in conclusion 2 above.  It is virtually impossible

to conclusively demonstrate almost anything, including demonstrating

that ecological damage will not occur from once-through cooling.   This

is especially true under circumstances where no prior definition  of

ecological damage has been proffered,  let alone accepted by the scientific

community, and where the technical questions are not distinguished from

political ones.


We would  restate the words in the introduction of the committee's

report about the behavior of waste heat:

     "Unlike many other waste problems, there is limited con-
     cern about persistence or buildup in the water environ-
     ment or other biological magnification (such as with
     toxic substances) or about a direct effect upon the health
     or safety of man.  The amount of waste heat in a body of
     water is always in equilibrium with the atmosphere and
     cessation in input will result in an almost immediate
     return to the natural temperature regime.  The behavior
     of waste heat in Lake Micnigan is also significantly
     different than it is within the predictable confine-
     ment of a flowing stream.  The committee believes that
     the  above characteristics of the waste heat problem in
     Lake Michigan are such that they do allow a period of
     time for the establishment of sensible controls."

Moreover, "the committee believes the assignment of ... engineering

design requirements at this time would be arbitrary and not defensible."

These statements hardly support the sense of urgency about controlling

thermal discharges that is apparent in the recommendation.

-------
                                                                    592
To quote another portion of the introduction:

     "The committee believes that the most important effects
     of waste heat are local, lying mainly at  or very near
     the heat source.  The most obvious effects will be to
     organisms caught up in tremendous volumes of water
     passing through cooling facilities and immediately sub-
     jected to large temperature rises and other physical
     stress.  Of almost equal importance would be the fate
     of additional organisms entrained within  the plume in
     the immediate area of the discharge."

This clearly identifies the immediate areas of thermal discharges

as exhibiting the first order biological effects.  Second and

third order effects that could possibly have a significant influence

on the Lake's ecology would appear only after  local effects could be

clearly detected by comprehensive studies.  Again, there is no ap-

parent need for urgent regulation providing that localized studies

are continued.

The references in the quote to "tremendous volumes of water" and

"large temperature rises" are inappropriate without inclusion of the

modes of comparison.  In some contexts the volumes and temperatures

in question are relatively small, as was evidence in data presented

at the Chicago Workshop.

Along the line of biological effects the committee also curiously

noted, in the introduction, concern over the bottom layering of warm

water in the winter.  They stated that it "might occur over relatively

large areas, having its chief effects on bottom fauna and the dis-

ruption of fish reproduction."  The question of whether water tempera-

tures in the Uo°F range can properly be called warm is certainly de-

batable, but, because many of the biological studies conducted near

-------
                                                                                593
          the thermal discharges concentrate quite heavily on benthic populations,

          the effects of such a phenomenon should "be among the first to "be

          detected.

          This recommendation in particular should be entirely ignored.

          5.  "The committee further recommends that in-depth field and labora-
tory studies to determine the effects of the ecology be conducted under the
guidance of a technically competent steering committee appointed by the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference.  The studies should determine the physical and
biological effects on Lake Michigan of heated discharges from thermal electric
power generating facilities and the effects on organisms in the cooling water
passing through these facilities."

COMMENT:  Consumers Power Company agrees with these recommendations and has

          supported all reasonable efforts in this regard.  For example,

          Consumers Power Company is engaging in comprehensive site studies

          and has joined with other utilities serving areas adjoining Lake

          Michigan in sponsoring a broad inventory of Lake conditions.  Should

          thermal discharges be arbitrarily restricted, however, any further

          interest in such efforts would, of course, be limited.

          6.  "The committee recognizes that facilities with once-through cooling
may possibly be designed to avoid ecological damage by:

               (a)  Discharging far enough offshore to prevent the
                    thermal plume from reaching the shoreline.

               (b)  Designing the discharge structure to prevent the
                    thermal plume from reaching the Lake bottom.

               (c)  Designing plant piping and pumping systems to
                    minimize physical damage to entrained aquatic
                    organisms."

COMMENT;  In any event,  the "ecological damage" sought to be avoided is con-

          jectural at this time.  Further, the committee reported that it

          "considered inadvisable to recommend the imposition of specific

          engineering requirements for cooling or discharge systems which would

          possibly appear inadequate or damaging in themselves in a few short years."

-------
                                                                              594
          Furthermore,  definitions  of ecological  damage and  quantifications

          of relative effects are essential for proper evaluation of  such

          alternatives.   It is known, however,  that the nature of such  systems

          cannot be duplicated in the laboratory  or with  small-scale  experiments.

          It is essential,  therefore, for plants  employing such  systems to

          operate in order  to quantify relative environmental and ecological

          effects.

          7.  "The committee recommends that geographic areas affected  by thermal
plumes from artificial waste heat discharges not  overlap  or  intersect."

COMMENT;  This recommendation is also based on  the unwarranted assumption that

          in the absence of evidence to the contrary  all  electric generating

          plants' thermal discharges are harmful  to the Lake's ecology. If

          one is bad, therefore, two must be worse, especially if they  overlap.

          Moreover, such a  determination cannot be made devoid of facts about

          specific site conditions  including the  size and character of  the

          thermal plumes and, at least, the potential adverse effects.  There

          is no theory or evidence  presented to suggest that overlapping plumes

          would cause a reenforcement of effects  or otherwise might be  harmful.

          8.  "The committee recognizes the possible  detrimental effect on
various aquatic organisms resulting from the use  of chlorine or  other chemicals
in the cooling water.  The  committee recommends that  all  new power  facilities
using Lake Michigan water be required to incorporate  mechanical  cleaning rather
than chemical into plant design. All existing  facilities should be required to
install mechanical cleaning devices on condensers as  improvements or  modifications
are made to equipment."

COMMENT;  This recommendation is not founded upon any information or  research

          about which Consumers Power Company is  aware.   Certainly  no evidence

          introduced at the Enforcement Conference Workshop  supports  the recom-

          mendation.  It is submitted that this recommendation must be  ignored

-------
                                                                               595


                                                                         8



          or evidence must be presented and subjected to critical examination.


          The recommendation is especially curious in view of the requirement

          in Michigan that all municipal sewage treatment plant effluents must

          now be chlorinated all year around, without regard to potential water

          uses.  For comparison purposes, a city as small as Jackson,  Michigan

          discharges chlorine in excess of 80,000 Ibs per year while the J.  H.

          Campbell Plant, Consumers largest plant now operating on Lake Micnigan,

          typically discharges about 50,000 Ibs in a year's time.

          9.  "The committee has limited evidence that there may be physical
damage to phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish at intake structures and during
the pass through the cooling system.  The committee anticipates that studies
will demonstrate damage to the above organisms and therefore recommends that
future intake structures be designed and located to minimize entrainment and
thus avoid possible destruction of these organisms."

COMMENT:  Consumers Power Company agrees that physical damage to aquatic organisms

          can occur by virtue of an intake system and/or passage through a plant's

          cooling system.  It is further agreed that a worthy goal would be  to

          design to reasonably minimize this damage at the various plants, even

          though it may not be of ecological significance.  The Company is con-

          ducting studies and would support legitimate research relative to  this

          matter.  Previous plant designs have not ignored this factor even  though

          no significant ecological damage has been demonstrated.  The Palisades

          Nuclear Plant intake, for instance,  was designed offshore, to minimize

          vertical velocities that might attract fish,  and horizontal  velocities

          near the bottom, that might draw in bottom dwelling organisms.  A

          relative high temperature rise was also utilized in the plant design,

          that effectively minimizes the amount of water passed through the  system.

-------
                                                                               596
          10.  "The committee has concerned itself with the  loss of benthos,
phytoplankton, zooplankton,  and fish through the intakes of  various industrial
and municipal water supplies.  The committee suggests  that each State  conduct
studies under the guidance of the technical steering committee of the  passage
of organisms into these facilities to determine if there is  a significant  loss."

COMMENT;  Consumers Power continues to support such studies  in hopes that  the

          unresolved technical issues may be clarified prior to the establishment

          of unnecessary and costly restrictions on existing and future  discharges,

          11.  "The committee recommends that all thermal generating facilities
be required to record intake and discharge flows and temperatures continuously
and to make these records available to the regulatory  agency upon request."

COMMENT:  Consumers Power Company has for many years provided such  information

          to the Michigan Water Resources Commission and will continue to  do so.

          This procedure has been followed in the interest of increasing the

          amount of information available on which intelligent determinations  of

          the ecological impact of this use of water can be  made.


CONCLUSIONS:

          The technical committee cannot be faulted too much for their inability

to recommend, as they were specifically directed, "suitable  numerical  limits to

be included in the (latest federal) proposal."  A similar situation would  prevail

with regard to other control concepts, as was so well  stated by the committee  in

the introduction, as follows:

               "The committee recognizes the value of  receiving water
          temperature standards, but since there has been no demonstrated
          significant damage at existing Lake Michigan thermal plume sites
          from artificial neat inputs, the assignment  of numerical  efflu-
          ent values or other engineering design requirements at this  time
          would be arbitrary and not defensible."
                                             /
          Indeed, the specific recommendations of the  committee for controls are

arbitrary and not defensible from either a technical or legal standpoint.

-------
                                                                                597


                                                                        10
     »


     4
          Consumers Power Company has made known its position regarding the

establishment of regulations concerning thermal discharges in the past.  In


summary, we believe a proper philosophy and course of action would be as


follows:




          There are very real and/or pressing problems related to conserving


energy resources, meeting electrical demands, assuring electrical system


reliability, environmental effects of cooling facilities,  and conserving or


properly apportioning societies financial resources.  The  principles of ecology,


and indeed the philosophy of the National Environmental Policy Act, demand that


Federal actions impinging on the environment must consider all identifiable

effects.  Accordingly, decisions on such matters should be consistent with

established governmental priorities and based on obvious and proven effects.


None of the currently proposed restrictions on thermal discharges into the Great


Lakes meet this test.  Based on the evidence, the only course of action we see


that will satisfy these requirements would be for the regulatory agencies to:

               1.  Initiate whatever field and laboratory  studies are

          necessary to thoroughly evaluate effects of thermal discharges.

               2.  Allow all existing and planned power projects to

          operate as designed.

               3.  Catalog and periodically review the data associ-

          ated with the various studies.


          As direct environmental effects of thermal discharges may be identified,


the agencies should then make a determination of their significance, as compared


to effects of alternatives on the environment, energy supply,  etc.   In the context

-------
                                                                               593

                                                                         11
                                                                              *

of these evaluations,  restrictive regulations  could be promulgated, if necessary,

with due regard for all pertinent factors.   Such a  procedure, if conducted

comprehensively, and with dispatch,  would provide for discovery and clarifi-

cation of what are now largely imaginary issues, and  remove the standard

setting process from the existing aura of unnecessary urgency and capriciousness.
JZR

3/18/71

-------
                                                                599




 1                           T.  G.  Frangos



                 MR. STEIN:  Mr. Frangos.
   «

 3               ME. FRANGOS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman,  I have a state-



 i      ment of the Wisconsin Power and Light Companyf and I would



       like to submit that for the record.  I only have two copies



       and I would like to have this distributed to the conferees



 7     tomorrow if the Federal conferees would like this.



 3               MR. STEIN:  Let's wait for a moment.  Do we have



 o     a machine here?



10               MR. FRANGOS:  Do they all have that?



11               Oh, they all have that?  You have got it anyway.



12     Okay.  Fine.  And the court reporter has a copy?



13               MRSo HALL:  Not yet.


                 MR. STEIN:  Let's not let this fall in the



       cracks.  Is that taken care of, Glenn?



15               MR0 PRATT:  Yes.



17               MR. STEIN:  It is all reproduced?



                 MR. PRATT:  Yes.


                 MR0 FRANGOS:  I think the reporter does not have



20     a copy,


2i               MR. STEIN:  Right.



22               MR. FRANGOS:  Okay.  Very good.



23               Mr0 Stein, the hour is late, and we need to let



24     the reporter —



25               MR. STEIN:  That is right.

-------
      	600
                           T. G» Frangos
                MR. FRANGOS:  — go home.  But I couldn't help
       but  note that — unless I am mistaken — Consumers Power
       is a subsidiary of the Indiana-Michigan Power Company —
       that we did  not follow strictly the procedures, and I
       think it is  somewhat unfortunate that the Wisconsin Public
       Service Corporation could not make the presentation but
       that this will be made tomorrow morning.
 o, I              (The statement of the Wisconsin Power and Light
       Company follows in its entirety.)
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
Id
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                                  601
                          STATEMENT OF




                WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY






          My name is Paul Keshishian.  I am the Director of Power




Production of Wisconsin Power and Light Company.




          I submitted a statement at the previous session of this




conference in which I detailed the Company's operations and its




interest in this proceeding by reason of its fossil fueled




Edgewater Generating Plant at Sheboygan and its part ownership




in the nuclear generating plant at Kewaunee, Wisconsin.  I want to




respond to the recommendations of the conference Technical




Committee on thermal discharges to Lake Michigan.




          The Committee has concluded that studies conducted at




Lake Michigan plume sites have been inadequate to thoroughly assess




the possible effects and implies that further studies be carried




out.  Wisconsin Power and Light Company agrees with the need for




additional studies and desires to participate in those studies.




We would suggest that such studies be a coordinated study on a




cost-sharing basis.  We would hope that the scientists who will




assess the possible affects will exhibit some mutual credibility




so that their final conclusions can be accepted by all concerned.




          The Committee has concluded that dissipation of waste




heat may_ be damaging to the ecology of the lake and that local




adverse effects may be corrected by the reduction of the use of




Lake Michigan waters for waste heat dissipation.  Wisconsin Power




and Light Company believes that such a conclusion may be overbroad

-------
                                                                 602
and may provide the basis for a determination that would prohibit



industrial use of the waters.  It is clear that any water utilization



will have some effect on organisms in the water.   We would suggest,



therefore, that use of the waters for heat dissipation be reduced




only where significant ecological damage occurs.



          The Committee has concluded the discharges from control-




lable sources other than electric generating plants are relatively



small and do not require control measures at this time.  We would



like to refer the conference to the booklet "Thermal Impacts to




the Great Lakes 19S8-2000" of H. G. Acres of Niagara Falls



Ontario, which indicates that thermal discharges  from sewage



plants and steel plants especially in the Chicago area are greater




than those of electric generating stations.  Many chemical and




steel plants have their own electric generating facilities which



discharge waste heat into the lake.  We believe it inappropriate



to single out the utility industry for this kind  of treatment.



More important, we believe that if there is damage to the lake



ecology by the discharge of waste heat and if it  is the objective



of the conference to correct such damage by reducing the use of



the lake for waste heat dissipation, then all who use the lake




for such purpose should be subjected to the same  controls.



          In response to the recommendations in paragraph 4, we



believe that this recommendation casts too severe a burden upon



the utility industry.  The test of a conclusive showing of no




damage is one almost impossible to meet.  Having  in mind that




industrial use of water is a legitimate use, we believe that the

-------
                                                                  603
    a cost involved in the installation of cooling towers is


justified only if more than minimal damage is involved.  We


suggest that the paragraph read:


          1.  The committee, therefore, recommends that


              all thermal electric power generating


              facilities using or planning to use Lake


              Michigan water for dissipation of artificial


              waste heat be required to have closed cycle


              cooling systems, or such other techniques


              as may be approved by the Lake Michigan


              Enforcement Conference, under construction


              by a date considered reasonable and appropriate


              by the Conferees, unless a reasonable showing


              has been made to the Lake Michigan Enforcement


              Conference that significant ecological damage


              does not or will not occur from once-through


              cooling.


          Wisconsin Power and Light Company fully agrees with
                              a ^
                               V.
paragraphs 5 and 6.


          In response to paragraph 7, it should be pointed out


that the mere fact that plumes overlap or intersect is not significant


but rather it is the effect of such overlapping or intersecting that


is significant.   We would suggest that the recommendation provide


that the overlapping or intersecting of plumes be prohibited where


they result in a total heat rate of such a degree as to cause


significant ecological damage.


                               -3-

-------
                                                                   604
          Paragraph 8 deals with chemical discharges from future  *



generating stations.   The purpose of the conference was to



investigate thermal discharges into Lake Michigan.   We do not




believe it appropriate to make recommendations on a subject which



has not been thoroughly investigated and evaluated.  If, however,



the problem is of such nature to require control at this time,




then we would suggest that similar controls be imposed upon the



sewage treatment plants, chemical plants and steel companies



emitting wastes into the waters of Lake Michigan or tributaries




thereto.



          In response to paragraph 9, Wisconsin Power and Light



Company is always willing to redesign its equipment if it performs



some justifiable purpose and is economically realistic.  We



believe that research will enable utilities to minimize entrain-



ment and, in general, agree with this paragraph.                •  .



          Wisconsin Power and Light Company is in full agreement



with paragraph 10.



          Wisconsin Power and Light Company believes that through



a combined effort the* thSrTnal "emission problem will be solved and



is more than willing to supply intake and discharge information



as required in paragraph 11,




          It is through the collection and distribution of all



knowledge that we will be able to meet this ultimate goal.




          In conclusion, Wisconsin Power and Light Company believes



that the question of the appropriate temperature limitation for




waters discharged into Lake Michigan involves the balancing of





                               — A —

-------
                                                                 605
the interests of all sectors of the public in the use of Lake



Michigan.  Wisconsin Power and Light Company again submits that



a 5° F.  limitation at the boundary of a reasonable mixing zone



coupled with constant monitoring of the discharge waters with



appropriate remedial action when any actual harm is detected




does represent an appropriate balancing of those intorests.

-------
                                                                606
 1                              Murray  Stein




 2                MR.  STEIN:   All  right.   We  are  going to try    *



 3      to  give  everyone  his  due.   Now, the way I view these



 4      things,  is  that we  all have to  keep our obligation on




 5      this  and give  you a very fair due.



 6                The  State and Federal officials here, of course,




 7      have  to  stay around until  the last dog is hanged on these




 d      operations.  We also  must  recognize that  the people who




 9      come  here do so at  their own expense  and on their own



10      time. We also realize that industry  has  taken time out



11      in  coming here, and although these people are getting paid



12      we  recognize they have other commitments and have to get



13      along.   We  are trying to do our best  to juggle our schedule




14      to  give  everyone  an opportunity to be heard.  We will hear



15      everyone certainly  before  we go into  Executive Session,



16      At  this  time we will  stand recessed until 9:00 o'clock



17      tomorrow morning.  We have another room.   What is that roorh?



lg                MR.  PRATT:   Randolph  Room.



19                MR.  STEIN:   Where is  that?




20                MR.  PRATT:   Lower level.



21                MR,  STEIN:   Lower level, Randolph Room.




22                 (The conference  adjourned at 5:35 p.m.)




23                                  	•




24




25
                                         ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 441-075

-------