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
------- |