PROCEEDINGS
                                  »ssion
                                nvened)
                                 24, 2S, 1971
                             icago, Illinois
 ILLINOIS
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


                      CONTENTS
                                                      Page

Opening Statement - Murray Stein                       26?

Hon. Carl L. Klein                                     268

David D. Comey                                         232

Mrs. Catherine T. Quigg                                291

Mrs. Jay Heyman                                        294

Mrs. J. Barton Kalish                                  297

Harry V. Bierma                                        301

Paul S. Goodman  (Read by Charles Riefstahl)           303

Mrs. Eileen L. Johnston                                310

Miss Edith M. McKee                                    324

Dr. John K. Langum                                     354

Enrico F. Conti                                        421

Michael E. Bialas                                      423

Mrs. Miriam G. Dahl                                    431

Mrs. Claire L. Palmer                                  433

Mrs. Robert Erickson                                   440

Mrs. Carole Magnus  (Read by Mrs. Lee Botts)           457

Mrs* Kathleen Nixon   (Read by Mrs. Lee Botts)          463

Thomas B. Roos                                         4#0

Mrs. Mary Helen  Dunlop                                 483

Alexander Polikoff                                     4#4

Priscilla Zlatoff-Mirsky                               4#7a

Charles A.  Bane                                        4$9

Sol Burstein                                           522

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

 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
11

                 Quality Office,  U.S. Environmental Protection
12

                 Agency,  Washington, D.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-
 o
 ">                mental Protection Agency,  Springfield, Illinois.

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

                  THOMAS G. FRANCOS, Administrator,  Division of

 g                Environmental Protection,  Wisconsin Department

                  of Natural Resources,  Madison,  Wisconsin.

10

11                ALTERNATE CONFEREES:


12                CARLOS FETTEROLF,  Water  Quality Standards
13
                  Appraisal, Michigan Water  Resources Commission,

 *                Lansing, Michigan.

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

•jo                Standards Coordinator, Water Quality Office,

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

21                Chicago, Illinois.


22                DALE So  BRISON, Deputy Director, Office of

23                Regulatory Programs, Water Quality Office,

24                U.  S.  Environmental Protection  Agency, Region V,

25                Chicago, Illinois.

-------
                                                              VI
 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.  Kle.in,  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
                  PARTICIPANTS,  Continued



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


 3      Theodore S. Leviton Associates,  Chicago,  Illinois.


                  Dr. John K. Langum,  Economic  Consultant,


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


 "                Enrico F. Conti,  Assistant to the Manager for


        Environmental Activities,  Atomic Energy Commission,


        Chicago, Illinois.


                  Michael E. Bialas,  Chairman,  Committee on


        Environment, Chicago Area  Council of Liberal Churches,


11      Chicago, Illinois.


                  Mrs. Miriam G. Dahl,  State Division Chairman,


        Water Committee, Izaac Walton League, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,


                  Mrs. Claire L. Palmer, Citizen, Racine League


        of Women Voters, Racine, Wisconsin.


                  Mrs. Robert Erickson,  North Central Audubon


        Council, Racine, Wisconsin.


                  Mrs. Carole Magnus,  Secretary,  Manistee County


        Anti-Pollution Organization,  Michigan.


                  Mrs. Kathleen  Nixon,  Secretary, Mason  County

01
        Anti-Pollution Action Council,  Michigan.

22
                  Thomas B. Roos,  Associate Professor, Dartmouth

03
  J      College, Hanover, New Hampshire.


                  Steven E. Keane, Attorney, Wisconsin Public


  '      Service Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

-------
                                                            viii

                  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
 9      Electric Power Company,  Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
10                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.
1°                James B. Henry, Vice-President and General
19      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?

                             Murray Stein
 2
 3                       PROCEEDINGS
 4
   I             MR. STEIN:  Let's reconvene.  We stand reconvened.
 6              I have an announcement or two.  One, Mr, Conti,
 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
      cooling, and then they would have a study.  His answer to
12    that question was yes, they should be built with once-
13    through cooling.
                He advises me that the position of the AEG, as
15    contained in the statement, is that the determination would
16    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 record
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

-------
                                                                                    26?a
          TO THE CONFEREES AT THE FOURJTATE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
                        HELD AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  MARCH 23, 24, 1971.

      We tiie undersigned deplore the introduction of nuclear paver 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 rta quarterly and forward these reports and evaluations to the Four-State Lake Michigan
 Enforcement Conference for quarterly review.
                                                                                              "2_
      Please return all petitions no later than March 20,  1971.   Committee must have  then
to present to the Conference on ;larch 23rd.   Send than to:   COllITTEE ON LAKE MICHIGAN
POLLUTION, P.O.  BOX 583, WILMETTE ILLINOIS 60091

-------
                                                              268
 1
   ii
   II
 2 !i   Interior, Mr. Klein.
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22    with the problems arising out of saving Lake Michigan.
23
25
                      Hon. C. L. Klein
        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"
21
      and "cooling ponds" and other ways of dispersing waste
      heat.  Very few people have said, very few people consider

-------
                                                             269
                           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 statec



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



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



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



     small portion of the remaining 40 percent to the sewage



!9   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;



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




     city of 3^9,000 people.



               Last year Assistant  Secretary Glasgow — he's

-------
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

-------
 4
 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	271

                       Hon.  C.  L.  Klein
 tolerate  any  attitude  other than  solid  protection  of that
 body of water.
           Let me  lay one  ghost to rest.
           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
 interests before  the welfare of Lake Michigan.
           But even our best scientific  minds do not have
 all the answers.   We have been planning,  and executing
 without full  data, without a full realization of the total
 impact of our actions  on  our environment.
           Lately  a new tool — the data computer — has
 put into our  hands the mathematical model.  It has been used
 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
 to project changes from planned installations.
           With the help of my Deputy Assistant for Science,
 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
 Jaworski  and with representatives from University of

-------
                                                             272
   n	~	~~	•—	


 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:


 #             1)  Depth and temperature variants.


 9             2)  Current factors.


10             3)  Wind and wave action.


11 j            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             #)  Shipping and boating disposals.


17             9)  Miscellaneous items from Federal, state and


1#   local data banks.

   I
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


25   models are printed out, checked and verified against standing

-------
     	273


 1 i                        Hon. C. L. Klein

 2   verified data, to ensure the accuracy of the model.

 3             Refinements follow so as to give a clear picture

 4   in the parameters desired:  dissolved oxygen, coliforms,

 5   phenols, oils, chlorides, etc.

 6             In the past, after determining the presence of

 7   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.

11             The use of data computer does-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

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

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

16   thousands, dependent upon the variables used, the data

17   computer can turn out model after model to determine
   i
IS   comparative results in advance.

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

20   on Dissolved Oxygen:  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 expenditure of funds for planning,

-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
	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
 'Agribusiness;"treatment without knowing positively what the
 results will be.
           We must build all these treatment plants, we must
 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"   —

-------
   	275
   j
   t
 1 11                        Hon. C. L. Klein
   ij
 2 i  is what most people say — "It is the other fellow's problem,"

 3 I            "Am I my brother's keeper?" — is the question,

 4 I  and too often we get the answer, "Not if he is downstream

 5   from me."

 6             I note that this Conference has not taken up the

 7   schedule of implementation of all waste treatment plant

 g   construction.  I think this is a mistake.  One year ago

 9   we had everybody slated to complete all necessary work by

10   December 31, 1972, with many dates for completion falling

11   before that date.  It is with dismay that I see no report

12   to the public on these vital schedules.  The public is

13   entitled to know and this panel should from their records

14   make public the present status of all these construction

15   schedules.

16             I believe that certain questions should be

17   answered:

IS             1)  Why is the North Shore Sanitary District in an

!9   affluent area about two years or more behind its schedule?
   i
20   What is being done about it?

21              2)  Why is Milwaukee behind its  chlorination

22   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?

-------
                                                            276






 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



     taking to preserve and save Lake Michigan for future




19   generations.



20             Thank you0



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



22             I would point  out that  I  certainly agree with you



     that  the holding  of  a Conference  without  checking on  the



2/»-   schedules may be  a mistake, but the agenda  shows  for  item  6,



     Status  of  Compliance with Conference recommendations  and,

-------
                                                               277
   jj.


 1 I                        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.

 4 i             MR. KLEIN:  I am pleased to hear it.

 5              MR. MAYO:  Yes, it is on the agenda following the

 6    thermal issues and the presentation of the pesticide

 7    committee report.

                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              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 IITRX has invited

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

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

-------
                                                               221
 1                         Hon. G. L. Klein
 2 i   Illinois Federation, and the laaac 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
 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
 #    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-
13    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

-------
                           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
      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
15    some situations that could be used in other more critical
16    areas.
17              MR. KLEIN:  If I may answer Mr. Purdy,  I have
IS    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  come 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
   t
 1 j!                        Hon. C. L. Klein


 2              MR. PURDI:  Agreed.

                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


 6    President and that have now been resubmitted to Congress„

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


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


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


10    going to have to get Congress to do some action on them.


      Thank youe


12              MR0 STEIN:  Thank you.

                And I just say this, for clarification for the


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


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

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


      basis.  It calls for the establishment of effluent stan-

      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.
   j

25              MR. PURDY:  Well, it appeared at Senator Muskie1s

-------
   •	282




                         D. D. Comey



hearing on March 16 at which he testified.




          MR. STEIN:  All right.  Are there any other



comments or questions?



          Mr. Blaser.



          MR. BLASER:  We have a number of people who asked



to speak yesterday.  We want to give everyone the chance



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



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



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



Director of Environmental Research, Businessmen for the



Public Interest.



          Mr. Comey.








          STATEMENT OF DAVID DINSMORE COMEY, DIRECTOR OF



     ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC



                INTEREST, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS








          I wish to commend Mr. Ruckelshaus for the



responsible position he has taken in his letter delivered



yesterday at this Enforcement Conference.  I especially



approve of the part B, discharge standards applicable to all




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




which have not begun as of March 1, 1971.



          I have some doubts about the part A standards

-------
     	283




                              D. D. Comey



     applicable to present waste heat discharges, but in view



     of the restrictions involved, I will not burden the conferees



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



 5 I  Chairman to submit a written statement spelling out these



     doubts within two weeks.



               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,
   I


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



1$   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-



     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.



     Although we have been their adversary and are opposing their

-------
	234





                         D. D. Coraey



 plans to build two new fossil fired facilities on the lake



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



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



 applaud their decision as a courageous one.



           Businessmen for the Public Interest hopes that the



 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



 within a few weeks, we respectfully suggest that the thermal



 standard problem be declared unresolved, that it be lifted



 out  of the Enforcement Conference procedure, and that these



 Federal standards be promulgated after appropriate hearings



 have been  held.



           Businessmen for the Public Interest believes that



 closed  cycle cooling systems should be required  at all nuclear



 plants presently under construction on Lake Michigan.  If



 this Enforcement Conference fails to adopt the proposed



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



 AEC  hearings for each  plant to  oppose issuance of  the



 operating  license  unless  closed cycle cooling systems are



 installed.  We  are  currently drafting the  intervention



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



 all the  other plants  as  they  come  up  for  licensing.



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

-------
                                                             235




                              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



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



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

   I

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



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.
   i

lg             I have  one further  comment:  Yesterday Mr. Currie

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



20   retrofitting  of  cooling towers  on Zion was worth $20 to $40



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

-------
	         286





                         D. D. Comey



          MR.  STEIN:  Does that  complete your statement?



          MR.  COMEY:  Yes, it does.



          MR,  STEIN:  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



 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

-------
                           D, D. Comey

 2    of that action by the Commission tomorrow we should have
   i
 3    resolved any remaining differences with the State of Iowa,

 4 j   outside of the forum of the hearing process.

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

                MR. MAYO:  It specifically identifies secondary

      treatment requirements for the municipalities discharging

 g    into the Mississippi, and defers a decision on Burlington
   i
10    until  about the first of July 19710

11              MR. DUMELLE:  Thank you.

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

13 !             MR. PURDY:  Yes, Mr. Stein.

                Mr. Comeyi yesterday in the statement made by Mr.

15 j   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

      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.

-------
	288





                       D. D. Comey



           This is a much longer period of time now than



 what  Governor Lucey has recommended.  Do you think that in



 view  of your experience in negotiations with Consumers that



 the 1973 date is a reasonable date?



           MR. COMEY:  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



 2k months, perhaps he can meet his own deadline.  But the



 industry seems to be  having problems with getting pumps




  out  of their  suppliers.



           MR. PURDY:  Well, I gather that the intervenors



 felt  that Consumers Power had made a bona fide  effort to



 get pumps from available  suppliers, and that as such



 pumps are not  available within this time  span.



           MR.  COMEY:  That  is  correct.



           We believe  that Consumers' engineers,  as  I said



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



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



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



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



 firm deadline of anything less  than 2k months  for the type




 of pumps that are required.



           I might add that  there is also  a  forced measure



 or clause in the agreement  with Consumers so that if they

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                        D. D. Comey
are 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'
eration ought to be given to the other utilities around the
lake.
          MR. PURDY:  Now, you mention that because of the
backlog of orders — now, what would you venture might
happen 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
that the time period for delivery could stretch out.
          MR, COMEY:  I think that is possible, but I have
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
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 request of the Governor of Illinois.
Under law, once we get a request from a Governor for a

-------
                                                               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  procedure



 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.




                 The second  thing  that  I would like to  point out



        — and I am not  taking an issue  with any of Mr,  Comeyfs  re-



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




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




12      satisfaction with the time  that  the  other forum  takes




        the procedures in the other forum,



                 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



        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  riot




21      move  swiftly.




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



23      portion of my life  — A-  years  bo 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
 2      ray life for it,  if necessary,  was that we were fighting a
 3      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
 9      Ruth  Collins, International Representative of the United
10      Auto  Workers. Miss Collins.
11                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
•jo      be received as if read.

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

24
25

-------
                                                              292
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                       Mrs. C. T. Quigg
          I represent PEP (Pollution and Environmental Prob-
lems) with over 300 members in twenty-four suburbs of Chicago.
We urge the Federal Government to require closed cycle cooling
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
closed circuit cooling towers are not used — 100 percent
of the freshwater would be needed for the electric power
industry alone by the year 2005.
          Closed cycle cooling towers use the same water
over and over again.  The only water needed is enough to
replace the water that evaporates during the cooling process,
          That's why a powerplant with a cooling tower needs
only 5 percent as much water as it would with a no-tower
system.  No water — hot or cold — is returned to the
waterway when cooling towers are used.
          Utility representatives tell us these towers
aren't aesthetically desirable on our scenic lakes and
rivers.  I suggest that with closed cycle cooling towers,
large rivers and lakes aren't needed at all.  Plants could
be hidden in the hinterlands.
          Still other power industry officials say cooling
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.



 2   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."



 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



1&   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 tHe State and Federal




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



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

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                              294
                        Mrs, J» Heyman
these standards now — before it is too late for the lake,
          MR. BLASER:  The next speaker is Mrs.  Pearl of
Highland Park.  Mrs. Pearl.
          Mr So Botts, you might just sit up forward and keep
us informed of who is here and who is not.
          MRS. BOTTS:  The four ladies from Highland Park
asked me to say that they had submitted a petition with
5,000 signatures and a written statement on behalf of a
women's study group of Highland Park which has 150 members
which has concluded that waste heat from the nuclear plant
should be kept out of the lake.  Their statement had been
submitted in writing.  They were here yesterday all day.
          MR. BLASER:  All right, that will cover Mrs. Pearl,
Mrs. Heyman and Mrs. Kalish?
          MRS. BOTTS:  Yes.
17
                      STATEMENT OF MRS. JAY HEYMAN,
                   HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
          MRS. HEYMAN:  One of Commonwealth Edison's
scientific consultants has said many times, "I am convinced
that one of the highest and best uses of some water from
Lake Michigan would be as cooling water for large nuclear
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



 #    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, rat he if



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-




25    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.



 4   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



1&   commitment to fantastically increasing electric power



19   demands, unless planning and research is done first,



20             YTe strongly suggest that public members be




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



22   as reported in some newspapers, the Four-State Enforcement



23   Conferences will be disbanded, and decisions made by the



2/t>   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. 293, 299»)
   I
 j             Thank you.


 4

 5                STATEMENT OF MRS. J. BARTON KALISH

 6                     HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS


 7

 g             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

l£   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
-

-------
                                                                              29$
                                   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 BaMmo? 19", 1971* the *f-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 alloyed 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        Senator Charles Percy
Environment Protection Agency           Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20^60                  Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Adlai Stevenson                 Representative Robert McClory
Senate Office Building                  House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510                  Washington, D.C. 20515

David Currie, Chairman                  Clarence Klassen, Director
Pollution Control Board                 Environment Protection Agency
189 W. Madison                          535 W. Jefferson
Chicago, 111. 606*02                     Springfield, 111. 62706

Make these points in your letters:

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 once
   every 100 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 MICHIGAN 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 1963-  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 333 YOUR CHANCE TO SAVE LAKE iJCHIGAF FROL" THERl'AL
POLLUTION!  Urite!  Spread the word.  Contact at least 5 others to write.
Hrite letters to the editors yourself©  How much of your time is Lake
Michigan worth??????????????????

-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        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.
           Zion  is  located  almost adjacent to the only State
park in the area.  A park whose beachfront has already felt
the effects of the construction.  Zion is also located
only about 4 miles from another powerplant also discharging
a thermal plume into the lake.
          There are a great many of us  who firmly believe
that as long as there are alternative means of dealing with
waste heat, alternatives to once-through cooling which are
successfully used by powerplants now in operation, we must
use those mean"  and set standards to protect Lake Michigan.
          It makes no difference whether heat discharge from
powerplants is the sole, provable cause of over-nutrification
or changes in lake plant life and fish life.  If heat is one
factor which in combination with other pollutants, hastens
damage to the lake (and this has been shown) then heat
discharges in the  quantities projected by the Zion plant
and other powerplants are  unacceptable without  cooling
facilities.

-------
                                                               301



 1 j                          H. V. Bierma

   I
 2 I            It is up to this Conference to protect the public


     interest in Lake Michigan as a natural resource too valuable


     to risk,


 5 J            Thank you


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


     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


     thermal discharge of a powerplant is a waste by-product


25   Relative to it, these facts are known:

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 B
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                             302
                        H, V. Bierma
          1)  Discharge to a body of water will have a
deleterious effect upon that body.
          2)  Natural ecosystems, such as a lake, are highly
complex with many aspects not clearly understood; the long
range subtle effects which may not be reversible, are not
known nor can they be predicted from our present state of
knowledge,
          3)  Present technology permits sophisticated
treatment at reasonable costs that would minimize environ-
mental degradation.
          4)  The construction of marginal facilities with
later upgrading is costly; it is less costly to construct
for minimal pollution initially even without considering the
costs to correct environmental degradation where this may
be possible.
          For these reasons it would appear that closed
cycle cooling systems should be required for all thermal
electric power generating facilities using or planning to use
Lake Michigan as a heat sink with variations only where it
can be demonstrated that ecological damage will not result.
          MR. STEIN:  Thank you very mucho  Any comments
or questions?
          MR. BLASER:  The next was to be Mr. Paul Goodman,
Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution,  His presentation will

-------
                                                              303
 3
 4
 5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
2.1
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
 7
 8
 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





 1                           P.  S.  Goodman




 2 j  of this Conference,  the following petition:



 3                            PETITION



 4 |            "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



 $   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



13   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 organisations 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





                             P. S. Goodman



 2   There are many unknowns about the effects of powerplants



 3   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



15   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
 1                         C. F* Riefstahl
 2              MR. STEIN:  Are you going to leave now?
 3              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Tes.  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.
 g              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:  Right.
13              MR. PURDT:  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
lg    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
2-3    a  2-stage  backup  system on  the monitoring.
24              MR. STEIN:   I didn't quite  understand  your  answer.
25    Go  ahead.

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                               307
                       C. F. Riefstahl
          MR. PURDY:  You asked for an agency independent
from the power company should have access to instruments and
reports on the monitoring of their effluent to the lake*
          Now, do you feel that the various State water
pollution control agencies can fill that role, be the agency
that is independent from the power company?  Are you saying
that some separate citizens group or some university group
or something separate from the State water pollution control
agency should have access to the reports?
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  The thought was to have someone
with no political and no monetary gain in that respect,
          MR. STEIN:  Are you through?
          MR, PURDYj  That raises another question.
          Are you saying that the State agencies have mone-
tary gain and political gain?
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  Well, I think there is a separa-
tion there in the State —
          MR. PURDY:  Because if you are I object to it.
          MR. RIEFSTAHL:  — agency.
          MR. STEIN:  Let me raise this question because
what you have stated here is something that I have been
advocating for awhile, and I think I got the idea from a
power company.
          You know, if they can put a little meter in my

-------
     	303
   I

 1                         C. F. Riefstahl
   i [

 2    house and check it when I can't change it, I figure we
   I
 3 {   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

 5 j   industry not just the power company.

 6              But to get to your next point, I believe, at least

 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.

11    You are  saying "free of monetary or political considera-
   I
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

15 ||   or the Federal Government in this field, isn't it?
   li
16              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  That is the way it looks.

17              MR. STEIN:  All right.

                MRo 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 j   are an  interlocking director.

-------
    	309
   I
 1 ;|                          C. F. Riefstahl
   i
 2              MR. RIEFSTAHL:  I think we have an awakening of
   ! j
 3 |   environmentalists and of the general people, as would be
   j
 4 !   evidenced with the petition.  This petition actually was
   11
   j i
 5 |   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
   li
 7    who signed it are now more dedicated and a little more

 B I   educated about the necessity for some controls.

 9              MR. STEIN:  Mr. Riefstahl, may I make just this
   il
10    as a suggestion to you since listening to your stuff.
   I
   i
11 11             I think you are onto something here with this

12 |l   independent monitoring*  What I am saying, I think that

13    this independent automatic monitoring is so important that

14 !   I hope your group will think this thing through, and to

15 j   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
   s
19    than through public  sources — and I don't think we can
   i
20    really depend on foundations for this — I hope you would
   li
21 i   come up with that so you would have a proposal that we
   I
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

25 I   that has  been doing  some work around the Big Rock Point

-------
                                                               310
 1                        Mrs* E. L, Johnston
 2    plant, and we haven't been in touch with them yet, but we
 o    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
 9    on this  qualified scientist and biologist, where apparently
10    &  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
      Women Voters.
                MRS. JOHNSTON:  No, no.  I am but I am not now,
                MR. BLASER:  Oh, you were, but you are not now.
                MRS. JOHNSTON:  I am here just as a citizen.
                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.
                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
   r                                                            '
 1                          Mrs* E. L. Johnston
 2 1   it all.
 3              MR. STEIN:   You talk about impartial monitors
 4    without getting paid, that is the living example of that.
   ji
 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,

 9                STATEMENT OF MRS. EILEEN L. JOHNSTON,
10 |                       WILMETTE, ILLINOIS
11
12              MRS. JOHNSTON:  Before I start, I would like to
13    submit a statement by a high school student group that is
14    very active since their Earth Day last year, and they, in
15    essence, support the position of the Committee on Lake
16    Michigan Pollution that Charlie Riefstahl just read and,
17    Carlos, I apologiee for that statement.  We consider
18    biologists as scientists.
19 j             And I don't know — do you want this read, Mr.
20    Stein?  Would you want to read it?  No other student has
21    spoken.
22              MR. STEIN:   How long —
23              MRSo JOHNSTON:  It's just a page.
24              MR. STEIN:   Do you want to read it?
25 1             MRS. JOHNSTON:  Well, I am going to say a lot of

-------
   	312





 1 (j                         Mrs, E. L, Johnston

   i
   i

 2 ij   other things.
   i
   i

 3              MR, STEIN:  All right.  Why don't you just put

   i

 4    that into the record,
   j i


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



 6    then,



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



 g    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

 1                          Mrs, EC L, Johnston
   i j

 2 !|   industry and municipalities, to meet them face to face,
   i i
   I:
 3 !;   We need to be informed of new breakthroughs in research
   11
 4 j!   in pollution control equipment, biological studies, virus

 5 j|   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
   i
 $ I   Lake Michigan Conference has accomplished a great deal,

 Q i   And believe me I get to all of them,  I don't know what
   ii
   ii
10 ij   condition Lake Michigan would be in if we hadn't had them,
   i
11    It is obvious that standards could have been set more
   i
12 !   stringent and that a shorter timetable for compliance
   ij
13 jj   would have been wise,
   ii
14              I have great confidence in the conferees and Mr,

      Stein and also appreciate the work that the Technical

16 ;   Committee has done.  I think that if citizens had the
   I i                                        '
17 |;   opportunity of serving on some of these committees, maybe

lg ij   they might appreciate the problems that they have — per—
   11
   !
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

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

22 i!   the big ones,

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

   l|
2f> j   ing the Conference,  I believe there were included a number

-------
      	  	               	314



                            Mrs,  E,  L«  Johnston


 2    of very good suggestions that  would lead to a better


 3    Conference and speed up the lake  cleanup by accelerating


 4    dates of compliance and give us specific pollutants with


 5    sources and polluters to concentrate on,


 6              And I will not go into  that because I believe


 7    that will be taken up later0


                Now, I also want to  state that I back up the


 9    Illinois Pollution Control Board in their tentative —


10    underlined — position in regard to thermal discharges to


11    the lake and any final draft they come up with, although


12    I do not always completely agree with their decisions,


      I have the highest regard for this capable Board and


14    appreciate what they are doing to clean up the deplorable

   i
15 I   mess that we are in.


                And, again, I think if more citizens came to


17    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


20    Lake Michigan was not the Four-State Dump, but it is still


21    being used as such by industries, municipalities, farmers,


22    boaters, and by people in general.  Isn't  it time that


23    we really take final and drastic steps to  put a stop to


24    this gross contamination of our water supply?


25              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
   il
 3 !    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 I    of citizens.  It is a very sad tale and I think that the

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,

15              So the above-mentioned means better agricultural

17     practices to control runoff of phosphates, nitrates, and

lg     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.  Let's 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

24     later  on that for a student group.

25              Of course, this means a huge amount of closed

-------
   	316_


   |
 1 |                       Mrs* E*  L*  Johnston


 2    cycling for industry and power  companies*   We have the


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


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


 5 I   and the Calumet River which flows intermittently into the


 6    lake.  Industry has no more right than power to dump heated


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


 3    one that gets the most publicity and starts with U,S,


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


10    effluent*  But they dump 11° of water — it's heated 11°


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,


14              I have a question for John Q, Public out there,


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


      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


                            Mrs, E. L. Johnston

 2 !   to the editor* and I think all of you and all concerned

 •y i!   citizens should do the same0
   '
                Here we are complaining about thermal pollution

      from powerplants, at the same time we insist on having

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

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

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

      the power companies and industry; there are just as many in

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

11 i   But I try.

12              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

15    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

      cooling system for nuclear powerplants for that reason.

22    We need to proceed cautiously, thoughtfully, yes, the high

23    cost way, but since we know radioactivity builds up in

      man aren't we willing to pay the price?

25              I have great concern  for the high level wastes

-------
                                                       	313





 1 I                         Mrs.  £.  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
   	
   i

   ii
 i  ii                         Mrs. E. L. Johnston
 •*•  r

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

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


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


 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.

   i

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 i   ments of aquatic organisms while decreasing the amount of


17    dissolved oxygen available to them.  A second undesirable


18    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
   i

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

-------
 1
 2 i
 4
 5 |
 6|
 7
 S
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
 25
                                                              321
                      Mrs, E, 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
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,

-------
                                                               322
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                            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:  Thp. conferees at the Four-5tate Lake Michigan
     Enforcement Conference
Electric power consumption is increasing at a tremendous
nte along the shores of Lake Michigan.  Nuclear power
plants seem to be the enswer 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 Lnke 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
conferees 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, we suggest:  l) 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
Tour-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
Northfiold, Illinois 60093

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

-------
    	324
   IF
   i

 -j  il                     Miss E. McKee

   l!
 2 j!           MR,  STEIN:  Are there any  comments or questions?
 ^  !
    i
 3             If not,  thank you for a  very  complete and



 4    delightful  statement.


 5             MR.  BLASER:   The next speaker, Miss  Edith McKee,


 6 Ij  Chief Geologist,  Theodore S.  Leviton and Associates.






                STATEMENT OF EDITH  M. McKEE,  C.P,Ga,


 9              CHIEF GEOLOGIST,  THEODORE S.  LEVITON


10                 ASSOCIATES,  CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS



11


12              MISS McKEE:  I am Edith M. McKee, a certified
    I

13    professional geologist and chief geologist for the consult-


14    ing firm of Leviton and Associates located in Chicago,  A
    j

15    resume of my professional credentials is attached to the


16    copies of my testimony available to the Board members and


17    the press.  When  I testified before you last October 2,


18    I  detailed my  36  years of continuing familiarity, both


19    personal and professional, with Lake Michigan and in par-


20    ticular with Little Traverse Bay  at the north end of the


21  i  lake  where  the Big Rock Nuclear Plant  is located.


22              Today  I wish to report  to you the results of


23     field work  done  last year in the  Little Traverse Bay area
    i

24     during June to October; this work was  interrupted to


25     testify before you in October, and field  surveys were not

-------
10
11
12
13




14



15



16
17
19
20
21
22
25
                                                        325






                        Miss Eo McKee



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



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




long continued effects  of heat input into a circulating




lake system.



          When the Big  Rock  Nuclear  Plant was located north

-------
    	326



 1 j                          Miss E. McKee


 2    of Charlevoix  at  the  southwestern entrance to Little Traverse


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

   i
 4 i   neglected to adapt  the  plant operations to the established
   11
 5    environmental-ecological  systems.   It was assumed  local


 6    currents  generally  swept  northwestward to the open lake;


 7    instead local  surface and mid-depth currents move  eastward


 g |   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

   i
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


lg    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.

-------
                                                             327
   1	
   i
 1 i                          Miss  E, McKee

 2    At such times  thermal input  from a powerplant  is  also

      retained in the  water, accelerating the  rate  and degree  of

      the seasonal warming-up of the water beyond the natural  limit

      and possibly triggering massive algal  bloom.  Conversely,

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

      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

      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.

IS              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 !             Figure 1 shows a day-by—day temperature  graph
   i
22 i   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

      Traverse Bay.  The solid line is the Little Traverse Bay

-------
                      WAT El P.
TEMPERATURE
      "r
      Ri
n
H  K

I1"  ~
   2
      r>
                        ^L
                                                       ,
328
                                                                                                          m

                                                                                                                  8
                                                                                                                  hs
                                                                 i
                                                                                                                  Co
                                                                                                                  h

-------

-------
 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                            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 - 1965a  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

   i|
 1 i|                          Miss E. McKee
   I
 2 !   abrupt improvement in the water quality.  When I first
   i
 3    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 1965»  By

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

 8    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
   I
11 j   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

l£ j   water that waves breaking on shore looked like a vegetable

19    soup and both the beach and dock were green with the debris.
   i
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 ttje

      dissolved oxygen content is low due to accelerating heat

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

-------
                                                             332
 1
 2
 3
   i
13
15

16
17
20
21
22
23

24
25
                              Miss  E.  McKee
                In  the  October  meeting  of  this  Board Mr.  Fetterolf

      suggested that  the  occurrence  of  Cladophora  in Little
   t
 /. i   Traverse Bay might be due  to increased nutritives  derived
   i!
   i!
 K II   from increased sewage and  farm runoff,   and near the  Big
 ' il

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


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


      shows that prior to 1965 there was a  large gull population


 9    around Little Traverse Bay and very little algal growth.


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


12 !!   various species of algae in the bay including Cladophora.
      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
      headlands and add u small amount of pollutants to the water,

                Figure 2 presents facts concerning the lack of

      farm runoff  to enrich the bay waters, the declining popula-
      tion around the bay, and improvements of sewage systems

19  i  around the bay.  Since Mr. Fetterolf in October expressed
      belief that farms, population growth and poor sewage systems

      around Little Traverse Bay were responsible for the

      accelerating decline in water quality these facts should

      be presented to you0  Bedrock geology and overlying glacial

      till determine the watershed draining into Little Traverse

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

-------
                                                               333


                              Miss E. McKee
 ~ h
   li
 2 !   is included and the land close to the water is not suitable
 *-
   i t
 3

 4
for farming, being limestone outcrops,  sand and rocks, cedar

swamp, or sand dunes.  The only river of any size entering
 5 j   the bay is Bear Creek which flows into the Petoskey harbor;

 6 {!   this river is stained from the cedar swamps, where springs

 7 i   provide the water supply, and carries silt from the glacial

      till upstream, but is not heavily loaded with detergents

 9 i   and nutritives.  Other small and short streams flowing into
   i
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 j   Population Analysis Report prepared for the Emmet County

14    Planning Commission in November  1969:  "Emmet County's
   i
15 j   population in I960 was lower than it was in 1950 ... the

16    County's population in 1930 was only slightly lower than the

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

IB    1910, and the 1900 level was 27 persons higher than in 1960."

19    Petoskey is the largest city on the bay; Harbor Springs
   i
20 !   is number two and the only other community of a size to be
   I
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






                             Miss E, McKee




     ••• Population growth in Petoskey continued at a moderate



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



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



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



     Clerk, tells me the present population of Petoskey is just



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



     Summer residents in the resorts around the bay have dropped



     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 system^  The resort of



     Wequetonsing operates a 1930 system consisting of a holding



2/v   tank and  chlorination with frequent testing of the effluent.




2 ^   In Harbor  springs new sewers were laid in 1963; in 1965

-------
                                                             335


   II
 1 li                          Miss  E. McKee


 2 i'l  the heavy load of 1,500,000 excess  gallons  of pure  spring


 3    and well  water each day which had been going through the


 4    treatment plant was diverted  into storm sewers so the

    I
 5    effective chlorination of the real  sewage load was  consider-


 6    ably increased.  Harbor Point has always maintained its own


 7 j   treatment plant.  Since 1965  there  has been considerable


      improvement in local sewage systems with a simultaneous


 9    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


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


13    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


2/»-    all winter in the  plume.   It  appears that by  using  cooling


25    towers or  pools  during  the warm  months,  and putting

-------
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	336

                        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
 for  building and operating a nuclear powerplant can be made.
 Prior to permitting the construction and operation of such a
 plant it is essential that such studies be submitted to a
 knowledgeable  board showing precisely how the proposed therma!
 discharge will react with the entire lake system.  Theoretical
15 li  models of part of the system will not suffice; adequate
 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
   i
 2    the  problem of  dangerous onshore logging  can be avoided.

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

 4    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

12    interesting paper, Miss McKee.

13              Are there any comments  or questions?

14 1             MR, 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

-------
                                                           Ota) 641-oiea
                                                                338
THEODORE S. LEVITON S: ASSOCIATES
                iv'ii COUNSELS
                                   2os SOUTH LASALLE STREET
                                     CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6O4


          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 ar> 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-
                  C" »-i " -•
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, gecmorphology and
    paleogeomorphology related to mineral accumulations  and
    land use.

    Developing displays of geological materials in forms easily
    understood by geologists, other 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
E.M. McKee
    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 NOT TOO SOLID EARTH, Edith M. McKee, Illinois Sec-
       t ic? n~Ameri can 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~Irvvitation at the Great Lakes Symposium
       of the Geological Society of America. Mi J-wankp.e .-
       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, ,1970.

    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

   :l
 \ ji                           Miss E. McKee

 2    I went back up, I walked the-'Shoreline between Petoskey

 3 |   and the Big Rock plant, and it was quite noticeable the

 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

 8    was obviously coming along shore for a number of miles —
   i
 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.

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.
   i
22 I    Is that correct?

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
   f
 1                            Miss E. McKee
 2    does this represent?
 3              MISS McKEE:  It represents, at a distance of about
 4    50 feet off the end of the dock.
 5              MR. PURDY:  But in the way of measurements, once-
 6    a-day, continuous —
 7              MISS McKEE:  No, it was a once-a-day project.
 3              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
 1
 2
 3
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                        Miss E, McKee
Little Traverse limestone formations there.
          MR. PURDI:  What depth would this be?
 4              MISS McKEE:  It was about 35 feet where I am told
   i
 5 ii    they took it.
          MR. PURDI:  Who took it?
          MISS McKEE:  The lifeguard on duty who was a
college boy, a senior in Geology from Albian College.
          MR. PURDI:  Now, if he took it at a 35-foot depth,
did he have a depth thermometer to take this?
          MISS McKEE:  les, he did.
          MR. PURDI:  Have you compared now the sort of
temperature regime that exists along the Lake Michigan
shoreline at other locations remote from any sort of
waste input, waste discharge with the temperature regime
of the Chicago intake?
          MISS McKEE:  No, I have not.  There are a number
of projects — basic projects in the lake here which have
not been done as, for instance, for my  own work I know that
in Lake Michigan  itself only the mid-lake high area, Little
Traverse Bay since  last summer, and I understand Green Bay,
have the bottom depth figures in detail enough so that I
 can  identify individual boulders and know  exactly what
 rock formation  crops out  where0  That leaves most of
 the  southern basin  of the lake  and the  northern basin of

-------
                                                               344
   i	


 1                            Miss E. McKee
   !
 2     the  lake with much work still to be done.


 3              MR. PURDY:  There are a number of temperature
   i
 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


 8     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


1$     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

13     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     68°•  That  day we  had the  effect  of about 3  strong days

-------
                                                              345

   f
 1 i!                           Miss  E. McKee
 •*• 11
   j!
 2 j!    of  east wind.   The  temperature was  down  below 50°»   I
   t!
 3 |    sympathize with you.

 4 !             MR0  STEIN:   The  people  in Maine 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
   ll
   i
10     a great  deal of more  information  that  is available that
   i
11 I    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

15 I    the validity of your conclusions.

16 \              MISS McKEE:   This was  not intended as a complete

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

       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.

                 MR.  PURDY:   Actually I think  more  work has

2/<-     been done in Little Traverse Bay than in many other areas
   !
25     on the lake.   There is a sea grant program going on at the

-------
   ,	346
   r
 1 |i                           Miss E. McKee
   j
 2 !    University  of Michigan now.  There has been a great deal of
   I
 3     work done up there.
                MISS McKEE:  I was out on the University of Michign
 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  McKEEi 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  .
Ik              MR.  PURDYj  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 jj   again  I  must  point  out  that near  the locations  that  you are
    i
 3  |   reporting from extremly heavy nuisance  conditions, that
    i
 4 i    we  do  have sewage treatment plant effluents  there, and  the
 5     purpose  for the tertiary  treatment — the  so-called  tertiary
 6     treatment at  Petoskey nutrient removal  is  to improve that
 7 ,    condition.  The Wequetonsing  one  that you  called a holding tank
 3     is, in effect, I believe, a sep-ic tank for  chlorination,
 9     and one  that  we consider  totally  inadequate  and must be
10     replaced.  But, again,  I  think yourobservations there
11     confirm what  is taking  place  along the  entire shoreline of
12     Lake Michigan and may not be  traceable  to  thermal  inputs
13     but to a continued  buildup of nutrients in the lake*
14               MISS McKEEi  I  agree that there  are many aspects
15     and many factors of this, but it  still  is  obvious  that
16     after  the fall turnover when  the  water  temperature was  on
17     its way down, it had peaked up in the  summer heat  and was
IB     definitely going down.   The water had  cleared up.
19               MR. PURDY:  Do  you  say that  turnover takes place
20     in September?
21               MISS McKEE:  It takes place  up in  that part when
22     we begin having our heavy fall storms,  and the cold air
23     moves down, which removes heat from the upper surfaces  of
24     the water, so that the warmwater begins to get denser and
25     sinks, and the water which has not been that cool below it

-------
                                                            348

 1                            Miss E. McKee
 2     rises,  and  eventually there is a turnover, the so-called
 "* I
 3     fall  turnover of the water in the basin.
                MR.  PURDY:  Thank you.
 5              MR.  STEIN:  Thank you.
 6]             "MR.  BLASER:  May I have a  question?  I need some
 7     clarification.
 $              In the charts,  you show the  33-year average
 9     ending  in 196$,  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. BLASER:  And you  do attribute  that to the
16     nuclear plants,  the thermal  discharge?
17              MISS McKEE:   I  believe  that  the  thermal  input
18     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


                              Miss E. McKee

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

 3     1967  or  so.

 •                MR.  BLASER:   Okay.   The  question tnon 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 3 weeks  preceding  this  deal with two  6-week

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

 n     average.  Do you attribute this to the thermal  plume?

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

11     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

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

       air, I  don't  know.

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

       What do you attribute, when the data runs ahead of the
   !|
19  !   base, you seem to  attribute it to the thermal discharge,

20 |!   when it  runs  behind you do not.  Could you help clarify
    j
21     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

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                              350
                        Miss E.  McKee
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 least
1970, and possibly 1969, if it had hit the 70° two days
in an entire summer, it was unusual, most unusual.  And in
1970, when we had 6 weeks above 70° and hitting 75°, that
is unheard of in that area.
          These are not presented as complete data, no.
As I said, this was an offshoot, a spin-off from other
work I was doing.  But it is a very definite change in the
water quality in Little Traverse Bay that has been noted and
documented, as of 1970, and it has been accelerating since
1965.
          MR. BLASER:  Thank you.
          MR. STEIN:  Are there any more comments or
 questions?
          Let me make a  comment  on this, because Miss McKee
 I  think you have done a  very good job,  since the last time,
 but  I  had without  communication  with Mr. Blaser the  same
 kind of question on your chart.  Now,  I ask you to look at
 that Figure 1,  and there may be  an  explanation, because

-------
   i
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19

20

21

22

23
                                                             351

                              Miss E. McKee

       I  think you have  raised some very interesting possibilities,

       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,
                                                                o
       a  dotted  line, which shows the  average  temperature from  32

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

       for 1970  is  below the  chart.

                MISS McKEE:  Right.

                MR.  STEIN:   About half that,  starting toward the

       end of July  is above  it.

                 Now, there  is  about  just  as much  of your 1970

       figures below the line as above the line.   Now, given this

       kind of situation, how can we  attribute,  if you do, a causa]

       effect; to the reason  above the  line, when  just as much goes

       below the line,  not to say it  isn't a natural  variation.

                 I  think this is the  gap  that  we  have to close  if

       we are going to  look at this,  and  I just  ask you  to  look

       at this as — I  am not trying to  raise  a point  on your

       proposal, but I  ask you to look at this as a presentation.

                 In other words, I am sure that Mr. Blaser — and

       I believe you are a lawyer,  aren't you?
24 i              MR. BLASER:  No.
   ij
25 ij              MR. STEIN:  No, he isn't.

-------
                                                               352
 1                          Miss E« McKee
   11
   11

 2 I             But I think if I were a lawyer on cross —- and
   i


 3 i   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



 g    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.



13              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,



16    and the fishing in the plume from the Big Rock plant*  The


17    water in Little Traverse Bay starts lower for a longer



lg    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 Bi£ Rock nuclear plant is the causative agent in



 5      changing the character of the water in Little Traverse Bay



 6      30 as to create the condition of algae and Cladophora  that



 •7      you have seen?



                  MISS McKEE:   In my opinion, from what I have seen



        and the professional work I have done, it is a major



        factor.  It is not the sole factor, but it is the major



        factor.



12 |               MR. STEIN:  Right.  Thank you.



                  Are there any other questions or comments?



                  Thank you very much.




15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22




23



24



25

-------
                                                              354
 1                            J. K. Langum

 2              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,

 g                         INC., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


 9

10              DR. LANGUM:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Con-

11 I   ference, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is John K. Langum.

12 i   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
   j i
15 i!   which  I believe has been  distributed to the members of the
   i
16 j   Conference.  (See  pp,  355 -  366.)

17              I do not appear before you as a physical scientist

18    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. JLangum

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









        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 th.e 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 s tock 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,  Massachusetts, 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
        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 thirty years I have had many articles





        published in leading economic and  bus ines s journals.  For





        ten years, from 1941 until 1951, I 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     ,
                                                                    361
Association of Business Economists,  the National Industrial



Conference Board, the National Tax Association,  the American



Economic Association, and the Financial Analysts Societies.



     In June^ 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 of Return.



     In 1963,  196^ 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


8 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
                       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
                                                                            364
Water
Water
Telephone
Water
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
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
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
Telephone
Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Michigan Public Service Commission
Docket No.  U-3204
Water
Electric
Gas Pipeline
Electric
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

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

   I

 1 ||                         J. K. Langum
   ;i
 2 !   consultation and expert testimony on financing  of public

 3 i   utilities, cost of capital and fair rate of return of
   ij
 4 |   public utilities.  You will see in my qualifications that
   |!
 5 I   over the years I have testified as an expert witness on

 6    cost of capital and fair rate of return before commissions
   I
 7 i   and courts in the District of Columbia, some 24 States,

      all the leading Federal regulatory bodies, and the leading

 9    Dominion regulatory bodies in Canada.  There is attached a
   i
10 I   specific list of cases in which I have testified, and
   i
11 j   jurisdictions —- some 33 cases during the last 4 years —
   ji
12 jl   on cost to capital and fair rate of return.  I might state
   'i
13    those have all been on behalf of the public utilities

14    involved except for one.  Last year I testified for the

15 |   Attorney General of Illinois against Commonwealth Edison
   I
16    in their rate case.

17              The second occasion or matter in which I am here

IB    is as a concerned citizen.  It is my philosophy that if
   i

19    we do not really know the possible damage to Lake Michigan

20    from thermal discharges, we should not permit such thermal
   !l
21 j   discharges.  That is a matter of philosophy and approach

22    rather than a statement as a  scientist or as an engineer*

23              Now, I have prepared a very brief statement

24 i   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


                             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-

      siderations  regarding thermal discharge standards for Lake

      Michigan for major  electric utilities.

                Economic  considerations should be no bar  to

      effective  actions by the appropriate  regulatory authorities

      which substantially eliminate thermal discharge of  heated

 n    water into Lake Michigan by electric  generating plants.

1Q              The price of  electricity has  shown almost no net

11    increase or a very  small net  increase during the  past

12    years of inflation  in the American economy.  In these  cir-
   j
13 !   cumstances it  seems to  me  it  would be inexcusable if

      regulatory authorities  and  electric  utilities  failed to

15    set the price  of electricity  so as to cover the  full costs

15    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

19    the exhibit material,  what is shown  as  page 1, and up at

2Q    the top is listed Table 1,  National  Rated Average Bill

2i    for Residential Service, 1935 to 1969.   These  data are

22    from the Federal Power Commission and are copies from

23    their latest report on this,  the annual volume, typical

24    electric bills 1969.  (See pp. 369 - 3S6.)

25              You will note the footnote or the comment at the

-------
                                                                                                       369



0-P

oj







».«- .eo 	
(OtDOieoeooo 	 > i • i > • > i i i >
„_ i i • t »

3onBM 	
a
S O O OO O r* ** r^ ^H ^- t— C) O C) O O O O O O C> "< t-
.^ w w w M M 04 N e^ N CM' M w M cj c4 ci N" c^ oi N" e-i N M
O
S o o o c; o el o o o o c. c. co wi oc i" or r- i- t- 5: o co


ci»-
60
a
<£
O
0
l~t
•1
(fi
r-*
^
«
o
«H
IH
O
O
i-H
w
1-1
a
o
• r-l

>-
H
fi
0
0]
tn
• H
O
U
(H
4)
*
O
ft
•-H
n)
^
4)
a)
Source: I
                                                                                              .-. ^J M
                                                                                                -
 S M 3 c »

 ls»"s

 Illli
 t.  M fl-£
 S-3 «> o ?
 r *a t-i r\
 it it  ** ..
                                                                                             Jlis.i
asggS2§
S"TiS:'.yS
3«n>..o«
                                                                                             •Sils
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            (M
                                                                                                            CJ

                                                                                                            
-------
                                                                                                  370
PO

4>
bO

&

-------
                                                                                                                                    371
 0)
 bO
 nt
PH
v
'rl
t>
4)
t-H


O
S
,j)
0
o
u
P— 1
fit
4->
O
H




bO
a
• H
4->
fit
I-I
4)
(X
o




(0
i-
(3 r-
4> a.
> rt
a)
V
rt
o
o
o
PO
ON
v^
QX

vO
00
00
«•



                                                         o o o
                                                         o o o
                                                         o o o
                                                                       m
£
r*1
rt
w W
85
* £

^ z


rH
n)
4-*
O
H



bo w
C *>
•H 2
2 Sg
Ms
0 K
O
o
o
*
PO
0s
o^
vcT
oo
00
      Pi  W


                                           I
                                           O
                                           
                                                         m o o
                                                         o o o
                                                         PO o o
                                                          •k  «   •»
                                                         (VJ O^ rH
                                                         CO (M  CM
                                                         O M  Is-

                                                         C« 00  0s
                                                         ITl tj<  vO
                                                         vO vO OO

                                                               Psl
                                                   nt

                                                   B$
                                                   O  nt  S
                                                  U  ft C
                                                      C  ««
                                                   4)  g  tX
                                                   y  °  fl
                                                   >u  g
                                                   S3-HO

                                                  w  h  *
                                                   o  o  «
                                                  •ri  
                                                   rt -C  °
                                                  •H  U  4>
                                                   S^  S
                                                   «  S-S
                                                  ^  5  *
                                                  +»  nt  u
                                                   s^  S
                                                                      m
                                                                      o
                                                                      in
                                                                      oo
                                                                             o
                                                                             sO
                                                                      m
                                                                      ro
                                                                      oo
                                                                      CM
                                                                      00
 m o oo
 o o 1-1
 rH O Is-

 N O ro
 xO Is- Tj<
 t— I-H r-i

 tf> m r~"
 CO Is- vO
PJ  o o
Is-  O >O
Tj<  O O

vO  •* CO
^  •—I i-H
Is-  oo •*
  *  *   •»
Is-  00 PJ
00  CT^ O
PJ     -H
o  o in
i-H  O CO
Is-  O O
  •h  •*  *h
r-l  0s in
CO  PJ vO
PJ  i-l M

oo  co in
vO  O O
0s  ro f)













a
nt
b£
• H
rd
u
•r*
2
>%
a
«i
&
1
o

H
0)
£
o
A
(0
fc
1)

c
P d
w .3
§ S
u 8
10
• H
£
Uw
JJ f 1
£ u
g-g S
l^-s:
ft 01 -H
o S •-*
« £ -2
1-1 /P 
-------
H
  O
  *~i

  8
HK
^S
H  «
to  <

fc  O
W  g

H  "

|a
K*  H-*
Z  H
~3
   H
  U
          CO & cj
          •§  y d
          d  co «-^
          .S  rt CU
          Q  PH >*
          w
               H
               to
          •a  >>
          "
          CO
             bO
          co  .g
          •a -o


          co (§
          •a  d

          83
          ^^  P-3
                                                    05
                                                    0
                                                    O)
                                                              CO
                                                              r-(

                                                              O5
                                     to
                                     •*
                                     O3
                              o
                              Tji
                              OJ
                                                              +

                                                              <
                           SS
                           w o-
«-« 'O
bo 2

S o
II
So
                                                                        •
                                                              wo
                            «    &
                            ^ d  rt
                            0 O  ft
                            O 10  C

                            S JS  o
                            g w  u
                                        rt  g
                                        o  •"
                                        CJ  >
                                        "-1  S-i
                                        f
                                                & 1 B §
                                                -a 8 •£ a
                                                -° O V C
                                                O r , !
                                                                                     d
                                                               £g
                                                                                §
                                               a   <
                                                                           (
t- (a

2-0

>1a
M CO
                                                                                            «s
                                                                                            1
                                                                                            ffl
                                                                                            10
                                                                                                  372
                                                       t,
                                                       o
                                                       a,

                                                       o
                                                      O
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            >,
                                                                                            •o
                                                       d ci
                                                       o -1
                                                       C *s

                                                       =3 ^5
                                                       W rt
                                                       i—' S

                                                       C5
                                                       —' O
                                                       >1 2
                                                     « o

                                                    II

                                                    £i
                                                     2 E
                                                     o o
                                                                                            ra  o
                                                                                        w
                                                                                       "-• O
                                                                                        CO £•

                                                                                       •g
                                                                                                 U

-------
CD
«*n
o  to



r-t  t>
to
O
tn
o
                                       in
                                       in
CO
m
                                                                                     00

                                                                                     CO
                                                                                    CO
to


t>
                                                                                        oo
                                                                                        oo
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                             373
to
en
                     o
                     o
t-


oo
t-
c-

oo
                                       m
                                       CO
                                                     CO

                                                     t~
                                                                                     O)

                                                                                     to"
                                                                              CO
                                                                               *
                                                                              t-
                                   t-
                                     •
                                   CO
oo  to
tO  (M
en   .
T-l  OO
o
in
CM
CM
                                                        CO


                                                        co
                                                     oo
                                                     o
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    o
                                                                                        CV)

                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                          CO
t-
to
                                   C-
                                   t-
                            IO
                            CM
                                             OO
                                       t-
                                       O
                                                        CO
                                   o
                                   CO
                                       en
                                       CD
to  en
to  co
o
CO
                                   CO
                            tn

                            oo
           oo
           o
                                                        00
                                                     w
                                                     as
                                                                                     to
                                                                                     o>
                                                                                      •
                                                                                     CD
                                                                              o
                                                                              o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                          •
                                                                                         t-
                     t>
                     rH


                     CO
                  CO


                  CO
                            CO
                            O5
                                       t-
                                       t-
                                    M
                                    t-
                                                                   oo

                                                                   rH

                                                                     •

                                                                   t-
                                                  in
                                                  oo
                                                                                               CO
^  co
to  co
                            in
                            en
                     co
                     co
                                                                                    in
                                                                                      •
                                                                                    CD
                                                                                                          CM

                                                                                                          O
CO CM
to 10
TH t>




Illinois
Commonwealth
Edison Company
Indiana
^ o
in CM
• *
t- t-
d
d
a
E a
Korthern Indiana
Public Service Co
Indiana & Michiga'
Electric Company
CO
CO
t-



f\
American Electric
Power Company
^*
CO
CO




Michigan
Consumers Power
Company
                                                                                                          CM
                                                                                    CD
                                                                                               CD

O
•B
sconsin
g
'isconsin Elect
**



ower Company
PH


U
risconsin Powe
t?

^
S
a,
S
o
U
4-1
fo
3
•a
«


u
isconsin Publi
-*
d
0
B
srvice Corpora
w

-------
H
<

K
               O  •— c
               c-   .
               en  co
                      CD
                      co
                      
                   i-H CO
            O
            O
            en
            cn
    CO  CM
00  CO  rH
«5   .   .   .
cn  TJ<  o  CM
rH  rH  rjl  OS-
            CO
            en
                   rH O
               t>  en t-
               co   ...
               en  •* rH  CM
               rH  rH ^t<  OS-
                           CO
    CD  en
co  co  oo
co   ...
cn  rj<  CM  CM
rH  rH  TJH  OS-
            CO
    rf OO
in  co oo
CO   .   .
cn  ^ CM  IN
rH  rH ^  OS-
                           CM
                           OS-
                   t- 00  O
               co  in c-  CM
               CD   ...
               en  co en  CM
               rH  rH CO  OS-
    53  rt

    rt  r*
    
•^
co



Public Service

CM
rH
CM
OS

in
CO
rH
OS

in
t-
rH
0>

o
t>
rH
OS

in
in
rH
OS

0

rH
OS-

rH
CM
rH
OS

O
rH
rH
O>



Company

CO
o
t-
rH

6?
IO
en
t-.
rH

co
c-
co
rH

69
en
co
e-
rH

CD
en
CO
rH

rH
rH
t-
rH

69
co
rH
(-_
rH

C-
CD
•^
rH

a
rt
Indiana & Michig

m
CM
0
CO

CO

o
CO

en
CO
rH
co


in
rH
CO

en

o
CO

co
CO
o
CO

co
en
o
CO

CO
CD
rH
CO


^.
Electric Compan

O
CO
rH

t-
m
co
rH
os-

es
m
rH
OS
cn
m
•^
rH
OS
en
o
in
rH
os-
t-
in
CO
rH
OS-
CM
e-
co
rH
OS-

CM
rH
rH
OS-




O
rH
^f
rH

CM
en
•*
rH
CO


rH
CO
CO

rH
0
**
CO

o
rH
"*
CO

CM
en
^f
co

o
•*
^
co

co
t>
co
co



Power Company

0
CO
IN
OS"

O
IN
CM


O
rH
IN
OS

o
o
CM
^/D"

O
en
rH
OS

eo
t-
rH
OS

   CN

                                                                                 rH CO   
                                                                                         01

                                                                                         t>
                                                                      CO  IN

                                                                      CO  
                                                                                 en TJ<   o
                                                                                 rH CO   CD
    -i<  cr>
    o  o
o  oo

CM  "-1
CM
en
co  en
CO  CM
                                                                                                                                    37k
                                                                  (N IN
                                                                  i-H -^H
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 (N
                                                                          t-
                                                                          OO
                                                                          (M
                                                                          (fi-
                                                                                         co

                                                                                         CM
                                                                                 m co
                                                                                 c- en

                                                                                 CM co
                                                                  6?
                                                                  co  co
                                                                  CD  O
                                                                          oo
                                                                          in
                                                                                         CM
                                                                                         o>
                                                                                         m
                                                                                         CM
                                                                                 rH CO   CM
                                                                  en  t-
                                                                  c-  o
                                                                  O  rH
to
?H
CJ
c
s
IS
o

onsum
U


t*i
ompan
O
                                                                           en
                                                                           en
                                                                                    en  in  CM
                                                                                        co  o>
                                                                                    CM  CO tV
                                                                                    co  oo o
                                                                                                                rH CO   O>
             in
             co
                                                                                                                  en
                                                                                                                  CM
             (M OO
             en rH
                                                                                    en  c~
                                                                                        co
             (N  CO
             rH  CO
                                                                                                                        o>  rH  co   os-
cn  O  r-<   CO

rH  CO  t-   O
         in
         t-
                                                                                                                             69
         CD
         O
                                                                                                   CO  O rH
                                                                                                                CM  cn
                                                                                                                rH  CO
                                                                                                                             rH  CO   (ft

























tn
C
O
o
CO
•<#
o
rH
CO
CD
O
rH
69
t-
c-
o
rH
69
CM
rH
0
rH
cn
co
cn


,*3
P
"o
W
C
c4
O
o
2
CM
Tf
CO

o
oo
to

rH
•*
C-
"

O
cn
^

co
rH
CM




Company
_
CJ
o
OH
IT-
CD
CM

CM
0
CM
os-

en
rH


co
c-
rH

in
m
rH
OS







CO
co
IN
rH
CM
in
i-H
rH
0
CM
i-H
rH
Q
to
in
o
rH
CO
in
o
rH



p
(U
1
CO
a
o
o
to
in
CM
rH

O
co
rH


•^
O


cn
CM
cn
co
oo
rH
oo
co

K*}
£2
rt
a
e
o
U
bfl
3
c
ca
co
c-
rH


in
rH

•tj*

rH


rH
CO
rH

CO
CM
rH
OS-







CO
in
CM
rH
(N
in
CM
rH
rH
en
CM
rH
Q
T^H
m
CM
rH
L—
rH
CO
rH



O
'A
•§
ft
'w
C
o
0
CO
£
CT5
CO
CD
CO
CM
0
t-
co

CO
CD
CO

OO
CO
CD
CO
CM
co
t>
co
a
0

Corporal
o
o
CJ
VI
[~
in
rH

en

rH

in
•tf1
rH
OS-

CO
CO
rH
OS
co
CO
rH
OS-








-------
                                                                  Page  /
     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  additional  plemt costs would be an estimated $130 million,
       —S~#^tii-Ly.i/tsty -/:: c- JJ-i*--z
  iising/,bout $10/kW for nuclear and $7/kW for  fossil plants.

  The  added consumptive use of water would be appro Vurnately 300

  cubic fept  per  second.

       If all of  the 15j000 mci.gav7at.ts of capacity existing and

  under construction, required conversion from once-through cooling

  to the  use  of auxiliary cooling facilities, the required invest-

  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 oj; capacities during conversion periods,

  The  increase in consumptive use of water resulting from the

  alterations would be about 190 cubic feet per  second.

Statement of Frederick H.  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
    ;*
    «
    H
       U
5     
                                          O
                                          r-l
                                          O
                                                                                t>
                                                                                  *
                                                                                00
                                                               CO

                                                               oi
O CO CM °°
2 «5 05 TH S°
5 O5 Tf t> n
,% r- 1 C<1
a **•
• r~i
s
"^ O5 O CO
CO . .
CO O5 CM CM
O5 C7> CO N
r-i r-t
(ft-
t^,
PI
00 -31 00 O n
o d 2 ^' t-'
•tf 0 "-1 N Tj<
T-l l-< CO


0 CO t> 0 oo
• • • •
t- t- co Tt< ^5
•* in r-l rH S
^ m





bJD
C
a
O
o
o
t-l
o
<+H
J^
Si
a
o
o
•
in
oo
c-
c-

o
in
^
CO
CD




























§* &> ^ ^
Illinois
Commonwealth Edison Company
Indiana
Northern Indiana Public Service Coi
Indiana & Michigan Electric Compai
Michigan
Consumers Power Company
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Wisconsin Pow er and Light Compan
Wisconsin Public Service Company
Total construction expenditures
Major electric utilities using Lake
Total capital expenditures
Electric utility industry
Total construction expenditures


oo
a
•i-i
"o
o
o
P
0
<*-<
0
8,
3
o
g
Major electric utilities using Lake













CO
CD
!H
as percent of total capital expenditu
*j "•
CO
CO



*>&
e*
i-H
oo






Electric utility industry

-------
a
     CO
                                                                                                            377
o
w
w
u
CO
§

CO g ><
W $ 05
& H
5 - co
H £ £>
~ O Q
Q G 2
8 fc ~
8? m * o
PJ PJ H o>
be rv t— t O
w^riv
^J CO t-i 0
 g5
fc^o'"
1
CO ^
o a w
w S ^
^ 05
0 H
P5 ^
^ O
t— <
<
05
W
O





CQ
4)
b
1
— - ^
^0 ^
H^ i— t
O g

., , d
« 5
c -rj
O P3
a -S
3 H








^
§>
^











(Mr-lr~llomoOC<)lOC5(N CO OOOOincOOSlOrHt-^
OCs^^DCOrHI>r^OCDCO CC i-HOOCD^MC^COOi^O
co" ^ l° o" c-" t> oo" cT of o1 i-T N" eo" 10" c-" of rH •** co" oT ci









0
OO
1
1
rH(NC>0'^iraOt-OOO5O T-I r-ICQCOTj
                                                                                                            \  a
                                                                                                            •4^  CJ
                                                                                                            8  a
                                                                                                            go
                                                                                                            f-i 5r
                                                                                                        -o
                                                                                                         s
>>irr

ro j^


s|
n! -^

'C co
o  •
jg TJ

W
                                                                                                          ;
                                                                                                         O  r-J
                                                                                                            (0 U
                                                                                                            tH O
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            CO

-------
          376*
vO
O
* rt
/y»
PM
£
£
,
s
J o
•^ £
/v- &
& J
w o
Q. in X
^ M O
.y u
w C J
5; b «
n H o
W n £.
H Q *
52 £ tf
£ w W
., w O, FH
REQUIRED INVESTMENT TO PROVIDE
CILERY COOLING FACILITIES RATHER THAN ONCE-THROUGH
IN RELATION TO PROJECTED TOTAL CAPITAL EX-
MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES USING LAKE MICHIGAN WA'
1970-1990
d
b
<

O
O
O
cT
0
O

o
CO
«-l

o
o
o
*.
o
o
o

o
in
r-4

o
o
o
o
Q
o

o
CO
(SJ
4
•W-
G
O
»^_ 05
£.8
w .-S
nj ._<
di -rt
red investment, 1971-1990, by electric utilities with generating ca
.r Lake Michigan, per Mr. Warren, to provide auxiliary cooling fac
than once-through systems
In projected 24,000 megawatts of capacity
not now existing or under construction
.rt ™ H
3 JJ 22
cr R -C
« ^ rt
PH O M




In conversion of all of the 15,000 megawatts of
capacity now existing or under construction





««-



Total required investment





u i
§ 2 ° °
2 o oo
0 o oo
„*• ts. _- « .
2 o> ° oo
2 ° ° °
0 0 00
o* ,-? " -
2 ° o o
o m oo m
0 •& N vO
S M" M"
00 x^ ..
rj; ~ 'r
^ <«• «>
«• «•


ted capital expenditures, 1971- 1990, by electric utilities using
Michigan water for cooling
Total capital expenditures, 1971-1990,
electric utility industry in United States
Electric utilities using Lake Michigan water for cooling
as percent of electric utility industry in United States
Projected capital expenditures, 1971-1990, electric utilities
using Lake Michigan water for cooling
5d investment, 1971-1990, per Mr. Warren, to provide
liary cooling facilities rather than once-through systems in
rating capacity on or near Lake Michigan, existing, under
truction, and projected, as percent of estimated total capital
nditures, 1971-1990, of electric utilities. using Lake Michigan
r for cooling
0 fi< r.rtDtODD
 X BPWOX^
P •* Q1 «* u1 u 
-------
                                                                                                     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
Jo 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.
Forthe 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 expecte'd
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,
       A. H  Aymond
       Chairman of the Board
(J  >
       James H. Campbell
^-^   President

February 15,  1971

-------
Statement of  Income
FOR THE VEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1970 AND 1969
                                    Page  12

Consumers  Power Company
                                                                                                                     380
                                                                                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                                        1970
                                           1969
      OPERATING REVENUE (Note 5):
         Electric	     $334,904,154        $307,999,678
         Gas	      273,873,680         240,535,782
         Steam	        1,211,671            1,239,386
                 Total operating revenue j  .  .   . -	     $609,989,505        $549,774,846


      OPERATING EXPENSES AND  TAXES:
         Operation-
            Purchased and interchanged power	     $ 19,339,636        $  13.530,397
            Fuel consumed in electric generation	       70,933,538           59,091,019
            Cost of gas sold	      117,874,852         103.888..113
            Other	      116,644,103        _ ICO.874,343
                 Total  operation	     $324,715,224        $2^0,383,872
         Maintenance	       32,817,757           26,121,267
         Depreciation ?nd amortization (Note 7)	       55,60'J,057           51.880,650
         General taxes	       39,052,283           37,058,195
         Federal income  taxes	       38,823,833           41.022.326
         State income taxes	        4,7£G,703            '1.071,32-1
         Proyisionforclcfarredincometcxcs.net	       10,221,539           IOS'1205]
         Chs.'ge equivalent to investment tax credit, net	         4-';S,'J37            ?'U6.M5
                 Total operating expenses and taxes	     ?5SS..'^S '.:"J        J_
                 Met operating  incc.T.e	     JIL'i.-iii.'ijS        ;  '


      OTHER INCOME:
         Interest charged to construction (Note 2)	       14,108,197            8,421,485
         Dividends from Michigan Gas Storage Company	        1,650,000            1,350,000
         Gain on reacquisition of long-term debt	        1.074,465             768,802
         Other	        1,124,907             771,285
                 Gross income	,	     $121,389,088        $106,170,588


      INCC;,:E DEDUCTION:
         Interest'on lor;-u-rm debt	     $ 4<,E1?,P3-',        §  3h.?5G.i:0
         Interest en rwt.js payable	        2,m:,'-'A            2.'^.;\9!2
         Other	.'....          T!-"^\             ^V'.in
                  Tol'-!  }:..•-,-ne dco'ucticn;	     < ••:...   ,                .  ,.   .1
                  Met in:c::ie	     5 Ti^  \..   J        i  i „•. ,j,j;j


      DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED  STOCK	     	^IM/!2.        	3,534,500
                 Net income after dividends on preferred stock	     $69,315,187        $63,425,843
                Fti;:;:'. u or cu;.;,,;^;, STGU
                ON /iVii.^.f S!!A;(i.:s W\'M\&\\'£
               ,LCO,/J)  - ;-i(.-5 in l'j/0 .1 ,.l 2i,/c:;,SOO i,!:. 'i'> in 125S) .    .
                                      The accompanying notes are an \n\efia\ pan of this statement.

-------
           and  Gas
  Per Cenljncrpnse Or (Decrease) 1970
          Compared with
Operating Comparison  1970-1960      1970       1959     i960
                                                                                            1969
        .;  ..  -rs     A  ,  „' .'inm;.-!l ,,,cf ".:-~A     .
     usiii ;   ; ' ;r     /•.    ' Ki.'Vf.nu?  p/r '.i"f ussd   .
    h.'inc1 1. • ,i'iv"     /V..  . : Aniiihil f''ji:,,i'e      .   .
   rji<     (c;,;      c.o
m.r.?(r   -  77     15.0
;s2i8.12      73     22.2
                                             1968
electric revenue







clectr't: ."j'os
(1,000 kilov,'sii!:&i;rs)



peak load
generating cvj:,.it>
heat rate
electric c'ict^TiDrs
electric residential
customer
averages
fj.is r; . vue







gas statistics
(1,000 cubic feet)






'•'.i o . it
r,^ cu . iv:s
17 . ' .'•'!
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 ....
R«u.'iitMl ...
Coiiiinercial 	
Inrljstnal 	
IntereepsrlmeiTtal and O'ihcr ....
Total Sales to Ultimate Consumers .
Power Pool 	
Other Resale 	
Total Ebctric Sales 	
Kilowatts
Kil:,,3lt3 	
Btu of Fuel per Net Kilowatthour Generated
En 'I or Period ... . .
Annual Kilowatthours Used.
Revenue per Kilowatthour Used . . .
Annual Revenue 	
F,:-"rr.i'j!
' - ; Gas for Kc.r.o bating. . .
G "' r
!o ' .': i end Coinr'1. "Ci i
Intn.'ooartmental divj Clhsr (1) ...
Ra:.-.'e . 	
Revive for Possible '(ate Refund . . .
Total Gas Sjlss /.j/enue


Total Gas E-D'.o.i'je 	
Gas Sales
Residential
Using 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 .
\l" i Cubic Icit) . .
ti,.' ,-if ."eriocl 	
1 , ;r Hid :•! :'-:'r]
. $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
c,,ni,,,fl
4,027,215
8,073,913
2CC.523
. 18.24I/.J4
553,183
. m/.rj,o,7
3,448,345
3,530,0:8
10,120
1,032,442
6,222
2.24C
$139.64
. ?1 :;:.'• ".•.-£5-
IGS'' ji •• 'i
•• 10;;^S
. (3,;;jr/.;4)
$2/'J "LJ. '. 3
->'n o .,fn

. $27u '/: ;'j
. 134,435,759
3,733,980
. 146,405,893
. 24,805,B95
. ' 962,331
. 310,343,958
. 13,8SG,516
9,765,675
. 334,003,149
?074,r2l)

11.6
15.1
4.5
14.7
10.2
19.6

8.4
37.2
8.7
7.0
9.6
(5.9)
86
1.4
15.6
1.8
2.1
4.4
1.8
2.3
4.5
4.2
9.0
122
8 5
130
2533
(42.6)

140
59

13.9
4.2
(6.6)
50
243.8
(51.7)
101
271
2.3
10.5

2.J
45
74.7
117.5
36.2
108.2
88.8
125.3

86.0
12G.3
86.5
85.1
138.2
88.6
63.1
96.1
126.4
96.9
83.8
568
2.7
23.9
49.5
(5.9)
41.1
187.)
(402)
2212
683.8
(72.0)

172.7
1108

171.8
150.1
(54.4)
199.7
568.7
(74.6)
162.3
35.1
42.5
146.6
l!>?r)
53.3
1105
$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
5,51G,2i j
3,673,703
8,578,3,"J
191,9:-,!
17,930,31?.
489,OM
l:Vr/9,l'>
3,377,275
9,941
1,057,735
5,954
2.15*
$128.06
;,)33,77G,i-?
93,71G,/;;;
3,079,35^
796/01
-
vj'37,'i6G,\X '
3 nr.^i :" T

;:%o,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

330,!..; i
$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
3,38° 1"
810: '
135'.', '
16,770.'. ;
411.: \
423 r
17,61.1 .
3,179,715
3,371,'.
9,804
1,031.51:
5,609
2.16C
$121.18
6,3:

32^,-J
1,33 /,.•;:
-
v/U,t 0 ,
3','.' '•

:' 1 / * .
120,256,312
4,215,239
125,896,465
482,506
3,620,014
254,470,535
6,204,577
12,648,538
273,323,651

7li- '.
                                                                                                KU.tx:         I'1 .
                                                                                                $203.?,'         $ii.
(1) Includes Inlracomp.iny sales of gas to the electric department (or use in r.eneralinc: rlcctricity in years 1970, 19G9. 19C8, 1905. 196?, J961. and 1960.

-------
       Impact of Additional Annual Cost in Excess of $3, 000, 000 to be
     Incurred by Consumers Power Company in its Electric Operations
                                                                         382
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

-------
  Costs (in Kxccr;.s of Cr.ce-Throuf;h)

  I. Capital Investment Costs
     a.  Pumps & recovery turbines
     b.  Basic Tower Units
     c.  Footings
     d.  Controls
     e.  Piping, Valves & Tanks
       .  1) Backfitting Piping6
     t,  land Costs^
     g.  Road & Track V/ork^
     h.  Earthwork5
     i.  Yard drainage, underground
           interference, & fence-
           work
     j.  Electrical
     k.  Contingencies
     1.  Top Charges
         Subtotal
 II. Operating & Kaintenance Costs8
     a.  Iocs of Capability
     b.  Increased fuel costs
     c.  Maintenance
         Subtotal
III. Total Cost (Capital Inv. &
                  Oper. & Maint.)
corn1
A1,TOWATR

Interior
Dollars
1,360,000
10,200,000
Included
510,000
1,709,000
-
-
-
-
-
Included in
3,230,000
Included in
17,000,000
7,000,000
12,827,500
Included in
19,827,500
coMi'Ainr.on
KH.'.M", 0? COOLING
Dry Mechanical Dr-i
Dent. Report1'7
I-nlls/
C./KW K.ffiR
1.36 .03
10.20 .20
in b. above
.51 .01
1.70 .03
-
-
-
-
- -
a,b,d,&e above
3.23 .06
jc._ above
17.0 .33
7.0 .14
12.83 .25
b_._ above
19.83 .39


ft Coollnf To
C.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
. Sluair-S2
S/KW
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
383



mils/
KW-IR

1.79
.04
.02
.35
.28
.08
.03
.37
.01
.59
.03
.45
4.09
1.07
0.27
0.11
1.44
36,827,500    36.83   .72
463,882,000   230.85    5.54
  Kotcs; 1.  Estimates based on 1,000 r.w - fossil unit
         2.  Estimates based on 2,200 mw - nuclear unit  (Zion)
         3.  Earthwork includes iteros such as overburden removal, dev:ater:ng,  excavation for
             circulating water piping & tower footings, and compacted fill for ro;.ds &  towers
         4.  Land coct estimated at SlO.OOO/acre
         5.  Road fc track work includes relocation of existing roads, protection of circula-
             ting water pipin;; at road cros&ings & alteration of track spur
         6.  Backfittjng piping includes such itenc as modification  to rxisting service water
             system, alteration of existing cubrr.crgod circulating water intake piping,  and  r.tw
             booster pur.ping stations
         7.  Cost breakdown reference - October 1C, 1970, Letter-Bruce Tichenor, Pacific North-
             west Laboratory to 0. I1. Butler, C.E.Co.
         8.  Costs ore listed in equivalent investment dollars.

-------
                                                                                      Page  16
                                                                                              384
                                      AT/P2HKAT!: r^A'.W 0? flOOT.IVG
  Cost" (In Kycc.-s of O.T.e-yfr
I.
                                              Wet Krc--h,';ni r-.-Q,  Pr.-'.ft Cool

                                              Case  II
                                        Inter!or Dent. Report
                                                           falls/
                                     Dollars
      Capital Investment Costs

      a.  Condensers & 1'unps

      b.  Basic Tower Units

      c.  footings

      d.  Piping & Valves

          1)  Backfitting piping3

      e.  Earthwork

      f.  Road & Trackwork"1

      g.  Yard drainage, under-
          ground interferences &
          fencing

      h.  Electrical

      i.  Contingencies

      j.  Top-charges

          Subtotal

 II.  Operating & Maintenance Costs^

      a.  Loss of Capability

      b.  Increased fuel costs

      c.  Maintenance

          Subtotal

III.  Total Costs (Capital Inv. &
                   Oper. & Maint. )
                                   1,410,000     1.41     .027

                                   3,670,000     3.67     .072

                                   Included in  b_._  above

                                   Included in  a.  above
                                    Included  in  a.&b.  above

                                    Included  in  a.fcb.  above

                                    Included  in  a.frb.  above

                                    5,080,000    5.08    .099
                                      462,000      0.46

                                    Included in b_._ above

                                      462,000      0.46
                                    5,542,000
5.54
        .009
        .00?
.103
                                                                           C.E.Co. Studies
                                                                                            2,6
                                                                    Dollars
                  Included in d. below

                   16,000,000     7.27

                  Included in b. above
                                                                                            Kills/
                                    .191
10,500,000
25,230,000
10,350,000
290,000
205,000
1,855,000
1,585,000
8,000,000
72,015,000
37,142,000
7,116,000
582,000
44,840,000
4.77
10.56
4.70
0.13
0.09
0.84
0.72
3.64
32.73
16.9
3.23
0.26
20.4
.125
.277
.124
.003
.002
.022
.019
.096
.659
.443
.085
.007
.535
          116,855,000     53.12    1.294
  Notes;  1.  Based on a 1000 mw nuclear unit - 82^  cap.  fact.  33/£ eff.
          ?.  Based on Zion 2200 ir.v nuclear 70^ cap. factor 33£ eff.
          3.  Backfitti:if, rij-ir.~ includes such itess as rodification  to  existing service
              vatej' syrten, chr.ri~:r.r, of cxislin-  sutr.erced  circulating water intake piping,
              and new booster pumpinc stations

          4.  Earthwork includes such itcrr.s as overburden removal,  dewaterinf;, excavation
              for circulating water piping and tower 'footings,  and cocpacted fill for road-
              ways and towers
          5.  Koad & trackwork includes relocation of  existing  roads,  protection of circula-
              ting water piping at road crossings and  railroad  spur alterations
          6.  C.E.Co. sti fiy is based on «r-e of a  hybrid rou-.vl mechanical draft tower with
              ?i>0' hyportolic di:;chaiv-3 stac',: for plur.c dispersal

          7.  Costs are listed in  equivalent  invectocnt dollars.

-------
-H CO
 /~J
n) CJ
A -CO
III vivvV^;
LU §^§
<^> 1C
tr"T -?• : * *
•-•^ • 	 •-. 	 	
rv* £.:;.:;•.: '•"
J Pi *;. ••
> M:-< I
< m *r
LU 111 H:-
X :S iY'
H lii! ;;•;.-.
>• -?> W> 6:'..
\~, «e£— ::•:•••:•:'::•: :••'..
£ 0 &$ ^
 u. »;i " ''
»— - «i™ H"' >.•••:-.- .-:
•—• "™ t_u" J ,._...;
O UJ CO K:::-:;
co H ID N': X
5 c ° ? K£ :;:
1. 1 -T^ ^ fi-r..'
	 ' l-'' J '--^ '•"..• ':'.''
** • ** •* :'* ;;'••;•
-r en <1% ^ f'---''=':^ • •
HSP'^ 11 i;;
-J —. -^ :;-;::.Vx /^ :
<~-l f— \ >••••:.-::••;.
O LL •::::-:-:: =....
UJ X o i;K ;:>:..;:
**»^m V. jV ^ ..'.•.•,
g o co r:;:; s-
2.. LU ;:-::•;:::: :"V
0 Lj- Q: ;x:;::;::::; ;.
-5; O :.•:..-.•.: :••:•:
il2 W •: '• : •' ' •
S i- P-;; S---.
0 0 &&
O LU ?:: :•:•:: i": ,
LL. ;!•?:..:.;: ..-.:
LL. |i::;:';:<:: x':'
LU |vv;::| :-:;-

_J 	
-1 a
t _ u.
• T LU 5
CC 2 c5 to c
LU LU ^< _jh-
•> i- o m — -T- C-J __ -,.
cb Ey 2 ^
^ ^  o^i
~ X (% Lil 0-
O O Ci '^: C
CO
h-
C>
•CO-
§:->:s
: |.-^
^\-<-
?'~ ' x















: c "*
: ~















: a
1 LL
: 5
» f
h
i u
— i s
<>
o: i
ttr i
O Lt
t— <
: < a-
) ~ZL C
(J)
O
-
5^^N
vJ'"V'v^"
|¥^
N-t*
N V^>















'<•'-
•vj-.
:™.


:v' .












f
j
J c
*L
c
} a
: e
^L

I c
- c
1 C_

N
lO
o"
.//v
v /^
§\^5
if















•'cf:
.•'v"
'••7"'

















5
i g
C
, a
: >
1 ; _!.':•;••
:•;•"•:' i'j :' ]-.:•'.


' . '','•'.'•'.' '•'. ' '







'•^ ^
:;vi;: .:>-v
















CK &
LU li
:> ^
• ^ ^
> S^ J
' z° <'•
< i— or h
: x u . ~3 u
: o >.c i- <>
UJ f,: < 0-
j r> Q n c

j
•j
>
)

_. o

>
r S
,£ Ar S
U, nj vH
p vl 5 6
£ -p "  ^j rci r5 f;
_l G -H <1) rt o
£ o • co ,
"-1 -|J „ {,J IQ r^j
, , W H (\1 'd O
— y I'j PI 0 -H
o: o -H 4 o *.«
H 0 0 tO 0
— CD R f' *-< ^ P<
w ^ I'j e> i V(
J -H r: si o .c
LtJ +' il 5t -P
j ri o :t w S.-J
S£ 1> V t' !' C
r '<; oi H
H -^( -)J ^ G I
Z c^ (\S .,H o CM
lu C) ,C (H
° fn +-" rU 'O
co , r-l a> JH
— N UJ G) QJ & W O
CE ,« W O fij «i-"
4J 0 S: 0)
Ld ,t> ' f« rH
O O ?H 'd O r-l
 ?j -M r;
CD ,rl 3 1
: 13 -H O rj H
rv ,o p -H ,t: c
^ CJ 0) l> -P I"
C^ ^-5 ' S< ^' '~
; V r-l - 0 0 r-
•. & w -cj ::
tr\ 4 -i > r~< • -•)
^ UJ -J -^ t J '1
o i; (j w '•> '
•v 'c3 (1 O CU ' •-
^ 3 U M M ^
rH r^ .. f-'
0 CO -M C) f-' '
r- -ri ri .c: -•
- M ,q i. -^ -*• '
« »
^- w
*
(
1

-------
                                                                          386

        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                              uLuob BD^

-------
                                                              387
      	—	.	


                              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 I   revenues per kilowatt hour  are proper measurements of
   I

 5 ij   cost of electric service to residential consumers,


 6 I             If you look in the heading "Average bill" and


 7 j   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 ij   and on January 1, 1969, $10.32.
   ji
10 I             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
   I
1#    and the benefits of greatly improved technology and science.
   i

19              Now, page two is a chart.  The figures are somewha


20 i'l   out of date.  They show percentage  changes, 1964 to 1969,
   ,i

21    but they make a point that is still valid.  The bar at the
   i
22 i'l   left  is the  electrical bill, and you can see what has hap-
   ji

23 11   pened to other service prices.
   I
24 I             Now, to go on,  I would like  to make just a bit
   !

25    of a  comment on the electric utilities that are involved

-------
 1 I1                            J. K. -Langum

 2    here.  The major electric utilities located along Lake
   i
 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 i   four States — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin

      — represented at this Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference.

14               Fair rates of  return which cover costs of debt
   I
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

lg    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

-------
                                                               339

   f|


 -j_ ;;                           J. K, Langum

   
-------
   	390





 1                           J. K. Langum



 2   and total  common equity.



 3              You will notice the very remarkable record of



 4   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.



 8              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



18   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




25    (See  p.  375) of my  exhibit, I have quoted — I have

-------
 1
 2 ||
 3 I
   I
 4 I
   i
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12 !|
13 il
14
15
16
17 i
   |i
18 |!
19
20
21
22
23
   |l
24 l
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 $2#0 million.
           May  I appraise that in terms  of the  size  of these
 companies?  Page B (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


                              J. K« Langum

      below the ratio.  Year-by-year these are running at about

      9 percent — up above, a little below — on an average

      exactly 9 percent for these several years,
   !j
 5 j|             On page 9  (See p. 377), I have made there an
   ||
 5 ij   estimate based upon  the last survey of the "Electrical
   il
 7 |   World," and recent estimates by the Federal Power Commission

 g i   of total capital expenditures in the whole electric utility
   i
   i
 q !   industry in the two  decades ahead.

                The Federal Power Commission, for example, for

      the  decade 1971-1930 is estimating $l£0 billion, and the

n p !   Chairman of the Federal Power Commission has estimated that

      in 1990, in present  prices, not allowing for further

      inflation, total capital expenditures of the entire industry

      will be some $40 billion.

                Now, on page 10  (See p. 378) f I have started off

      with the required investments over the two decades per

      Mr.  Warren.  I then  projected capital expenditures for the   i

      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 I   for  the entire industry in the Nation should be  $4#5 billion
23

24
25
       and if the share of that  continues the  same for the  electric

       utilities using Lake Michigan water for cooling as a percent


       of electrical utility industry in the Nation — 9 percent —

-------
    	            393

   I
 1 j                           J. K. Langum
   i
 2 I   then in the two decades ahead, the projected capital
 *"* i
   I
 3 i   expenditure, 1971 to 1990, of the electric utilities using
   11
 4 ij   Lake Michigan water for cooling would be some $43>650,000,000

 5    and the ratio of the required investment over the two decades;,

 6    $280 million, to the &43,650,000,000 is 0.6 of 1 percent.

 7              My conclusion in my prepared statement on this

      matter is simply this:  that the required investment neces-
   ,
 9 !   sary to install or build auxiliary cooling facilities as

10    against once-through cooling with thermal discharge of

11    heated water in electric utility plants now in existence,

12 I   in plants under construction, in plants now planned, and

13    plants projected to meet needs for electric energy over the

14    next two decades would amount to about $2SO million.  This

15    added capital investment necessary to prevent thermal pollu-

16    tion comes  to about 0,6  of 1 percent of total capital

17    expenditures, $43,650,000,000 estimated at current prices for
                                                                   !
lg    the years 1971 through 1990  for these major  electric

19    utilities on Lake Michigan,
   11
20              Now, Consumers Power Company and intervenors

21    announced on March 16, 1971,  a settlement of the  dispute

22     over the Palisades nuclear powerplant on Lake Michigan.

23     I think that both the  intervenors  and Consumers Power

24     Company merit  the  congratulations  upon the agreement and


25     the major  step,  in my  opinion, toward the public  good,  and

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 i
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
 	394
[
i
                           J, K. Langum
   a tribute to both the intervenors and Consumers Power
   Company as a private enterprise.
             The intervenors described the company program as
   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
   The company stated:  "Such facilities are in addition to
   those  required by law and will cost an estimated $15 million,
   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
   expenses,  as well as fixed charges on the invested capital,"
              The additional revenues in excess of  $3 million
   to  cover  this additional annual cost would be less than 1
   percent of the  company's total  electric revenues in 1970,
   They would increase the monthly electric bill of the
   average residential  customer, in my judgment, by 10  cents
   or less,  a percentage  increase  of about 0,7 of  1 percent.
24 j|              Mow,  if I might turn in the  exhibit material  to
25     what is page 11, without a page number on it (See p.  379),

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6 i!
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Id
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	395
                        J, K. Langum
 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.
 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.
          Page 12  (See p, 3SQ) 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, 3Sl) 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, 332) 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
   ir~
   ii
 1 !|                           J» K. Langum
   ij
 2 ij   1970, $26,904,476.
   \]
 3 l|             Consumers Power Company now has an application
   f
 L 'i   for an increase in electric rates before the Michigan Public
 ^ i
 5

 6
 7
 9
10
13
19
21


22


23


24


25
Service Commission, $28,500,000 on an annual basis.  Consumers


Power Company is incurring additional costs all of the time.


The increase in cost to purchase an interchange power one


year to another, $5,300,000.  The increase in cost of fuel


consumed in electric generation of 1969 to 1970, $11,300,000,


The increase ani interest on debt from 1969 to 1970,
11 !i   $3,900,000.
   | i

12 II             Now, the $3 million additional cost and additional
revenues is another cost.  It presses on earnings but in
14 I   terms of the framework of the company, you can see it is

   I i
1$ !   something which it will take in  stride.
   I ]

16 |j             And at the bottom of the page, I estimate that


17 jl   the increase in the monthly bill to the average residential
   ii

13 jl   customer will be about 10 cents  or about 0.7 — not 0«3 —
0.7 of 1 percent increase.
20 Ij              Now, then,  in  conclusion,  if I may make  some
comments about Commonwealth Edison Company, estimates have


been made by Commonwealth Edison Company as to the cost of


cooling facilities at its Zion Units 1 and 2,  The data on


that are shown last in the exhibits.  Page 15 (See p. 333)


is a copy of what I understand to be the revised estimates

-------
   	397
   r
   1i
 1 ji                           J. K# Langum
 2     of  Consumers Power on dry mechanical draft cooling towers*
   !
 3 I    But what  is relevant here really is page 16 (See p» 3#4)t
   !]
 •  ij    as  I understand  it, on  so-called wet mechanical draft cool-
   II
 5 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,
       because apparently the  operating and maintenance costs
10     have been stated and listed in  the equivalent invested
       dollars — they  show $116,£55,000 of
TO     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
       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 68  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  IS  (See  p, 3#6), I have made an
25     attempt,  again,  to put  this into  some  context as I did for

-------
                                                              393
                              J0 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
 L    available to me, an evaluation of the impact of the addi-
 5    tional annual cost of $18,930,510 from the installation of
 6    wet mechanical draft cooling towers  which would be incurred
 7    by Commonwealth Edison if they were installed.  The total
      electric revenue of the company in 1970, $386,992,000.
                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, $85 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
16    other electric utility and every business, is in a hard
      race  between sales and expenses.  Here are a couple of
lg    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 $18 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
   |
 1 i!                           J. K* Langum
 *• ii
   ii
 2 i   Edison*s figures, but translating them out in proper fashion,
 3!   in my form, as I see it, that the estimated increase in the
 4 !   monthly bill to the average residential customer using
   j
 5    Commonwealth Edison's total cost figures would be about 25
 6 i   cents or less than a 2 percent increase,
   i
 7 i             I have two objections to the Commonwealth Edison's
      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 !   Edison is using a figure of $53.12 capital investment in
      total per kilowatt of capacity.
                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.
2i              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.

-------
 1
 2 i
 3
 4i
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	400
                        J, K, Langum
          Now, the  second point of difference between me
 and Commonwealth  Edison on this matter of cost is not a
 matter of suspicion.  On this matter, I think they are wrong^
 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 $116,855,000, with additional annual costs
 — annual costs —  and necessary increases in electric
 revenues on  this  account of $18,930,510*
          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
 for about 38 percent  of the company's electric revenues.
 Commonwealth Edison estimated an increase of 68 cents
 per month to the  average residential customer or about a
 6  percent increase.  For other cooling devices, percentage
 increases of 25 percent or more are estimated.
          Now, I  think this approach is fallacious in com-
 putation and I think  it is incorrect as a matter of
 economics.   Using Commonwealth Edison*s total cost estimates
 but applying them proportionately to 1970 electric sales to

-------
                                                              401



                                 J, K, Langum


 2    residential  customers as compared with total electric sales


 ^ j   and  giving consideration to the larger energy production in


      the  Commonwealth  Edison system after the Zion units are in


      operation, the  added cost per month to the average resi-


      dential  customer  appears to be more like 25 cents or a


      percentage increase of less than 2 percent.


                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

   i!
12 i   installation of cooling towers, namely $21, then this


13    estimate of  added cost to the customer — residential


       customer per month would not be 25  cents, it would be a


15 i   little over  10  cents a month? somewhere between 10 and 15
   i
16 |    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 j   percentage-wise not  to residential  revenues but, of course,


21    to total revenues.  The  prospectus  page B  (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
                                J.  K.  Langum
 2    related to the average residential customer,  it would be a
 3    wholly different thing.  That rate increase of $36 million
 j.     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
      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
19    describing that in their current annual report and in their
2Q    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 2# 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


                              J.  K. Langum


 2    if it were all related to the average monthly bill of the

 •s    average residential customer.

 •               That figure is shocking, and I will not give it

 c    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 6$-cent

19    bar  chart —
   I
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. Languni
 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
 g    one basis and you are presenting it on another and I would
 9    be interested in your comments,
10              DR, LANGOM:  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





 1                            J.  K.  Langum



 2    taxes, depreciation — that would give $13,930,510 as



 3    the estimated annual cost from the installation of the



 4    proposed cooling towers.  That $13,930,510 I use in different




 5    comparisons, as you will recall0



 6              Now, then, if that figure of $13,930,510 added



 7    cost per year is divided by 3,30?»635, the number of



 g    residential customers of Commonwealth Edison, we get $$.20



 9    per year added cost, and then if we divide $3.20 by 12, we



10    get exactly 63 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




1^    12 months ending June 30, 1970.



1^              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



2i    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


 1                            J, K. Langum

 2              DR. LANGUM:  Yes.  I have shown American Electric
   i
 3    Power Company in my financial comparison because it is the

 4    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 B (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 & (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.



16               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  |   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



 g    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



16    respect to Consumers Power and the additional cost per



17    customer on the system, this relates only now to the



lg    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                            J, K, Langum
 2     in this paper,
 3              DR, LANGUM:  Yes, that is true.  You are quite
       right, of course, that the only place these additional costs
 5     can  come is from the revenues paid to the public utility by
 6 i    the  consumer, because the utilities have no funds, and the
 7     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
10     figure, and that only* And I recognize that Consumers Power
11     Company has other situations where additional costs may be
12     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
17     electric utility, every business, is in a hard, desperate
       race between sales and expenses, between sales and invested
19     capital.  This is one additional expense, I think, that is
20     so small in relation to residential customers and in rela-
21     tion to the overall affairs of the company, that we should
22     take no chances with any possible thermal discharge. But
23     I recognize it is added cost, and I have tried to make
24 i    certain appraisals of it,
25              MR, PURDY:  Yes, I think you have pointed it out

-------
                        J. K. LANGUM                  	^
        very clearly in your paper, but frequently others pick up




 2      figures and quote them possibly out of context, and this



 o      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




, g.      like to bring you back — and this is for a point of clari




,/•      fication — to page 2 of your general statement, where you



17      take Mr. Warren's figures, and you say that it is "...



, a      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."





25

-------
     	411
 1 |                            J*  K.  Langum
   i
 2               Then you take this and you say  this will  increase
   i
 3 !    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 ij              I have not measured,' I am  not able  to  measure
   i
   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. STEINi  All right.  Now,  we have heard  your
18     figures on Consumers Power, and I think this  is  --  and
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
2k     what, 6£ cents?
25               DR. LANGUM:   Yes, sir.

-------
                                                               412





 1                             J.  K.  Langura



 2               MR,  STEIN:  And then you used their  computation,



       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.



 5               DR.  LANGUM:  Yes.  I would  like  to amend that



 7     last, as I did,  10 to 1$ 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



11     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.



15               However, somewhat more than that is  involved



16     because this covers only the added capital investment, and



17     there are certain operating and  maintenance costs, and



lg     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




 1 |j                         J. K. Langum



 2   because this is very helpful indeed.  Let me
   i

 3   go  back to  page  2f   Wh^t I  would like to know is how



 4  I typical these  analyses  of the Palisades  and Commonwealth



 5   Edison you  might  figure, if  you can,  are to the kinds of



 6   increases we might  expect in plants now  plannedtWould these

    1

 7   figures of  about from 10 to 1$ cents,  you think,  apply — let's



 &   make the  assumption —  within the present day prices?



 9             DR.  LANGUM:   We would have  to  make that because



10   these figures  will  certainly go up  over  the years*



11             MR.  STEIN: Yes.   But would you assume that this



12    is pretty typical of the plants now planned — of these



13    two plants  you analyzed?



14              DR.  LANGUM:   Yes,  I think the  figure for  Consumers



15    Power Company  is a very accurate figure.



16             MR,,  STEIN:  I understand.  But how would  that



17    apply, say, to other plants, in your  opinion, which you



18    haven't analyzed?  Is this a typical  one?



19              DR.  LANGUM:   I have not —  I have simply  not



20    studied other similar matters for other plants.   So  I can't



21    say that it is typical generally.  However, Commonwealth



22    Edison and Consumers Power Company are  very, very large



23    companies and just those two companies would bulk very large,



24    as you know from the figures,  in the totality of the electric



25    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
 g    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 backfitting; 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

 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

 3    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
   i
16 j   conclusion,  I think that these two cases are large

17    enough  and clearcut  enough  to  offer, as I say, a starting

IB    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  I  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

   i
 1 I                           J, K. Langum

 2     additional  investment, and the additional cost of the cool-

 3     ing  towers  or  other  facilities are in terms of the company's

       overall  operation. A"1"1 I think in terms, again, of the par-

 5     ticular  bearing  of the increase in cost to residential

 5     customers,  that  there is — that while the specific studies

 7     for  Commonwealth Edison and Consumers Power Company are

       specific studies and not to be just taken as typical, they

 9     are  for  important enough companies and important enough

10     situations  to  thoroughly justify that generalization in

       terms of the overall pricing  of electricity.

12              MR.  STEIN: Thank you,

13              Mr.  Purdy,

                MRo  PURDI: Yes.  Mr. Stein, again, now, so that

15     I don*t  misunderstand the analysis, in attempting to project

16     this, when  you say 10 cents per customer on the Consumers

17     system,  you are  talking about spreading this cost of the

lg     Palisades plant  to all of the customers now on the Consumers

19     system.   Is this correct?

20              DR.  LANGUM:  That is correct.  And the 10 cents

2i     is how the  share of  how the residential revenue share of

22     total revenues  and  share of  the added  $3 million cost —

23     what that would mean to the residential customer.

24              MR.  PURDY:  So  let's say you  had another twin

25     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. LANGUM:  Yes, that is correct, if it were
 7     something just like Palisades.  And it would be 20 cents
 8     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
18     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
 1 i                           J. K. Langum
 2              MR. PURDY:   Okay.
 3              MR. STEIN:   All right.  Are there any other
 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. STEIN:   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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                              420

 1                            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.
                 How  many others did you have on your list of
14     thermal participants?
15               MR,  BLASER:  Illinois  has really two more.
16               MR.  STEIN:   Two more?
17               MR.  BLASER:  Yes.
                 MR.  STEIN:   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?
2/t>               MR.  BLASER:  All right.  Mr. Beruard 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.
                MR. STEIN:  The Atomic Energy Commission wishes
      to make an additional statement.  As you know, I did make
      a statement for them this morning in accordance with the
      instructions from that Commission, but I think since Mr.
 9    Conti has askod for this, and they want to clarify the
10    record, it would be best if AEC 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





                               £.  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
                       COUNCIL OF LIBERAL  CHURCHES,
                            CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


                 MR.  BIALAS: I am Mike Bialas.   I am the  Chairman
 o     of the Committee on Environment for the Chicago Area Council
10     of Liberal Churches, and I come as  leader of that group as
11     well as a private citizen.
1?               I have prepared  a statement here.  I only have a
13     few extra copies here,  and a few extra  comments afterwards.
                 A question from  the American  Museum   of Natural
       History which I got in the mail with an advertisement  says:
       "What«s filling Lake Michigan faster than waste?"  And the
17     answer that they gave was algae.
                 And the University of Michigan researchers,  spon-
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  aifiru
25     the complete  breakdown of the  food chain  process.

-------
                                                              424

   P
 1                          M, E. Bialas

 2 ji             To go into the contradictory statements of the

 3    Technical Committee report and all the fine points of the

 4    issue would be to continue to fiddle while Rome burns,

 5    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

 7    dilemma* I hear all kinds of time periods and dates ban-

 g    tered about here today,  such as  "by 1976," "in 32 months

 9 |   or  42 months while they  are installing cooling towers."

10    But we only have 2 years left for our vital Lake Michigan,

H    We  don't have time to continue haggling over the rules of

-10 !   the game when we are so  close to the end.  What does it
   I

13 i   require  to make our leadership in government and business

14 I    see their responsibility?  All our activities, even to edu-

15 i    eating our young, are worthless  if we leave a lifeless

16    heritage.

                In  every area  and  in every way, we continue to

      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

-------
                                                             42$


   i

 -,  j                           M. E. Bialas
 •*• I

 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-


      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


 o    all  pollutants or suspected  pollutants — heated water,


10    chemicals,  oils, pesticides,  fertilizers, municipal waste


      products,  everything.   Short  of  that, we must  examine each


      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



17     available.


                 Pesticides must be completely  discontinued  and


19     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 3tudy.  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  int
-------
   	427





 1                            M. E. Bialas




 2    kind of am wary even of regulatory agencies — people who



 3    are supposed to protect our environment.  I know in a



 4 !   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



 g    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



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.



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



13    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.




2/»-    You talked about polluters, and you said "Stop or shut down.1




25              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 into



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



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




2/»-     would have to backoff on immediate stopage because you




25     have to have drinking water.

-------
                                                               429
 1 ji                           M.  E.  Bialas
   ii
 2 i|             MR.  STEIN:  Right.   We  can't  do  without water,
 3


 4


 5

 6
 7
 9
11
16
17
20
21
22
23


24
25
      but we  can  do without  electricity,


                MR. BIALAS:   Yes, to the  extent  that we want  to


      in this country  right  now.


                MR. STEIN:   Consider the  poor  unfortunate  soul


      like  me,  who lives  in  Fairfax, Virginia, and has a well,


      and  I don't have electricity, I  can't  pump water from the


      well.  How  am I  going  to get water  if  you  turn off the
10 ||    electricity?
                 MR.  BIALAS:   It is a matter of priority.   That
12     is the important thing on this issue.

   ii
13 ji              MR.  PURDY:   Mr. Stein,  if we would follow that
   Ii
   !l
14 l|    same line of thinking, with respect to municipalities and


15 ii    where there is a pollution problem in  a municipality, and


       so now you shut off the sewage treatment  plants, you don't
       need any water anyhow.  (Laughter)
13               MR. STEIN:  I guess that is right.  I want to do

    I
19  !   that anywayc  I am trying to convince my wife to have that
       green concrete.
                 Any other comments or questions?


                 Thank you very much, sir.


                 MR. BIALAS:  Thank you.


                 MR. BLASER:  That concludes the list for Illinois,


                 MR. STEIN:  Well, we have some from Wisconsin*,

-------
                            	430
                            Mrs. M. Ga Dahl
 2              MR. FRANCOS:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to call
 3    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


                 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
 Q     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
14     allowing me time to be heard.  I am Miriam G. Dahl of
15     Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Mrs. for those who are interested.
l£               I am an interested citizen directing my efforts
17     for good conservation through many organizations, but
lg     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 I    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



1#     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
       20^0 - 2C54-  'Act 1970  Workshop Sessions

-------
 3 !

 4J
10
11
12
13


14


15


16


17 i
19
20
21
22
23


24
     	433


                           Mrs. M. G. Dahl


      and really  not  necessary at all —  even the 1° — if we use


      our ingenious expertise to find new methods.


               We request  addition of the following to the  orig-
  i
5 j|    inal  statements which we have asked to be incorporated today
  11

5     While giving full  attention to the analysis of the present


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-


      sive  monstrosities,  cluttering,  if not defacing,  any land-


      scape, and using precious  earth  footage. We  are talking


      about starvation in the near future.  We are  talking about


      over  population.   In another breath we are talking about


      building this sort of a monstrous business only to  cool


      water.  It doesn't make very much sense  from  a conservation


      point of view.


                Alternate methods of  cooling  can be developed.


      We believe this.   We may  need a  new approach. Perhaps we


      even need a new map, but  presently refrigeration can


      accomplish most of the  cooling,  so I  am  told  by  engineers,


      and the finishing  of the  cooling could  be  done with  a


      pond or smaller cooling troughs.  A  pond could  serve as a


      recreational area  or an experimental  area  which  we do


      need, and this would provide multiple use.


                Energy from the cooling also  ought  to  be

-------
                                                              434
 1
 2
 3
   i
 4
 5
 6
 7
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
 23
 24
 25
                      Mrs. M. G» Dahl
redirected to useful purposes.  Not allow it to be thrown
off as waste0  We are doing too much of that, and not enough
recycling of our resources.  New methods of producing
nuclear power using lighter elements — and I am sure you
gentlemen have heard of this recently — instead of the
heavy elements would eliminate entirely, I am told, the
reactive wastes, and this in itself would create disposi-
tion of a very large problem with which we now are concerned*
This method could produce energy enough from one gallon of
sea water equivalent to using 300 gallons of fuel oil,
and if you will divide the use per annum of our fuel oils
and our gases presently available, you will see that we
have some concern within the next 20 years over what we
will use for fuel.  We should be thinking of those things
as well in the whole context.
          It may be well that the answers are here now
eliminating many of those problems with which we are
wrestling today.  Let us be aware of these developments,
and rapidly include them into economic use.  And I stress
that again:  Rapidly include them — the new development —
into our economic use.
          Let us build our new economic structures with
the idea of adaptability as these new methods develop.
          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?




                  Mrs. Dahl,  let me  take a minute with you because



        I really do think — and I say  this in the broadest




        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-




        mont but 3  within a  mixing  zone of 1,000 feet.  I think




        W3 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



jo      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 ma-jor engineering finis




 /,,      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,




10      doesn't quite do this.



                  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




        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




2Q      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




        processes are always described, but I ask you to reconsider



25      As I have seen it here right today, the citizen

-------
                                          	437


                             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 I    skepticism  and see what they can produce, not what they

 7     claim.

                 MRS, DAHL:  Thank you very  much*  And if I may

       say so, I did compliment you with all earnestness over

10     what you are doing.  May I  also add that this kind of

       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

       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

       nothing works.  I have 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*

24               MRS. DAHL:  Or as well heated.

25               I thank you.

-------
                                                              43$

 1                          Mrs* C. L. Palmer
 2              MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 3              MR. FRANCOSs  Thank you, Mrs, Dahl,
 4              Mrs. Louis Palmer.
 5
 6              STATEMENT OF MRS. CLAIRE L* (LOUIS H.)
 7              PALMER, CITIZEN, RACINE, WISCONSIN
 S
 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«  Stoermer'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.

 r               Only by  strong regulations well  enforced  can we
   i

 5     hope to reverse this  trend0   I urge this Conference to


 5     adopt the thermal  discharge regulation  suggested by the


 7     Environmental Protection Agency, and to arrange strong


       enforcement procedures.


                 Thank you,  gentlemen.


in               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. STEIN:   Yes* Go ahead.


17               MRC FRANCOS: — lady  who would  like to appear


       at this time, please.

19               MR. STEIN:   You  know — let's go off the  record


20     now.

                 (Discussion off  the record.)


22               MR. FRANCOS: Mrs.  Robert Erickson, please.


23


24


25

-------
                                                              440

                            Mrs. R, Erickson
 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
 9     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.
13               We are concerned about the pesticide problem in
       relation to  Lake Michigan,  I myself sat through approxi-
15     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
21     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
   i

 2     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 realizing 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 II    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


l£     trout range up,  some of them, to  14 parts per million.


19     These were largely  caught in  Door County, where the DDT


20     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.

-------
   	442





 1                         Mrs, R. Erickson



 2             Because of this, the Audubon Council would like



 3   to  say that we should protect the ecosystems of Lake Michi-



 4   gan.  We believe that DDT and the chlorinated hydrocarbons



 5   should be banned by the four States adjoining the lake,



 6   and in addition should be banned on a National level.  The



 7  "agrichemical"industry for short-term profits should not be



 g   allowed to pollute the food chains of Lake Michigan,



 9             Now, I  will turn to something in relation — two



10   things in relation to powerplants.  We are concerned about



11   radiation in a similar way.  Radiation can build up in the



12   food  chains in the same way that DDT can build up in the



13   food  chains,  Dr, Malcolm Peterson has published some



14   information from the Hanford Plant in Washington where Z inc^-



15   65  was present in the waters below the Hanford plant.  This



16   was at quite a low level and the algae and the micro-organismi,



17   then  it was picked up at a higher level by the small fish and



lg   a higher level still by the larger fish.  It was also picked



19   up  in the plants that were irrigated by the waters of this



20   stream, and then the cows, and so forth, that  fed on these



21   plants further concentrated this radiation,



22             They found that — in the river — there were a



23   very  low level of heat of  picocuries — 1.BB — in the drink-



24   ing water,  A man who had been using this for drinking water



25   ended up with 4»000, but a man who drank the milk and ate

-------
 1                         Mrs. R. Erickson
 2    the beef that had fed on the plants irrigated with this
      water had 36,000 picocuries.
 A              So you see, at this point, man was getting to be
 5    the top of one of these food chains where radiation could
 5    concentrate,
 7              You can do the same thing with things such as
      cesium 137,  If the lake had only 50 percent of the atomic
      energy standards, and one ate a very large fish from this
      lake, he would from that one fish — one pound of it —
11    he would have his whole body burdened of cesium from that
12    one meal,
                I am not implying that our plants are going to be
      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,
      and  so forth,  can build up in the food  chains and become
      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  I   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,

-------
   	444





 1 j                        Mrs. R. Erickson



 2     I realize this is a little bit of pie-in-the-sky still,



 3     but maybe that vrf-.ll 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,



 g              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




 -^                           Mrso R.  Erickson




 2              There is also electrogasdynamics.  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



 g     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 dams0 Turbines could be  installed there without



       any particular detrimental effect to the environment,



16     than  the already  installed  dam,



17              If we would put equal funds into some of these



1#     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
 4     has to  be done.  We can't go on forever.
 5              MR. STEIN:  That is better than having these
 5     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     nie that we could have a rate structure that would discour-
       age the large uses of power.  It may reflect the economic
14     picture to the power company right  now, but I  do not
15     believe it reflects the  economic picture of the deleterious
       effect  on the  environment.
                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,
15              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
lg     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.  PURDI:   Yes,  Mr.  Stein.
24               Several people, during the course of this
25     Conference, have touched on the matter of radioactivity

-------
 1                         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
                                                                  i
 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.
13              MR. STEIN:  I think the Minnesota Board took the
14    same position the Illinois boys have,
                I don't want to comment on that.  If an AEC
16    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
      — 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
   i
 Q_ j                        Mrs. R. Erickson
 2     turned  over  to  the  Federal  Government at the  Federal level
 3 I    exclusively.  I don't happen to hold to that  particular
 4     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              MR0 STEIN: Well, I  cannot speak for  radioactivity
 g     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
11     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.
1^               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
lg     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

-------
                                                                450




                             Mrs.  R,  Erickson



 2     matter of fact,  I am not sure  that  you  and your predecessors



 o     were with me on  Lake Erie,  Lake Michigan and Lake Superior



 •      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.



.., ;              MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?  You


-_     know I would like to take this chance to comment on one


.g     aspect of your statement, and  that  is on your radioactive



_Q     cumulative effect of Zinc-65 and that kind of material,



                 Years  ago  — I guess in the fifties — we had



       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
24

       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. ERICKSON:  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
IB    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

 4     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

 9     Indiana; two  predecessors to Mr. Purdy, Mr. Adams from

10     Michigan,  and myself; I  think the Illinois representative

11     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

       1948 —  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               In  other words, this is one of the problems we

«T     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
15
   I

-------
    	453



 1 jl                         Mrs. R. Erickson
   i

 2  \            MR. MAYOs  By way of observation, Mr, Chairman,


 3    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-


      raent is going to preempt the State Government on some of


      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


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-


14    erably more  severe than either the State Government or


15    the Federal  Government would currently consider imposing*


16              MR. CURRIE:  Mr. Chairman, if preemption is no


17    longer important I wish somebody would ask the Congress


lg    to  stop putting it in their statutes,


19              MR0 STEIN:  Well, I didn't say that.  This is an


20    interesting  observation.  If individual action by citizen


2i    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 ;                          Mrs. R. Erickson
   i
 2              MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions and
 3 i   comments?
   I
 4 I             MR. FRANCOS:  Mrs. Erickson, we thank you for
 5    stimulating this interesting dialogue.
 6              MRS. ERICKSON:  All right.
 7              MR. STEIN:  By the way, I do have a sister in
 g    Philadelphia.
 9              MR. MAIO:  Does she love her brother?
10              MR. STEIN:  Oh, yeahj  Don't push that too far
11    though!   (Laughter)
12              Do you have any more?
13              MR. FRANCOS:  No, that completes our citizen
14    participation,
l^              MR. STEIN:  Well, let's go  State-by-State.
16              Michigan?
17              MR. PURDY:  These are  comments now other than —
lg              MR. STEIN:  —  other than — and what we are
19    going to do  is  run this through  the States as we did before,
20              You will get one  shot  and then we can come around
21    to you again*
22              JAMES B. HENRY:   Mr.  Chairman, do I understand
23    you are now going to  something other  than thermal  effects?
24              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




 3     cominp,  who have come here at their own time and expense,



       and they have many pressures, the judgment that I gave to




       th^ conferees, and I heard no dissent,  was that we were




 6     p-oinr" to call, on the citizen groups first.  Then we would




 7     ^ivo the Arhitever 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




12     onr presentation on thermal  effects.




                 MR. STEIN:  With that objection, I will poll the




TI     conferees snd 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.



                 MR. STEIN:  How about you?



                 MR. CURRIE:  I don't  believe  we have any. Mr.



22     Blaser had the list but I think it is exhausted.




                 MI?. STEIN:  How about Wisconsin?



                 MR. FRANCOS:  I think we are  finished.




                 MR. STEIN:  I think this is a moot question.

-------
    	456
   i
   |
 1                          Mrs, L. Botts


 2              MR. HENRY:  Very well,  I withdraw the objection,
   i

 3              THE REPORTER:  Who was that from the floor?
   I
   ! i
 4 ji             MR. STEIN:  Oh, pardon me.  Would you identify


 5 |j   yourself?


 6              MR. HENRY:  Yes.  James B. Henry, Vice-President


 7    and General Counsel of American Electric Power Service


      Corporation.

 9              MR, 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


12    Mason County Anti-Pollution Action Council.  Both asked


13    for an opportunity to present a statement.


14              I understand that they are not present, but that
   |
15    they have presented their statements to Mrs, Botts to


16    give on their behalf*

17              MR. STEINs  Mrs. Botts, we can't do without you.


lb ;|   Please let us have your attention.
   I
19              MR. PURDY:  The statements from the Manistee


20    County and Mason County Anti-Pollution Committees,


21

22


23


24


25

-------
                                                             457


                               Mrs.  L.  Botts
   j
 2

 3               STATEMENT OF THE MANISTEE COUNTY ANTI  POLLUTION

 4 |                            ORGANIZATION (MACAPO)

 5                           (READ BY MRS. LEE BOTTS)
   i

 6

 7               MRS. BOTTS:  Thank you very much.

 3               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.

17               Since that time, we have pinpointed dozens of

lg     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 P¥QA.

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 Commissijm

-------
    	__	458




 1                             Mrs. L. Botts



 2     to Manistee for its January meeting.  At this meeting we



 3     heard that some timetables for pollution abatement have been



 4     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



 B     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 vrill



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 I                            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





                              Mrs.  L.  Botts



 2     Michigan Water Resources  Commission  cannot  precisely  define



 3     the word "injury," then they  cannot  use  the word.



                 By the  Michigan Water  Resources own  admission,  5



 5     Michigan industries contribute  50 percent of the total



 6     chloride input to Lake Michigan„  MACAPO has been  working



       to see a cease and desist of  chloride  disposal to surface




       and ground waters.



 o,               On October 2, 1970, MACAPO made a presentation



10     to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Workshop, at



11     which time we outlined the  vast  tonnages of chlorides



12     presently contaminating Lake  Michigan  from  industries in




13     the Manistee area.



                 The chloride problem of our  area  is  not  to be



15     taken lightly, but at the same time, we are amazed and appall



16     ed by the lack of compatible standards with our sister



17     States on the Lake Michigan shoreline.  We  of MACAPC, do



       not understand why a standard of  50 parts per million is



19     allowed by established standards of Michigan,  while our



20     neighbors to the  south,  Illinois and Indiana,  hold to a




21     standard of 9 parts per  million.



22               As you  are aware, the  Special Report No. 11



23     issued by the University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee, Center



24     for Great Lakes  Studies  under the direction of Dr. A, M.



25     Beeton, has issued a very vivid graph in Figure 10,

-------
                                                              463






 ,  j                            Mrs* 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




 r     surpassing the 9 parts per million allowed by our neighboring




 £     States.



 7               This, gentlemen, in essence says to our sister




 g     States of Illinois and Indiana, by the standards set, you




 a     can no longer have any chloride discharge to lake Michigan




-.Q     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




•jo     our chloride input to Lake Michigan and divide it by the




-, ,      total volume of Lake Michigan and say that we will never




TC     reach a  given parts per million.  It is unfortunate  when




^     intelligent people will add chlorides in this manner and




•17     disregard all those operating  on the same basis.



.^g               Let us,  just for once, sit down and consider the



30     whole  chloride  problem as contributed by large and small




20     discharger  alike,  and then  in  retrospect we  can  see the




2]_     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 zone" and  can  only



 8      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



18      State standards approved by the  Department of the Interior.



19      These new uniform water quality standards to  be  s:et 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
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 g              That concludes the statement from the Manistee
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                              Mrs. L. Botts
staffing so that the agencies empowered by law to preserve
Lake Michigan can function with the least amount of delay
and red tape.
          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.
County Anti-Pollution Organization sent to me by Mrs.
Carole Magnus of that group.
        STATEMENT OF THE MASON COUNTY ANTI POLLUTION
                  ACTION COUNCIL (MACAPAC),
                  (READ BY MRS. LEE BOTTS)
          MRS. BOTTS:  The second statement is from the
Mason County Anti-Pollution Action Council of Michigan, and
also concerns chlorides.  I am sorry I don't have copies
of this second statement, but I will supply this to the
reporter.,  This report is similar in content to the one
which was presented at a public meeting held by the Michigan
Water Resources Commission in Manistee on January 21, 1971.
          This organization, the Mason County Anti-Pollution
Action Council was formed in September of last year to

-------
     	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
12     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
IG     into Pere  Marquette River,  In addition, Dow discharges
2Q     effluent containing high concentrations of chlorides into
       Lake Michigan by way  of a 14-inch diameter pipeline which
22     runs from  the plant in Ludington to a point approximately
23     9,000  feet north of Point Sable and 500 feet from shore
       in about 15  feet of water.  This pipeline has been in
25     existence  since  1943* In the meeting of January 21, 1971»

-------
 1 ||                         Mrs. L. Botts



 2 j   the Water Resources Commission admitted that five point



 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



 g    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 63,000 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



 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               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



13     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


 1                           Mrs.  L,  Botts

 2 I    fault is in the circumstances,
   I
 3               What is needed is:   1)  regulation of industrial

 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-

 8     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
   i
   I
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 area?



                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



 n              It seems to me we are permitting degradation



10    and we have heard a lot of talk about Federal action.  I



11    still haven't seen it in Iowa, because you said the decision



12    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



16    appropriate if we could permit Mr. Purdy to make — he



17    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



22    express resentment at your comments, Mr. Dumelle, because



23    the Federal Government did, in fact, in the case of Iowa,



      take a positive action.  It did promulgate Federal stan-



25    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



       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




       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  g;et us very  far  in the  Lake Michigan  problem. But



•i,     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.



 4               Now, from the standpoint of chlorides, this men-



 5     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.



 9               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-



       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. Ownbey- 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 i



25     put into the lake  from  the  standpoint of  causing an injury.

-------
     	471

   i

 1 j|                         Mrs. L, Botts

   i
 2 i             Now, even though there was a great deal of inform-

   J!
 3 i   ation to indicate that chlorides were not, say, a problem


 4 i   or one that could be forecast in the immediate future,


 5    soaring past 3 milligrams per liter, I don't know — there


 6    are not too many waters in this country that will meet


 7    that level.


 8              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    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


18    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

-------
   	472





 1 j                         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



 4    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,



 g              MR, STEIN:  Do you care to make a further response



 9    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 B 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

      Michigan I would have done the  same thing.  But I think it

 3 I   points out the  ineffectiveness  of the Conference procedure,
   i
 4 ;   as it  is presently  drawn, and I hope when we get to the

 5    compliance schedules that somewhere in there we can work

      out procedure for taking another look at all these other

      industries,

                MR. PURDY:  Mr. Dumelle, you are  pushing me to

 9    the same point  that I have to make the same comment that

10    Mr, Mayo did and I  resent some  of your remarks, because —

11              MRc STEIN:  Could  you wait?  Let  me  try to do
   i
12 I   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 ii    state  the facts straight.  We  didn't permit the States to
   !j
16 i   pick their own  polluters or  pollutants.  The conferees
   1
lr(    came up with a  program  on certain municipal

lg     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
   i
24 i    procedure;  this points  up the  essential  strength  of the

25     conference procedure  because if anything has been overlooked

-------
                                                             474
                            Mrs,  L.  Botts
 2 i    — 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:
 n               1.  Either the dischargers are a violation of
10     the 1399 Act  and they are putting out an industrial waste
11     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.
                 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
                  3.   Thirdly — and this  is  another hat, as you
20      may know, that I wear — evidently the  different  States
2i      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
        	 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*



                 We have  four  States here.  If you feel that the



       four States  have differences in the  chloride requirements



       which are impeding different State programs and may not



       adequately preserve  the lakes,  just  let us know, I will



       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.



                 By the way, I hope you have cooled off by now,



15     Mr. Purdy,  (Laughter)



16               MR. PURDY: 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 raunicipali-



21     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 I    Lake Michigan.



25               Now, from the standpoint  of those that we said

-------
	476





                      Mrs* L* Botts



 had an  effect on Lake Michigan and came within the time



 schedules  established by this Conference, we relied upon



 the conclusions reached by the conferees at earlier Con-



 ferences*  And I know, at this time, of no conclusion that



 related to chlorides and found that chlorides discharged



 into Lake  Michigan from any State affected or endangered



 the health or welfare of persons in another State,



           Now, if there is information in the record of



 this Conference to show this finding — or at any other —



 I am ready to bring those —- or that information to the



 conferees  with time schedules and place them under the



 jurisdiction of this Conference,



           But until there is that finding, I do not believe



 that I  need  to place those industries under the time



 schedules  here.



           Now, secondly, there are many ways to accomplish



 things, and  earlier you pointed out the primary jurisdic-



 tion of the  State to carry out some of these actions,  I



 think this is now under way,  I think it is under way under



 a timely basis, and I hope that we do not delay programs



 that are now already under way and will go to their



 completion,



           MR, STEIN:  Mr, Dumelle,



           MR, CURRIE:  Mr, Chairman, did I understand you

-------
   	477


   |

 1 j                          Mrs.  L,  Botts


 2     to say that the subject of  chlorides was not a part of


 3     this Conference?


 4               MR. STEIN:   I did not0   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               MRo CURRIE:  I was just going to remind you of


 9     that,  What was it you said?


10               MR, STEIN:   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. CURRIE:  Mr.  Chairman, I move that —


18               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,
   I

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 —

-------
	47S





                      Mrs. L. Botts



 and 3)  bring this up as part of the Conference.(See  pp. 47&



          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



 of  the  chloride  problem at the conclusion of that.  Is



 that agreeable?



          MR, CURRIE:  I believe there is a motion on the



 floor,  Mr,  Chairman,



          MR0 STEIN:  Right,  All right, now, let's see



 what you want —



          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



 if  we can't get  one item at least somewhat closer to some



 conclusion  and then take up some other item.  We are just



 wandering all over the place here at this point,



          MR, MAYO:  I agree, Mr, Chairman, since chlorides



 are specifically mentioned on the agenda,



          MR. STEIN:  All right.  Let's poll the Stateso

-------
                               STATE OF ILLINOIS
                       189 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 9OO

DAVID P. CURRIE,CHAIRMAN           CH ICAGO, I LLI NOI S 6O6O2                   TELEPHONE
SAMUEL R.ALDRICH                                                      312-793-3620
JACOB D. DUMELLE
RICHARD J. KISSEL
SAMUEL T. LAWTON,JR.
                                              March 30,  1971
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

-------
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
JDD:rj

-------
                                                               479
   1	•	

 1 <                          Mrs*  L.  Bottn
   ii

 2 i              VJhat do you feel  in Indiana?

 3 j              MR,  MILLER:  Let's proceed with the testimony
   i,
 4 ij    from the power people on the thermal question0

 5 i              MR.  STEIN:   Mr. Purdy.

 6 |              MRc  PURDY:   I would, like to hear from the utili-

 7 1    ties now with  respect to the thermal problem.

                 MR.  STEIN:   I think  I bear a ground swell for

 9     that.  May we  proceed on that  basis?

10               Are  there any other  — I just want to go through
   i
11 ji    this for the record — there are no other people from
   i

12 !    Indianaj no other people from  Illinois; or Wisconsin who

13     wish to make statements now?
   !
14 :[              I do have one statesmen's in addition — a state-
   i
   i
15 ;    ment I would like to  put int-o the record, addressed to Mre

16 !j    Pancoe from Associate Profes;sor Thomas B. Roos of Dartmouth

17 i    College, Hanover, New Hampshire*.
   |i
lg |              I think a good portion of this was covered in

19     Mr. Pancoefs statement.  I  will distribute it to you,

20 i    but without objection this  vail appear in the record as
   i
21 |    if read.

22               (The above-mentioned statement follows in

23 i    its entirety.)
   !
   ii
24

25

-------
                                                               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    606)05
 5
       Gentlemen:
 6
                 The proposed us;e of Lake Michigan onshore surface
 7
       water as a coolant for power-generating nuclear reactors

       poses a  potential threat t;o 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 pJ.arit and animal, to a profound
14
       thermal  shock.  Although their duration at elevated
15
       temperatures will be  short: in terms of a human life, even
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, m;any minute plants and animals
22
       use small (less than  2°) fluctuations in temperature as
23
       signals  for developmental change'.  Brief exposure to elevatecjl
24
       temperatures is sufficiently likely to produce change in
25
       ism physiology and maturation to warrant a detailed study of

-------
                                                               431




                              T.  B.  Roos



       the effects of temperature on all of the  organisms  involved



 3     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
   I

 6 !i    be emphasized that the surface algae are  the sole base of



 7     the food chain on which all lake animal life depends:  a



       reduction in available fixed  carbon (i»e0,  starch and



 9     cellulose) will propagate  proportionally  through the  entire



10     ecological pyramid.



11               Thermal pollution itself poses  a special  problem
   i
   i

12 !    for the Lake Michigan Basin.   The V-shaped profile  of the
   i


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



lg i    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.
   i


25     The potential damage is great and irreversible.  I  doubt

-------
 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.)
                 MR.  STEIN:  I  have  a few statements here; one
       of Mrs. Mary Helen Dunlop.  (See p. 4$3)
                 Then I have  a  statement  of Mr. Polikoff of the
       Businessmen for the Public Interest which will be put in
       the record, as if read,  without objection.   (See pp.
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                              433
                                                BOX 563 WIL
H 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 Dunlop, 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 anything which might prove deleterious to the Lake.

 Therefore, we recommend to the conferees of the Enforcement
 Conference thec they tpke whatever action is necessary to
 prevent the use or discard of any persistent nesticide where—
 or in such manner as—it might enter Lake Michigan by wind
 drift or flow or runoff.

-------
                        6toM& %M&
                        9/
     FOP, IMMEDIATE RELEASE             CONTACT:  Alexander Polikoff or
                                                pavid Dinsiuor^ Comey
     MARCH 24, 1971                              109  N, Dearborn Street
                                                Chicago, 111, 60602
                                                (312) 641-5570


             RUCKELSHAUS CONGRATULATED ON THERMAL
             POLLUTION, CRITICIZED ON INDUSTRIAL-   -'":'V
             	    POLLUTION, BY BPI	,

     The federal Environmental Protection Agency, inay ..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 n
-------
GORDON SHERMAN
 President
  -XANDER POLIKOFF
 ^xecutive Director
MARSHALL PATNER
 General Counsel
DAVID DINSMORE COMEY
 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,  B.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
tnat 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,

-------
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.)

        Secojid, 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 c Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference that once concentration s 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
ALP:eo

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 i



                STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA ZLATOFF-MIRSKI,



 4 j                    HIGHLAND PARK,  ILLINOIS



 5 ;            (PRESENTED FOR THE RECORD BUT NOT READ)


 /• !

   j|             What do I expect from the Four-State Conference:
   11

 7

                1.  Restrictions on all industry so that Lake



      Michigan will not be used until after proof has been


 9
      presented that whatever they do will not upset the balance


10     _
      of nature in any way,


1T '
   j             2,  A committee to monitor Lake Michigan'with


12 I
   |i   representatives from the Conference, industry, science,


13 '
      ecology, including representatives of the surrounding



      community.  This committee must be properly funded so it


15
      can do the job effectively for a period of time to equal



   jj   the life of the industry or the lake,


17 !!
   |j             3»  Cooling towers,


1$ !
                4,  Complete safety from radioactive accidents



      at every level, from mining to transportation and storage,


20

                What do I expect from industry such as Commonwealth

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


   i
   L

-------
                         	          437b


                          P.  Zlatoff-Mirsky

 2 |              2.   Public and private recognition that  the
   i
 o     environment is more important than an unlimited supply  of

       electricity to everyone for any reason.

                 3c   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.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

IB

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------
    	433
 1                           Murray Stein
 2             MR. STEIN:  We will call on this end of the table
 3   first*
 4             Let's reconvene*
   i
 5             I think we are going to change the order in calling
 6   the industry and I will start at the other end of the table
     first,  I will be calling on Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana,
 3   and then Michigan for the power companies.  We will go from
     the inside out the other way around«,  I want to say
10 i  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,
jL5             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
13    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	

-------
    	  439



   !,

 1 I1                           C, A, Bane

   i

 2 !   representative?
   t
   j

 3              MRe CURRIE:  Yes, Mr, Chairman,  I have a card

   I


 4 !|   here that informs me that Mr, Charles A, Bane would like to
   I.


 5    be heard,

   I


 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
   [ i


11 j                       EDISON COMPANY




12



13              MRC BANEj  Mr, Chairman, gentlemen of the



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„

   i


17              We wish to cover certain points with respect to
   i
   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



21    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



24 !   this Four-State Conference to begin its concentrations as



25    of yesterday morning on requirements for the closed cycle

-------
       	490

   1
 1 jj                          C. A, Bane
   li
   i
 2 j    systems for electric utility generating stations,


 o              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-


       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

       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


       by the authors of the "white paper" of substantial modifi-


25     cations in the "white paper" by reason of that error and

-------
     	491





 1                            C» A,  Bane



 2 i    fundamental mistake*



 3               The second  reason that  sui*prises us in Illinois



 4     that the Administrator would  be will ing^ to rely on the



 5     "white paper," arises from  the circuiistance that the authors



 6     of the "white paper"  were unable  or unwilling or both to



 7     defend their work in  hearings before lihe Illinois Pollution



 g     Control Board, at  which our  company among others was pre-



 9     senting evidence  in contradistinction ,and on the same sub-



10     jects as that presented in  the "white paper."



11               The authors of the  "white paper" Mere invited by



12     the Illinois Pollution Control Board to  appe, ar before the



13     Board's hearings  so that there could be  a confrontation



14     and a direct dialogue between the authors; of -the "white



15     paper" and the witnesses being presented in II linois, and



16     that invitation was declined,



17               We, therefore, believe  that it can fa irly be



lg     said that when the Administrator  Ruckelshaus reJ lies upon



19     the "white paper" for his recommendation of clos ed cycle



20     systems, he is relying upon the document,  a:id it  is the



2i     only one that he  cited in his letter, the vsuLidit y of which



22     has been seriously disputed and which has not beei i proved,



23               We come now to the  regulations as propos ed by the



24     Federal Environmental Agency, and we must say that  by



25     reason of the study that we have  been able to give \ vhem over

-------
                                                              492
   n	
   i
 1 j                           C.  A.  Bane
 2    the past few days --  they  were not made  available to us
 3    until yesterday an d i ndeed we had to  scrounge  in order to
 4    obtain a copy — by i-eason of the study  that we have been
 5    able to give to t.hem, we are unable to perceive the thejne
 6    or the objective or  the thrust of the regulations,
 7              We would Iiave assumed from  Administrator
 g    Ruckelshaus* lejtter  that the point and objective of the
 9    regulations wa s to prevent the discharge of heat and heated
10    water into Lake Michigan.
11              However, the very first  sentence of  the proposed
12    regulations  indicates that  neither  in part A  nor in part
13    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, no r by vessels.  Therefore,  some conclusion seems
17    to have b« sen arrived at somewhere along the line that
lg    some amou nt of heat can be discharged into the lake but
19    no clue :' .s givun  as to the principle upon which the line
20    is drawn .
21               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 o n the part  of the Federal people to believe that pump
25    stora ge  systems ought to be allowed -- at least to some

-------
         	                                             493
   F                                                             ~~~


 1 !'                           C»  Ao  Bane
   ;i

 2 jj    extent — despite the fact that they also discharge heat

   it
 3 ii    into the lake,  or would do so if they were under con-
   ij
 4 !J    struction.


 5 i              And,  then,  of course, as a third point,  the
   i
   t
 6     permission which is given  to  plants discharging less than

   I
 7 |    a half a billion B.t.u. per hour — the situation which is


       covered in part A of the regulations, indicates that those


 9 i    plants also subject to the stated limitations in part A are


10     to be permitted to discharge  heat into Lake Michigan.


11               Consequently, as I  say, it seems to us that the
   I
12 i    object of the regulations  cannot be to prevent the heat
   i
   i

13     discharge into Lake Michigan  because of these very sub-


14     stantial exceptions which  are.not covered, and as to which


15     the discharge of heat is to be permitted.


16               It then occurred to us that perhaps an object


17     of the regulations was to  carry out what seemed to be the


lg     concern of the "white paper"  that the shoreline of Lake


19     Michigan should be protected  to the greatest extent


20     possible from being heated, and that perhaps we thought,


21     then, that the object of the  regulations, as proposed


22     here, was to achieve that  objective.  And yet, if I


23     analyze part B of the regulations, in connection with part


24  !   A, you find that whereas the  requirement for a closed circui


25     system applies to those plants utilizing a half billion

-------
   	494





 1                             C, A. Bane



 2    B.t.u. per hour or more.  The same restriction, of course,



 3    is now applied or proposed to be applied to plants that




 4    discharge less than that quantity.



 5              We have not made any precise computations but



 6    the fact of the matter is that by reason of the distinction



 7    drawn between part B and part A of the regulations, an



 g    BO megawatt nuclear plant probably would not  reach the half



 9    billion mark and  consequently would  be allowed under  part  A.



10    So that, whereas  the regulations seem to impose restric-



11    tions upon the large plant, the fact of the matter is that



12    the plants of a  size of #0 megawatts or thereabouts would



13    be permitted without restriction as  to number, and it is



14    possible  that the entire  rim  of the  lake,  under these



15    regulations,  could be  filled  with  £0 megawatt plants  or




16    less.



17               And indeed,  the thrust  of  the regulations,  if



lg    they  were to  become effective, might be to produce that



19     very  result.  Those who wish  to generate  nuclear  power



20     under these  regulations  can do  so, given  the  establishment



21     one  gO megawatt  plant, they wish  to  establish ten #0  megawat



22     plants.  And so  it seems  to  us  that  that  object  of the



23     "white paper" is not achieved by  the proposed regulations.



24               Then,  we come up with a third objective which



25     might simply be the protection of plankton and fish,  if that

-------
                                                              495
   r	
   i

 1 |                           C, A*  Bane
 ™* I

 2 I    is what the objective of the  regulation  is.  And yet upon
   1
 •3 i    closer study,  we find that  that  cannot be the  case, because
   I
 4     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-


 9 i    ton and the fish might be affected in Lake Michigan by
   ij
10     reason of the  intakes of various industrial and municipal
   i
11 |    water supplies.   And yet we find that that paragraph 10 is


12     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


16     are attempting to base themselves  upon.  Consequently, in


17     summary, we are confused as to what the  regulations are


       attempting to  achieve,  and  certainly there are no guide—

19     lines because  within the regulations themselves nor in the

20     statements that have been made here which can  give any

2i     guidance to the conferees,


22               If the object of  the regulations is  not to


23     prevent the discharge of heat into Lake  Michigan; if it


24     is not to prevent the diffusion  of heat  discharging
   i

25 i    facilities around the shore of the lake; if it is not to

-------
                                                              496

   I]
   ji

 1 J                          C. A. Bane


 2     protect  fish and plankton, then it is confusing as to just


 3     what  it  is that an attempt is being made to accomplish,


 4              One further matter has been ignored*  We would


 5     not have expected that regulations of this magnitude and


 6     having the ramifications that they have would have been


 7     presented without full studies of their effects upon the


 8     existing points of discharge of heated water into Lake


 9     Michigan, and upon the areas that are proposed.  We would


10     have  thought that the Federal Government in all of its


11     majesty  and with all of its resources could have accumu-


12     lated some valid estimates of what it is that they are


13     proposing to be spent in the way of capital expenditures


14     in order to  carry out these restrictions that are imposed


15     or proposed  in the regulations,


16              We would have thought that a proper concern for


17     the power situation and the energy situation in this


18     country  would have led to some  sort of an assessment of


19     what  these proposals would have meant to electric gener-


20     ating capacity throughout the country and in the midwest


21     region,  which is interconnected as a source of supply and


22     as a  receiver of electric energy with the rest of the


23 I    United States  except for the  State of Texas,


24               Attempts were made, I think, by questions directed


25     to the Federal witnesses, to  ascertain information along

-------
                                                               497
   r;	~	~	~~	
   11
   ii
   ii
 1 !,'                           G» A. Bane

   ii
 2 I    these lines.  The most that was given by Mr. Tichenor


 3     yesterday was a recalled statement of his as to what the
   i
   i
 4 |    evidence at the previous Four-State Conference showed with
   I

 5 i    respect to Zion.
   i
   !

 6 j|              We do not have the facilities for collecting the

   I
 7 |    overall results or the effects of these proposals*   But


 8     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
   ii

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


13     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-


21     round basis, and that an analysis be made of what that


22 j    means for the power situation*


23 j              Dr. Langum this morning was complimentary — I


24     don't know that he intended it as a compliment — but he


25     complimented the Commonwealth Edison Company,  among others,

-------
                                                              493





                             C, A* Bane



 2     on its  financial  stature, on its high regard and the high



 3     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



1Q     public  utility, you know, has to stand ready to serve all



11     who call  upon it, and we do not get advance notice, nobody



12     sends us  a letter or a telegram before a switch is turned



13     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



16     the situation that exists in New lork and on the East



17     Coast*   But I will  say that the reserve situation for this



       company is at a  seriously low level, and promises to be so



19     for this summer.  That  condition may continue for a year



20     or two despite  all  of the  efforts that management can



2i     make, and anything  that would lead to a turning down or a



22     slowdown or a shutdown  of  generating facilities could have



23     the most important  implications,



24               As a result of  all this, and the  importance of



25     it, Mr, Chairman, I am  asking,  and well I do ask, that the

-------
                                                              499

   r	'	•	~


 1 >                           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



 A. I    reaffirm and reconfirm the cost that  we have previously
 ^ i
   I

 5     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 Waukegah 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



14     little as the installation of  an additional pump would do



15     the job.



16               Well, we are not  satisfied, and I don't think



17     that you gentlemen of the Conference  ought  to be  satis-



18     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,



2$     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 3I2-7S6-75OO  CABLE: MAHSI
                              April 29, 1971
Mr. Murray Stein, Chairman
Four-State Lake Michigan
  Enforcement Conference
c/o Environmental Protection Agency
Water Ouality 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
MHVrhh
Enclosure
cc:  All conferees
     Mrs. Marilyn Hall, Stenographic reporter

-------
                                                                 499b
         STATEMENT OP 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 my 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, 1971, 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 10^7 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 9^ 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. 1^0), but implied
that this would be a nominal expense (S.M. 155).  We 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

-------
                                                                  499 e
that the total cost involved in altering discharge and pumping
apparatus at the Faukegan 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 Item 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 F
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 Mministr-
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 CommonvMealth 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 AND  STATE IIN2  STATIONS
                           COMOtfWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
Mechanical Analytical Division
S. L.
4-2-71
Page 1 of 2
Rev. k-lh-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 1,'ote Below^


Gpin
Ft.
Ft.
Ft/Sec

Ft.
HP
Kw
*
$
$
$/Yr
$
Waukegan
5, 6, 7, & 8
720,000
Ik
1,200
10. If
3
8.0
1,720
1,378
137,800
77.22
"*'*»
3,000
30,000
State Line
1, 2, 3, &
9^6,000
16
1,000
10.5
If
7.5
2,100
1,683
168,300
71.11
119,700
k, 000
ko, ooo

-------
Sargent & Lundy, Engineers
Chicago
Mechanical Analytical Division
S. L,
U-2-71
Page 2 of 2
     Station

         MAINTENANCE (CONT'D)

    13.  Incremental Equivalent Capital Investment
          due to Maintenance                           $
         (Item 12 $ (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

    Ik.  Equivalent Capital Investment due to
          Capability Loss                              $

    15.  Equivalent Capital Investment due to
          Annual Auxiliary p~"~r Costs                 $

    l6.  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,^00
        137,800
         20,UOO


      8,986,000




      9,250,600
  State Line

      4991


    27,200
   168,300


   119,700


    27,200


11,293,000




11,608,200

-------
                                   SARGENT Be 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

  T.  14'  Diameter Steel Pipe - Installed @  $1300/ft
     a.   Safe  Harbor
     b.   1200' of 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.
       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 Be LUNDY
                                     ENGINEERS
                                       CHICAGO
                                 STATE LINE STATION
                            COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

                                    Estimated  Cost
                                                            Est.  No.  6605
                                                            Project No.
                                                            Date:
                                                            L.W./  J>-
                    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
Item

 1.

 2.


 3.

 4.



 5.

 6.
      Item Description

New Pump House Complete with Appurtenances

Alterations of Present Break Water and Discharge
Flume                    x
Control Valves, Etc.
                            \
Circulating Water Pumps
a.  Four(4)  237,000 gal/m  Pumps and Motor Drives
b.  Erection

Electrical Connections, Lighting, Heating, Etc.

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 Be 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 & LUNDY                                     A.QQ-Q
                                 ENGINEERS                   _ .   „   ,_,,        ^77
                                   CHICAGO                      Est. No. 6365
                                                               Project No.   4170
                                                               Date:  5-12-70

                          WAUKEGAN POWER STATION
                        COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

             PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF COOLING WATER FACILITIES
                            For Units 5, 6,  7, & 8

     SCHEME 1:   One (1)  Natural Draft Cooling Tower  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

        c!  Mptap'sJopes         )                    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        10,000

$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 - 5%

     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 ft 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/i
                           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.

                      Scheme No.  2;   Cooling Water Facilities Using
                                     Wolf Lake.

                      Scheme No.  3:   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)
  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 8%

 IV - Top Charges  - 12.5%

      TOTAL ESTIMATED COST  (Present
      Day Prices & a 40 Hour Work Week)
  Scheme #1


$26,200,000

  1,228,000
  2,194,000

  3,705,000
$33,327,000
   Scheme #2


 $36,800,000

   1,766,000
$27,428,000     $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
'$46.861,000^) ("'$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

-------
                             SARGENT & LUNDY
                                ENGINEERS
                                   CHICAOO
                             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 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.
                                     - 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                    -           $      5,000

      b. Access Roads to Structures     $     25,000          150,000

      c. Bridges
         1. Across Present Flume            200,000
         2. Roadway Bridge at
            Wolf Lake                        -               300,000
         3. Track Bridge at
            Wolf Lake                        -               500,000
      d. Yard Drainage System                10,000           25,000

      e. Sewer  Drainage System              -                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
                 Scheme No. 2
                 Scheme No. 3
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
     15,000
     10,000
      5,000
$ 1,035,000
$    25,000
$   260,000
   B. On Site
      a. Fill and Grading
      b. Road Alteration and
         Maintenance                    $      5,000
      c. Yard Drainage System
      d. Sewer Drainage System
      e. Track Work
      f. Underground Interferences
            TOTAL  B                    $      5,000

                TOTAL 1                 $    265,000
                       3,000




$
25,000
5,000
50,000
50,000
133,000
$ 5,000
-
-
-
$ 5,000
                 $ 1,168,000
                 $   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
  1,700,000
$ 6,500,000
$   100,000
$   100,000
                 $ 5,050,000
                   1,750,000
$ 6,800,000
                                       -2-

-------
                                SARGENT & LUNDY
                                    ENGINEERS
                                      CHICAGO
                                STATE LINE STATION
                           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
                                             499v
                              Est. No. 6364
                              Project No. 4170
                              Date:  5-12-70
STRUG TUREJ3 (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
   S true ture

8. Earth Work for Circulating
   Water Pipes and Ice Melting Pipe

   A. Tunneling Below Existing
      Railroad Tracks Off Site

   B. Temporary Sheeting, Excavation,
      BackfilljDisposal and Dewatering
      Including Interferences

            TOTAL 8
                TOTAL STRUCTURES
                                        Scheme No.  1
$   925,000
                 Scheme No. 2
$   925,000
$ 1,300,000
 Incl. S-2
 Incl. S-2
 Incl. S-2
$   300,000

$   300,000
$ 9,290,000
$   925,000

  1,125,000

$ 2,050,000
$   150,000


    200,000

$   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
                                                                           Incl.  S-2
    250,000
$   250,000
$ 9,115,000
                                       -3-

-------
                                    SARGENT & LUNDY
                                        ENGINEERS
                                          CHICAOO
                                     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
M    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 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 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 & UUNDY
                                    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 week 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

-------
  >
*•*<{  ^ r;
 1,1"°.  _ £
P: * cc  o H

c-s<8Ir-H J
 • •=  t P ?• -•
1e*fc
J !|S£
« 8
a
•a
u
m "^

t>
c;
X
•H
%* V C
01 gS?
o
I g
-ff g
1 *

5 O

o x "^ vo1 .-i
U. ^J K ^
f

1

i irvtr. GO ^ <*» o r"t
CN t— •-« \O &* *4 Q


g
C* E
C KIT* "^^Syvftfe^fe

-?

*"" H

                                                                                                                           499 z
                                  .
                                  as
                                                                                 MTt  1   tA
                                                                      1=
                                                                                 ON C*  r^  O
                                  S '-3
                                  SB
           S!
                                                        to -P
                                                        .a
                                                                                 35
                                                                                             S   S  S
                                                 5
                                                 S
                                                 a
                                                        --

                                                        "c cP
S   g,  6   "   fc
*   -a  «   a   u
       *       *
                                                        l> U,

                                                    ^   C      In  -H   rt
                                                    V   IH 4>    O  H   H
                                                    *->    .C    «M  0)   <0
                                                    «   H P       U   0
       i   g
           -

                                                                                      a  -a
                                                                                      5  3
       v   a
       L.   M


       I   I



       &   O
       E   M
       O   -*4
       H   K

-------
                                                                                    499aa
™ 3$ Si 5 ® 98 98 ® ® 5? *"^ ®
.g ^ i^ • • "1 *7 3 c\ "81
^ S o a H o w "* .* o\ H

X O
•H W U\*O COCOf^f-M C^Q
<-4 c~ a} o • -*-*vor--* ir»^
cy -4 Jaj ft • h-o 

a
s
i

8
1
,


I

£J
i
§ 1
5 TA
i

§ I
* •>
i i


o 3

a 5
1
§
*
_»

8
t
1


§

o
*

                      a  s  ~  "   S   I  5
                  o   j-^miAj-voo     vv
                   •   w  CM  -?"  r>-  3    »A  cy     «  «
     i     i
I
s
ii  -  £i
C W  3j M  ^3
M^  a-~-  BS
        ^  «

-------

1


.*
•a
m
N

rH
S
IH
H
9
i




^
wj —
^
vo"
g

3
S






•0
g
ECAN AND STATE LINE STATIONS
V OF CIRCULATING WATER COOLING FACILITIES. 0
ion
x a 4*
Q 5 •
1 1 1
d«3H ^ a R a
- iPl * * S
* «
5-
*d VO O O O
•H CM CO OX
rO g (\» H •
iM «"•

£
tt
•H VO O O Q
•H "V. t- CM **B
ti 4* O "«O 1-- J- r4
m -H x q H HI
'3J 1 I 9
s s s s
^11 ^ a a a
s
»j -H lA Q O O
a 4> 1-4 i« 


3
e.


d
r-f
r-
^
•H
r-
a
rs.
t-

(M
fy
{:


8!
f:

•w

%
V
2
17
*1
Equivalent Capital Investment Value of Fuel
Auxiliary Power (Data from Commonwealth Edii

a
8
S
VO*
S
i
3
rH
fl
CM
H
1
1
«
&
a
OJ
T
8
•H
8
t?
.-I
+
V
«

«*

1
1
O
4»
1
Difference in Equivalent Capital Investment
Power (Item 29. x Item 30)
COST DUE TO HEAT RATE
ri
• M
A S.
R S
OJ ^O


CO O
H r-
w -*


m r-
vo t-
cy vo

t>- IA
H O
81A
i-H
d IA


IA Ch
fy f*>


m in
-* r-
-I 0
<
i* *
*3
1
S
t-«
•H
X>
Condenser Pressure (Repeat Item 12)
Correction to Net Turbine Heat Rate, from Tu

•
cu
m
<
^






^



I
1
(


i
i


u
1







f
S
.
h
H
i
c
t
i

f
f
R
8
H


s
H


1
H
>
H
f\
H
A
3
.4

5
3
H


r>
•4







«s
!•
n
1
k
4
S
[
1
!
i
i

t
>

1



i


i

s
Si
1



'


R
g
i
s
1
3
3
&
t<
0
?
i
s
<•
s
o
^
5
&
U
£
j
S

*
R
<^
3"


S
9


a
m
s"
s
&
3
*


8
S


i
••j
S





I
J»
1!
SR
£8
^5

UN
f>
499bb

-------
fl V H
sis
   0
7!  *
                                            O    H

                                            o    
                                            IT*    m
•ft
• n
 **


             6q**-t
             H O
                 3 *J

                 •3M
                 > H
Is
           A*
           !»
           •B?
            «s
            » >
           si
            Ist
            5i
3
n
«
v4
*J
S
•H
2
TJ

5
%
S
3
q
ua Kalntena
Kiicellaneo







M
«
o

g
s
i
8
S
M
•3
*J
£

91
5
6"
3

X
<*>
J-
S
*>
M
41
|
1
>l
2&
zs
&£


r-
.*
i-4
•!•

3

5

I
|
H
3
!?
Equivalent
See Hote Be
!•;
** 0
a «j
-« c
x %
% H
5|
8"S
Co
S • "
^§5
Q c
° S-
AffTg;
«;
&§=>
•H -H
|&ffl
lil01.
S?*
ti 0 «
§ s'il
33S
€«o
ui SSW
II ££S


M
I.
>«
8
g
C

>
al
•
**
c
I
«
5
§
!

-------
I
  $
                        888
    VO  (A  CO
           I  151
                                      £99dd
                               I § I
                          a s
uCoo O CTV QJ O
+j i, o 5 (D ry oo Q
tf fl EH CJ UN (> O


•3 *

•H^jOO O "H ^5 (**
N J A « 5!S^S


Si » o-, rf cv,
S S S S
•H S % A A A A
>3 o
888
C- O t-
2? S ^
CO ^O »A


§g
_*
IH ey "en


Is- W O\
« V V
m CQ n
                                   i
        i  s
                      S
                      a
                    I
                    M

                    3
    S  5
i i s

i 11
?3f
I sk
I 3lL
" l?l?
8|I  1  I
*• «H    on

i * I  i  *

! i J  !  i : Siia
"33s  g » .as*
a A H    «* « o M
- I |  ^)  5 fi S-^t
I o 3  2  2

0 < o)  o  a
  * n
  O H***
                                 3

-------

-------

-------

-------
                                                              500

                             C. A. Bane



 2     proposed regulations  in  dealing with and proposing severe



 o     restrictions with respect to a plant like Waukegan which
   i;
   il
 ^     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  area0



                 At this point, I  think also I might clarify



       several matters that  were raised this morning in connection



       with Dr. Langum's testimony with respect to our presenta-



, c     tion of customer costs at the previous hearing held —



       customer costs from the  installation of a mechanical or



       natural draft wet tower  cooling system at Zion,



                 Dr. Langura  beat us over  the head  — or tried to



       — because he said that  we  had  seriously misled everybody



20     by presenting a bar chart in which we had distributed



       those costs of a mechanical draft  wet tower to the resi-



22 I    dential customers only of the  Commonwealth  Edison Company,



23     whereas he stated those  costs would, of course, be borne



       not only by the residential but also by the commercial and



25     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-



 g     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 presentedj  namelyJ 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 j    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-cent 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     surners 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



1#     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
 1                           Co  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   cumstanceso
 Q             Consequently, any attempt to assume that the 10-
10   "to 15-cent figure is based upon any valid information or
11   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,
l^             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



      Pollution Control Board, as embodied in the letter of March



 5    15, 1971,  from Chairman Currie to Mr. Stein.



 5              We do ask that the  conferees, in view of the cir-



 7    cumstances which we have outlined here, the lack of factual



      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



      concerned — we would ask the conferees to adopt Senator



12    Stevenson's proposal.



13              MR. STEIN:  Thank you*



                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.



                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 — t. 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?

-------
                                                              505






 1                               C.  A.  Bane



 2               MR.  BANE:   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



 y     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



10     I understand your rules here. Maybe I am not familiar  with




       the Illinois practice.  But is it your view that  since  the



12     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




       1) figure he outranks an Administrator 2)  whether you are thij-ow-




       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



       pecking order,  but I  would  assume that the Administrator



20     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



       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-



      mendation, you have two:  1) you have a letter from Mr,



      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



      see these before either,     I don't know which lawyer



      saw them, but I went through the same analysis you did,



16    and I think the Region and the people who did this should



      be very thankful for you, Mr, Bane, because you have given



      them a thorough legal analysis,



                    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 1 think these questions surely need answering,  I



23    think 1 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_
 •j_                            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              MR0 BANE:  Well, the importance is not the legal
 &    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. Purdya
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
   a—	•—•	


 i                              C, A.  Bane
   • i

 2 l!    say,  have the least disruption of those  facilities*
   [

 3               But I  think,  first of all,  in  my  view, the prioritjy


       must  be the need for the backfittingo


 5               MR. BANE:  I  agree with you, sir, and that was


 6     the reason that  I mentioned — I  probably should not have


 7     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     Waukegan, 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?


13               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*


                 I think perhaps the best I  can do — I  could  ask


       you to do this for yourself,  but  I will  do  it here in the


       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
        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
        effects from thermal discharges.  More must be known also
        about the specific water quality conditions of Lake
16      Michigan.  In the face of such unknowns, however, we must
        choose the course of caution.  For far too long precau-
        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




 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 thermal




 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



13     defined temperature standards and look forward to your




       submission of the conferees'  recommendations to me  in the



       near future."



                 So I think the Administrator very eloquently statei



       the basis for the concern.  I think he very straightforwardl;



       stated a charge to the conferees.



•jo               MR. BANE:  Well, no one can quarrel with the



2Q     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




       they constitute a good deal more than an amenity.  They were




2>     in fact, a treasure; and indeed they  are a treasure.



25               MR. STEIN:  Didn't he say that about a  river?

-------
   	511





 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 community0



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, STEIN:  I want  to ask Mr* Mayo  that  question



lg    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

-------
   	512
 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 again0
10            In your opinion, is this the case?
11            MR. MAIOj   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 I   much broader than that.
16            MR. BANEj   The "white paper"  is the only  document
17    that the Administrator cites aside from himself?
18            MR0 MAYO?  S.o?
19            MR. STEIN:  I think you have answered it.
20            MR. MAYO:  I would have to say:  So what?
2i            MR. 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


 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?


                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


      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?


17              MR. BANE:  Yes.


                MR, STEIN:  Well, that is interesting.


                I  will let you — does anyone want to


2Q              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


      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    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

      to take a  few  weeks  to  get some additional facts and submit

      themc

                MR0  STEIN: Are there any other additional facts

      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 1   the comment that the government  did  not  move fast  enough,

1?    and we come here hoping to arrive at  some decisions  as c,o
   Ij
13    thermal standards, and now we are being asked to slow down
   i
14    in the process.     I am sure before we get through why we,

15 i   at the government level, will be blamed for slowing down

15 |   the  process and not arriving at them.

17              I certainly agree that there may be need to study
  '
lg i   this,  but in  going  over it, I don't see a great deal of
   I
19 j   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

24     companieso

25               MR. STEIN:  Well,  I have given my view.   I  would

-------
                                                              515
                                   C. A.  Bane




         like  to  hear 'the  others.   I think we  can  go  around,  if you



         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




TII        clarification  that we  are not  concerned just with  reworkinr



         the material we put  in before  but these proposals  in part




         as  they  affect  our Waukegan and  State Line stations, wore



         brand new to us as of  yesterday  morning.  I  see  nothing in



         the Technical  Committee report that bears upon them, and I



         believe  that we are  entitled and indeed I believe  the




2Q       conferees would want to know what they are proposing,  or



_..        what  is  being  proposed with respect to exist: HP  rer f r.-H; inr-




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



       have to be set back at  the State  level unless we go through



       another Federal procedure —  set  at the State levels,  under



       State law, and the  Federal law requires that public hear-



 9     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



       present could be presented to the various States prior to



       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



iy     conferees from any decision.



                 MR. BANE:  It seems peculiar to me that the



19     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
 1                            C* A, Bane
 2              Mr. Mayo.
 3              MR. MAYO:  I agree thoroughly with Mr. Purdyfs
 4     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.
 3              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
14     legislative processes that they must follow, and I agree
15     with him 100 percent.
±6              MR.  BANE:  I  fail  to understand the  procedure.
17     If this were a rule-making procedure within the —
lg              MR.  STEIN: Mr. Bane,  please —
19              MR.  BANE:   If this were a procedure  within —
20              MR*  STEIN: May I  check with Wisconsin first?
2i              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

-------
                                                              513
                             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 4S-hour submittal of  a proposal and then no opportunity
 6    to evaluate their effects.
                MRo STEIN:   Wisconsin?
                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
H    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
!6     this  out, and it  was seconded  — I  think three  of the States
17     indicated this and the Federal conferee.
-^              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
   L	

-------
                           	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 —
 #     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
18     recommendation to the Administrator,  there won't  be  any
19     delay*
2o               Now, again, I don't want to make any judgment,  and
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.



11                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:




        l)  to hold the record open for 2 weeks before we decide




        anything; and 2) a recommendation from the Wisconsin



16      conferee that we take this proposition under advisement,



        think about it, discuss  it, and have a ruling later tomorrcw.



                  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




        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


 o     matters that we would be  doing at  the  Executive Session.


       So I would urge that we go on  with hearing the people that



 c     are here.


 >               MR. STEIN:  Without  objection may we do that?
 o

 7     Yes, we are going to defer that.


 A               Are there any other  comments to Mr. Bane's
 8


       statement?


1Q               With that, Mr.  Bane, thank you very much.


                 MR. BANE:  Thank you.


                 MR. STEIN:  We  will  now call on Wisconsin.
•1* ^C

                 MR. FRANCOS: Mr.  Sol Burstein with the Wisconsin



       Electric Power Company.



15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22



23


24


25

-------
                                                             522
   fi	'	
   |i
 i  II                            S. Burste in
 X  ii
   ii

 2  !i
   i j
 j  j            STATEMENT OF SOL BURSTEIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
   ]
 ^  i                   WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,
   i!
 c  i!                        MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
   !i

 6  j

 y  |             MR. BURSTEIN:  My name is Sol Burstein.  I am


 3     with Wisconsin Electric Power Company and I have been here


 o,  j   before.  In fact, almost all of us have been here before and


10     I apologize if some of us are beginning to sound a little


n  j   tired and tiresome.  I came to discuss the report of the
   I

12 \   Technical Committee on Thermal Discharges issued in January


13     of this year pursuant to the conferee's instructions follow-


1  i   ing the Workshop  Sessions here on  September 2#-October 2, 1970.


                In my opinion, the Technical Committee has. made


      two basic errors  in its report.   Firstly, it equated the


iy j   weight and  credibility of the  evidence presented on behalf

   i
13 i   of the zero-heat  proponents with  that presented by the


ID ij   opposition.  I believe that material presented in support


20 i   of no heat  additions was contained almost exlusively in


      the so-called "white papers".  The material was  and remains


22    highly speculative.  On the other hand,  presentations by


23    utilities,  and their consultants,  including hard, scientific
   1
   i
24    and engineering  data.  It  is  disturbing  that the Technical


25    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:



13              1.  The committee believes the large amount of



14    technical data presented to the  Conference is largely



      contradictory and is inadequate  upon which specific thermal




15    criteria can now be based,



                2.  The committee concludes, although no damage



      to the ecology of Lake Michigan  has been demonstrated from



19    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



25    proliferation of heat inputs to  Lake Michigan might cause

-------
                                                               524





 1                             S. Burstein




 2    damage.



 3              4.  The committee accepts the fact that heat



 4    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.



 g              On this basis, it appears essential that the



 9    Enforcement Conference recommendations allow for a period



10    of time during which actual observations of operating power-



11 I   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 utilitly



      management that would not take prompt steps to make the



      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.



                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



 2    operations  and  future  designs.   Hopefully,  these  studies



 o    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



      to obtain predetermined conclusions.   This  is,  of course,



      not true  and impugns the professional  reputations of highly



      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.



               One final comment  on  the  Technical Committee's



17    Report and  one  more on a real-life  situation.   Recoramenda-



      tions of  the Technical Committee on chlorine discharges



      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,  ray  company



25    has participated in a  proposal  to study condenser transport

-------
       	526
                                                     -

   !
 1                             S. Burstein

 2    effects at Point Beach Nuclear Plant in an effort to
   !
 3 i   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 i   towers to the Palisades Nuclear Plant, on the basis of
   j
 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-

11    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

14    licensing regulations would economically penalize this

      utility and its customers beyond the alternative of instal-

16    ling cooling towers.

17              I trust that the conservationists who succeeded

      in requiring Consumers Power to install cooling towers will

19    be just as vigorous and tenacious in support of the rate

20    increases which necessarily must follow.  Anything less

21    would cause serious concern as to the integrity of these
    j
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
   rj	—	—	



 1 |j                            S. Burstein
   i!

 2 !   the benefits from these added financial burdens are for



 3    the present, by the Technical Committee's own words,


 4 I   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.

   j

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



lg    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  &0-odd megawatts it will take

-------
 1                           S. Burstein
 2    to  run them,  and  from about $115 million for the other power-
 3    plants using  Lake Michigan for  cooling at Oak Creek, Lake-
 4    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
 3    Michigan no heat  additions are  into  billions, and they are
 9    real;  they are  not  imaginary  or speculative.
10              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
1^    the replacement power for the electricity  to  run the  equip-
15    ment.
•j^              Mr* Gomey's announcement in regard to possible
17    intervention in the Point Beach AEG licensing proceeding
13    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
2i    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 AEC 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
      Administrator William Ruckelshaus, when I quote from the
      third paragraph:
                "It is not thermal pollution that has brought
 9    Lake Michigan to its present degraded condition* ,,.
10              MR. STEIN:  That is a different outfit, isnft it?
11              MR, BURSTEIN:  No, sir, it is Businessmen for
12    the Public Interest
13              MR, STEIN:  Okay,  Go ahead,
                MR, BURSTEIN: — and it is the same organization,
15              MR, STEIN:  Thank you.
15              MR, BURSTEIN:  I find myself in a strange or
      ironic position of agreeing  substantially with Secretary
      Klein, with whom I have publicly disagreed before, par-
19    ticularly when  Mr« Klein affirms that we must know what
20    "e 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

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                              530
                        S. Burstein
trout taken just yesterday or the day before at our Lake
Michigan outfalls.
          Similar to the histories at Oak Creek and Port
Washington, it has been a year or more since we offered the
facilities of the Oak Creek powerplant to evaluate the
thermal effects from the largest existing powerplant on
Lake Michigan.,
          Again, I would repeat, sir, there is a period of
time between now when no damage due to thermal discharges
exists, and some future time when additional sources are
feared by some might cause adverse effects that are
reversible*
          Echoing Secretary Klein's comment, I believe
this affords and indeed demands that we use this period
to  determine what we should intelligently do before we
start doing it*
          Thank you, sir.
          MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr.  Burstein.
          I think your statement is very clear.  I feel
I understand it.
          Are there any comments or questions?
          MR. FRANCOS:  Yes.  Mr.  Burstein, I am wondering
if  I  could ask  you to repeat  the figures that you  presented
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.
 a             MR. FRANCOS:   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 3,700
16    megawatts of capacity,  which  is substantially  different
17    from Mr.  Langumfs 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                               S. Burstein




 2      million per year for these existing and operating facilitie




 3                MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions or




 /,,      comments?




                  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




^2      due process.  As other people who come here, you are going



        to meet each other time after time.  When you came in,




TI      you said you were tired about this, and maybe we will tire




        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
 1                                S.  Burstein



 2       you have  this  attitude  on either side,  you are  going to  fiijd



 3       yourself  continually  meeting the other  side while  I  am



         going  to  be  sitting here  with the gavel to adjudicate.




 5                 I  think the first  sign for  an agreement  that I



 5       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



13       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



20       when the  temperature  got  to  a certain level,  and then it



         would  take a flip and go  down like a  roller coaster."




22                 I  think it  might help to resolve  this  if




         we  really give due respect,  as  I have,  to the testimony




         on  all sides.  I believe  the people came in  sincerely;



         they gave their  best  judgment and best  views.

-------
                                                               534




                               So Burstein



 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



 g     don't 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



lg      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 concerns   the fact that we can equate  these two

-------
                                                               535
                                 S. Burstein


 2      different types of investigations and say they are equally


 o      as precise and equally as important and applicable to our


 i       concerns,


 c                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.


 H                MR. STEIN:  Now, at the risk of oversimplifying,


 q      let's see if I can reduce your statement down to a point,


,Q                You have said there is no shown damage now, and
        in any event you have a period in between where there


12
11

        won 't be damage,
,,                Therefore, we should go to the plants as •/


_.      propose them now with the once-thronrrh cooling r.y.^tom,


        Then if any problems develop thny will be corrected,


.,      there is no self-respecting power company which has nornon-
lo

        strated its interest in the public weal which wouldn't


. H      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
                               S« Burstein
 1
 2     And let  me  put  it  in  its  simplest terms and perhaps not
 3     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,
 6     and if indeed whatever  cost may be incurred can be passed
 7     onto the consumer  without consideration of what that cost
       is — whether it is 10  cents,  20 cents or 50 cents — the
 9     discussion  we have had  today,  and if we somehow can
10     accommodate the question of maybe maintaining power and
11     power reserves, then  what becomes the problem for the power
12     industry to proceeding  with  some kind of cooling devices?
13              MR. BURSTEIN:  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,
17     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
 !                             S. 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 I                             S.  Burstein
 2      that assumption,  you don't  satisfy one of your "ifs,M
 3                MR.  FRANCOS:   Well,  I  was just  responding
        generally, not necessarily  to  the statement.
 5                MR.  STEIN:  Right,
 5                All  right.  Well,  thank you very much,  Mr,
 7      Burstein.
                  May  we  go to Indiana?
                  MR.  MILLER:  Mr.  Chairman, I have Mr. Robert
        Mowers, representative of the  Thermal Study Committee
        from Indiana.
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
     	339
   i
 , !                            J. R. Brough
   I
   i
 2
          STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BROUGH OF THE NORTHWEST INDIANA
       INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE ON THERMAL STANDARDS FOR LAKE MICHIGAN,
 4
                   ANA,,(READ BY ROBERT G. MOWERS)

 6
                MR. MOWERS:  Contrary to what it says on the
      statement, my name is not John Brough.  Mr. Brough had to
      leave to catch a plane and he asked me to read his statement
      instead.
_1              My name is Robert Mowers, and I speak today on
      behalf of the Northwest Indiana Industrial Committee.  This
      group was formed late in 1970 after several companies in
,,    Northwest Indiana decided to combine their efforts to fund
1*4-
      and direct a study on the effects of thermal discharges to
..x    southern Lake Michigan.  The committee was appointed by
__    the participating companies to arrange for and supervise
      the study.
                Limnetics, Incorporated, Environmental Engineers
      of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were engaged to perform the study
      It had the following objectives:
22              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

      temperature measurements.

-------
   	                                   540
   f]	'
   i
 1 I                            J. R. Brough


 2 i             2.  Review and summarize existing scientific

   ij
 o j   literature on thermal discharges with particular emphasis


 •     on the papers relevant to Lake Michigan and testimony

   |!
 5 j   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


 n    characteristics of thermal discharges to Lake Michigan proved


10    to be very useful.  Results from a mid-winter survey showed


11    that the discharges lose their heat rapidly by mixing with


12    "the cold lake water and that the resulting plume areas


      are surprisingly small


                2.  The amount of heat discharged to the lake by


15    the companies was calculated to be insignificant relative


      to the heat to the lake from natural sources.


17              3.  Some data on the effects of temperature on


      biological and fish life have been reported in the litera-


19    ture; however, conclusions reached to date are often con-


20    flicting and  can be misleading because of a lack of basic


      data from well designed field experiments.  A particular


22    need is for more data on the effects of passage of water


23    through condensers and coolers on the plankton and fish


24    larvae.

   I
25              4.  Further studies should be started promptly

-------
                                                              541





 1                            J. R. Brough



 2    to provide proper data and criteria for setting new



 3    standards.



 4              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."



13              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-



      tives that it would be their responsibility to enforce such



      limits and their laws require controls to be set on the



      basis of demonstrated damage or potential damage to water



19    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

-------
                                                                542






 1                               J. R. Brough




 2      Indiana's thermal standards are adequate at this time for




 3      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



 7      development of the sound data and criteria needed for setting




 g      of sensible, realistic controls.  Many warm water discharges




        from industry have existed for 20 or more years and to our




10      knowledge have not resulted in any harmful effects on the



11      overall biological and fish life.  As evidence of our



12      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




TC      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 angler;



1Q      said a number of big fish of all varieties should be caught




20      °n the lake this year... White said you can fish almost




        anywhere from the lake shore or you can use a boat... you




22      can fish from around the Edison plant at the State line,"



        White said, "or at places like Burns Harbor."  Such a reporft




        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





 1                               J. R. Brough




 2       or  buildup  in the water  environment — or about a direct



         effect  upon the  health or safety of men,"



                  * Lastly, our study has strongly substantiated  the



 5       recommendation of the Committee that in-depth  field and lab-




 5       oratory studies  be  made  to determine the effect on the  ecology




 7       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  results



         from our  study  in winter  can  be  of value in  planning  future




         work.



, c                Our study also  has  given us a  background and an
awareness that would be helpful in conducting future studi(
        We,  therefore,  suggest  that  the technical  steering  committee
as proposed in Recommendation No. 5 by the Technical Commi
,Q       include  one  or more  representatives  from  industry.   If given




2Q       the  opportunity, we  would  be  glad to suggest  the names of




«,       appropriate  industry representatives and  also to assist the




22       steering committee in other ways toward the development




         and  completion of a  meaningful  program of study,




                   I  wish to  thank  the Conference  for  the opportunit




         to talk  to you today.   A copy of the reoort of our  study




         will be  made available to  the State  of Indiana Stream
                                                           ul
                                                                    s.
                                                                   tec,
         Pollution  Control  Board.

-------
            THE
             TIMES
911
   *,
*$*+
FfJ
    Going fishing can be fun

    if you catch enough fish
                                    flic /islt run,



                                    om" tiwHr*



                                   Mutkegon Rirer
                                   Text

                                  Berate Hi
 8**ft F swfcw?**r/*A*|*&*j

-------
   	    544


                              J. R. Brough
 1

                 Thank you.


                 MR.  STEIN:   Thank  you,


                 Are  there any comments  or questions?
 4
                 Thank you very much.  I wish you would give my


       appreciation to Mr. Brough for this,  and also I wish


       sometimes one of these committees would give me a funda-


       mental contradiction of che 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 further studies should be started promptly.


                 Okay.  Thank you very much.
12 II

                 Let's go to Michigan.  Mr<> Purdy.


                 MRc  PURDY:  The Indiana and Michigan Electric
14

       Company, Mr.  Robert Kopper.
15
                 MR.  KOPPER:  The  presentation  on behalf  of  the
16

       company  will  be made  in  three  sections:   first,  by myself;


       and Mr•  Miskiraen 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 I

       procedure here.  It is getting close to 5:00 o'clock.
21     ^

        We will go with this, but how long will that take?
£* £*

                  MRo 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
25

-------
                                                             545




                              S.  Keane




       after this?  Would the conferees consider recessing until



       tomorrow morning to hear the rest?



                 MR. MAYO:  How many more are there?




 5               MR. MILLER:  I have one.



 6               MR. PURDY:  Two.



 7               MR. STEVEN E. KEANE:  We have one from Wisconsin.




       Mr. Frangos isn*t there.  You have about a 4- or 5-zninute



 9     statement is all there*



10               If there is any possibility of getting it on



       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.



                 MR0 PURDY:  I have got three counting Indiana



       and Michigan; a half hour for Indiana and Michigan,  I



17     will have to check with the others.



                 MR0 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

 1                            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
 4    back home tonight  and come back again in the morning to
 5    spend the sum total of about 10 minutes in representation
 6    would appear to be somewhat useless,
 7             Would the Chairman accept our statements  in
 g    writing —
 o,             MR.  STEIN:   We  would accept —
10             MR0  KEANE:   —  in the next  2 or  3  days?   We  won't
11    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
14    utilities here with very short statements.  Would it be
15    possible to put those on first so they  have  an opportunity
16    to go home and then we can see where we goa   Is that
      agreeable?
                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 meetingi
2i    and I  would like to  get my statement on now on behalf of
22    roy  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!
 o              MR, PURDY:  I would like to proceed as called,
                MR, STEIN:  All right.  You may proceed,
 c              (Robert M» Kopper*s statement follows,)
 6
 7
 6
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                             543


                              R, M. Kopper

 2

 3               STATEMENT  OF ROBERT M. KOPPER,  EXECUTIVE

 4 S          VICE PRESIDENT AND  CHIEF  OPERATING  OFFICER,

 5                INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC  COMPANY,

 6                         FORT  WAYNE, INDIANA



                 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

11     Indiana and Michigan Electric Company. I appreciate  this

12 I    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

       January 1971»  and to commend the Committee on the  construc-

       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 i              Indiana and Michigan  Electric  Company supplies

20     electric energy to  more  than IBB  communities in the States

21     of Indiana and Michigan0   The demand  for  electric  energy
   j
22 i    in our service area has  been doubling every & 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
   I

 1                            R. M. Kopper

 2    meeting this obligation, we also fully recognize that we

 3    have  the  additional  responsibility, the  same as any  other


 4    responsible-citizen,  to protect our environment.  This

 5    dual  responsibility  of supplying the  power needs of  the

 6    people without wasting resources and  simultaneously  providing


 7    for the protection of our  environment must be  the major

 $    consideration underlying any recommendations made by  this


 9    Conference.

10               A substantial part  of the growing demand for


11    electricity is to operate  equipment and  devices used to

12    control,  reduce  or eliminate  discharges  to the air and

13    water that are known to  cause harmful effects. It is now

14    eminently clear  that millions of  additional kilowatts of


15    power will be  required to  operate  new facilities being

16    installed by  industry and  municipalities to overcome known


17     pollutants.   Our job, as  I indicated  before,  is to provide

IB     the power requirements of  our customers  for whatever use,

19    and at the same  time to  perform in a  responsible manner

20    with respect  to  our  environment.   To  meet this twofold

21     responsiblity all of our new powerplants are  designed and

22     are being built  to  have  a  minimal impact on  the  environment.


23    We wish it were  possible  to produce electric  power with zero


24     impact on the environment, but it is  not as  of today.

25     Consequently we  have two goals — 1)  meet the needs  for

-------
   	550





 1                            R.  M.  Kopper



 2    electric power, a substantial  amount of which is for



 3    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,



 5              As we advised the conferees during the Conference



 y    Workshop last September, we presently have under construction



 3    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



l^    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,



15    by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.  The design



iy    of this cooling system is based upon what we believe to



lg    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



2i    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



 5    for substantial  scientific study  of Lake Michigan.  I



 6    think it is worthy to note that our studies indicate that



 7    the once-through method of cooling that  we are  using for



      the Cook Plant will  not injure Lake Michigan.   I  must  also



 o,    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



15    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



IB    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 staff0  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



      completely undercut the numerical limitations which FWQA's



      technical staff, not much more than one month before, had



 o,    proposed for the Michigan segment of the lake.  I believe



10    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-Septeiaber,



      shortly before the Workshop Conference, a different concept,



      also having its origin in Interior, was introduced — the



      concept of "no significant discharge" of heat to the lake.



17    What did this new concept mean?  Did it in fact mean no



      discharge of heat whatsoever?  Was it perhaps simply a



19    restatement of the 1° proposal?  Or was it more flexible than



20    the 1  proposal?  There was little way of knowing.



21              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 B0t.u. input limita-



     tions — and established a Technical Committee to evaluate



     this concept.



               At approximately the same time, one State proposed



     a  $-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  aSainst 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



     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?


 3               MR. KOPPER:  We had hoped that all of this


       confusion was now behind us.  In the Recommendations of


 5     the Technical Committee dated January of 1971, we thought


 6     we perceived the light at the end of the tunnel.  That was


 7     before the announcement of a new Federal proposal yesterday


       I'm sure the Technical Committee's Report will not please


 o     everyone.^ I would like to point out some of the problems
                ?-*'

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. 8 which apparently would


16     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


       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

-------
                                                              536





 1                             R. Me Kopper



 2      or  that he  is not a  criminal.  Such a requirement violates



 o      due process.  Recommendation No. 4» also if adopted by



       the conferees, must  speak in terms of "significant" or



       "material"  ecological  damage.



                However, the foregoing not withstanding, we



       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,



       technical information, and reason.  It has laid  to rest  a



11     number of misconceptions with respect to thermal effects



12     on  tne lake.  It has helped to clear the air.  For example:



13     the Technical Committee recognized that "there has been



       no  demonstrated significant damage at existing Lake Michigan



       thermal  plume sites  from artifical heat inputs"  (page 4) •



       This is  progress.



                And the  committee recognized that in the absence



       of  such  demonstrated damage, the  establishment of numerical



       effluent  values or other engineering design requirments



 20     would be  "arbitrary  and not defensible"  (page  4) •



                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




 •     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




      electricity as well  as stockholders — protected by due




-i i     process of law.




, c              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



      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
 a
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                              55S
                        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-
ment 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

 #     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     design,

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
                              R. Mo Kopper



      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




 5    Technical Committee's Recommendation No. 5 calls for in-



 5    depth field and laboratory studies to determine the effects




 7    on the ecology and that these studies would be conducted




      under the guidance of a technically competent steering




 o,    committee to be appointed by the conferees.  I pledge to




10    you our company's fullest cooperation in such studies wliich,




11    as we understand them, will take about 5 years to complete




12    an(3 evaluate.



13              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




16    progress.  While we have some disagreements with the Report,



17    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




21    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




 3 I    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 and 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




1#     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





                              R. M, Kopper



       Technical  Committee's  Findings and Recommendations and in



       accord with  due  process of law,



 i                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



 a     this.  In establishing such  standards,  you must take  into



10     account not  only protection  of the lake's  ecology and the



       region's need for electric power, but also tho  effects



12     which alternative means of cooling would have upon  the



       meteorology, land use  and aesthetics  of the Lake Michigan



       shoreline*  For it is  all of these  elements that go into



       making up the public interest — something that both



       Indiana and Michigan Electric Company and  this  Conference



17     are committed to serve.



                 MR. STEIN:  Thank  you, Mr.  Kopper.



                 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.  Miskimen,  please.




23



2k



25

-------
                                                             563
 1                            T. A. Miskimen
 2
 3               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-
       raent.
11               MR. STEIN:  Do you want the entire statement to
12     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
17     entirety  on  pp.  56&-572,)
                 MR. MISKIMEN:  I am Thomas Miskimen of the
19     American  Electric  Power Service Corporation.  My remarks
20     here are  directed  to the chlorination of circulating water
2i               Of the recommendations that were submitted to
22     this Conference by the Technical Committee, Recommendation
23     No. 8 calls  for requiring the installation of mechanical
24     cleaning  devices to replace  chemical methods of coping
25     with the  problems  of organic growths in condenser  tubes.

-------
                                                               564
                            T, A, Miskimen
 2     Of the recommendations submitted yesterday, this is No, 4*
 o               This is a restriction that was not discussed at
 /.     the workshop last year; and this restriction is not supporte<
 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,
 o,               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
13     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 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
 1                         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.
 9    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.
1$              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.
lg     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
 1                        T» A. Miskimen
 2    reports:
 3              1.  In the United States, on freshwater streams
 ^    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
 g     chlorination has been practiced for more than  30 years,
 o    there has been  no observed instance of damage from
10    chlorination,
11              The language of Recommendation No, $  could be
12    thought to include  chemical  cleaning  jobs as well as the
13    chlorination of circulating  water. To powerplant engineers
!•    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.

-------
      	56?_
                           T. A. Miskiffien
                Consequently, I urge that this ban against
      chlorination be withdrawn.
                Thank you for your attention.
                MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 D              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
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                                       568
                               REPORT TO

          THE FOUR-STATE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

                           CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


                          March 23 & ?^, 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 Mlskimen, 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.  D*!  THfi-  r««--«L^, Tt«"/ ,"r  /Vo .

          This is a restriction that was not discussed  at the  Workshop

last year; and this restriction is not supported  in  the body of the

report of the Technical Committee.  The arguments for and against such

-------
                                                                         569


                                     -2-


   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 weter.  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 -to

1 f»free-floa_tin^_oj:ganisms| for only as long as is required for the floating

   organisms to pass through the treatment zone which would require only a

   few seconds and up to perhaps 1 to 10 minutes depending on the plant  ,
                                                              d   $ T^r> fit.i«X_
   lay-out.  This short period of exposure is much less than -&uffioiont.

   to kill mony free flontj-im organiamo*.

             Tnis 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  condenser tubes.   A trial
of one type of such device on the ^EP System  has proved  disappointing;
and other trials in the United States are  reported to  have  given only
limited success.    .                      . .
                                     t>~* *
          Laq.ulr.iejE about chlorina t,1 on  experip.-K-o?  -lave i;iven consis-
tently favorable reports:
     1.   In the United  States,  on  f^esh woter>  streams find Jakes,
          we have  found  not  one  report  of damage to blots outside
          of the condensers  when chlorine was  applied with normal
          proper control as  a  "preventative''  treatment.
     ?.   At the power plants  of the AtiP Syytpm, where chlorination
          has been practiced for more than JO  years,  there has been
          no observed instance of damage from  chlorination.
          The language of Recommendation No,  ti could be thought to
include chemical cleaning jobs as well  as the  chlorinstion of
circulating water Tfo power plant engineers and chemists,  "ftiese are
different procedures. Tt>« !\vyv+.}+.  «f ye?f«v
-------
                                                                    571
item 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
 2
 3            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
 n    Power Service Corporation, which furnishes legal and other
10    services to Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.  I am
      also Secretary of Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.
12              Now, we understood that the purpose of this
13    meeting was to comment on the recommendations of the Tech-
      nical Committee to this Conference.  Mr. Kopper has given
      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, Ruckelshausf the recently appointed
      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-



 j    fusion, would be hard to say.   It is also hard to say whether



 ^    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



 3    there has been no demonstrated significant damage at Lake



 9    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,



12              In reaching those recommendations, the Technical



13    Committee has devoted vast study to the various issues.



IJL    Yesterday, we heard representatives of the Federal Power



15    Commission and of the Atomic  Energy Commission who committed



16    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



19    production of power in the Lake Michigan area would  appear



20    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



24    perhaps the  most significant  sentence is this  appearing



25     on page 1,  and  I quote  it:   "A  considerable  and growing

-------
                                                               575





                              J, B» Henry



       body  of  evidence  indicates that  serious ecological damage



       will  be  caused by the increasing use of Lake Michigan



 •      waters to  dissipate waste heato"  I  submit that this state-



 r     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



 n     may be problems with pollution in Lake Michigan, there is



10     no evidence which suggests that  heat from  powerplants is a



11     factor.   The  feeding of nutrients to the lake from sewage



12     plants and other  sources is  the  culprit here, and those



       interested in preserving the lake should zero in on these



TI      true  targets  and  stop  concentrating  their  efforts on the



       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



20     office  in Washington,  has  perceived  a mandate to halt



21     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?



                It is one thing to propose restrictive thermal



 4    standards for plants not yet under construction, even



 5    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



 o    existing plants and plants under construction*



10              The whole point of departure of the present effort



      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



14    present compound rate of growth.



                In contrast to this imaginary framework, there



      is not a scintilla of evidence that any significant damage



      to the ecology of Lake Michigan could be caused by permit-



      ting once-through cooling at plants now operating or under



19    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, Ruckelshaus1

-------
    	577
 1                            J.  B.  Henry
 2    letter.
 3              These are but the latest of a series of arbitrary
 ^    proposals which they have advanced.  It is sufficient to
 5    point out that each new set of arbitrary standards unsup-
 6    ported by evidence increases the credibility of all such
 7    proposals by the Federal conferees.
 g              A perversion of the administrative process is
 Q    going forward here.  It is apparent from the statements of
10    Federal conferees yesterday that they will seek — and I
H    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    do, that conclusive evidence that no damage by powerplants
37    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
21    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

-------
                                                               573





                              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



 c     this abdication of responsibility.  I will say also that



      the course which Mr. Ruckelshaus and the Federal conferees



 7     are attempting to dictate at least insofar as it affects



 d     the Donald C. Cook plant now under construction is



 n     arbitrary and capricious within the purview of the Adminis-



      trative Procedure Act, and is in violation of due process



      of law.   And I would like to associate myself with Mr.



      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




      other.



                Now, I hope we understand this procedure.



      Constantly you have referred to Federal conferees.  Who



      are the Federal conferees — plural — you are talking




20     about?



21               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



24              MR. STEIN:  That is one Federal conferee.  I am



25     the Chairman, and  I am  not — I have made no comment about

-------
   	579




 I                             J.  B. Henry




 2     the  proposal  or what we  were going to do, and  so forth.



 3     Now,  we  have  just  one  Federal conferee here, and if you



 4     impugn all that to the one  conferee I am  going to have to




 5     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?



 o               MR. MAYO: It  is  patently untrue.  I think  that




10     is all I need to  say,



H               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?



1^               MR. MAYO: The proposal came as a  companion-



15     piece with Mr. Ruckelshaus' letter to  the conferees.



16               MR. STEIN:   Are there any  further  questions?



17               You know, I  have  been sitting  at these  Conferences




lg     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 either; but I never really have.



2i               MR<, 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

-------
                                	380





 1                             J»  B.  Henry




 2     the consideration of very much the  same  kinds  of numbers by



       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



 6     State of Michigan,  These are  very  much  the same numbers,



 7     and it seems inconceivable  to  me that  you can  make that



       kind of a statement in the  face of  that  kind of a record,



 9               MR, HENRY:  Well,  it was  my  understanding  —



10               MR. MAYO:  I think you are going much, much out



11     of bounds,



12               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



15     recommendation.  And when,  in  the face of such a recommen-



16     dation, you pulled together bits and pieces of earlier



17     proposals and present them  as  a reasoned set of rules, I



       submit it is arbitrary and  capricious,



19               MR, MAYO:  I disagree with you.



20               MR. STEIN:  Well,  now, I  wonder if you would care



21     to comment on this.  Now, I have been  sitting  around for a



22     long time on this in various cases, I have heard Mr»



23     Kopper praise that Technical Committee,   He talked about



24     it being thoughtful and constructive.  Then you had  a



25     little report in between dealing with  chlorine, and  then

-------
                              J. B. Henry




 2    you come up with the same company talking about Mr. Mayo



 •a    concocting something overnight   and shifting it.  And



 •     back in Brooklyn where I come from and the age I come from,



 5    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 thatj 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.



]_7              This will be the last one today.
19



20



21



22




23



24



25

-------
 1                          0.  K*  Petersen
 2
 3               STATEMENT OF 0.  K.  PETERSEN,  ATTORNEY,
 ^             CONSUMERS POWER  COMPANY,  JACKSON,  MICHIGAN

 5
 6               MR. PETERSEN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 7               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.
1^               Examples include temperature differentials, the
15     length of time during which facilities are operated, and
16     feasibility of alternatives.
17               If this Conference determines that it will make
lg     recommendations applicable to pump storage facilities,
19     proper notice should be  given so that a full review is
20     possible.
2i               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
      ._. *%. w*. *^4~ vh^ •* x»4- -4 ^fcin T A O ^ T r^"l
1
     construction feasibility would make it impossible to meet
 o    such a date.
                I might also say that Dr. Langum's testimony
 r    reviewing certain figures from Consumers Power Company's
 5    annual report were his own, and were not prepared as part
 7    of any Consumers Power Company presentation, and we do not
 3    necessarily adhere to his figures.  We have not examined
 n    them, and know nothing else about  them.
                We have  examined, however, the recommendations
-Q    of the Lake Michigan Enforcement  Conference Technical
12    Committee on Thermal Discharges to Lake Michigan,  dated
13    January  1971.
,,              That  committee,  as  you  will  recall,  found,  and
15    I will  come within the 10 minutes — the  committee
±6    recognizes  the  value of  receiving water temperature
17     standards,  but  since there has been no demonstrated sig-
ig     nificant damage at existing Lake Michigan thermal plume
19     sites from artificial heat input, the assignment of
20     numerical effluent values or other engineering design
2i     requirements at this time would be arbitrary and not
22     defensible.
2o               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

-------
   	534
 1                         0. K. Petersen
 2     statement — only to drop down to the next paragraph and say
 3     the  committee believes that the above characteristics of
 4     the  waste heat problem in Lake Michigan are such that they
 5     do allow a period of time for the establishment of sensible
 6     control,
 7              Rather than comment in full detail, at this time,
 3     we will submit a copy of our comments immediately following
 9     my comments  here,
10              Generally speaking, we find that the  evidence
11     available supports  the already  quoted conclusions, and we
12     generally agree with the proposals  therein except for cer-
13     tain unsupported nontechnical political positions which
14     found their way into the  comments — the  document.
T c              And we — then yesterday  we  came and  heard a
16     letter from Administrator  Ruckelshaus  to  the  conferees.
17     We appreciate Mr,  Ruckelshaus1  commendation  of  our  recent
lg     agreement to backfit the  Palisades  plant  with cooling
19     towers.  However,  in candor we must inform you  that we
20     do not believe that the cooling towers were  necessary in
21     order to protect the environment.
22               Further, reflection leads to the conclusion that
23     Mr, Ruckelshaus1 letter was based on the now largely dis-
24     credited 1970 "white paper" and does not reflect the sober
25     consideration of all of the evidence indicated in the

-------
                                                              535
 T                          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
      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
lo    the  Technical  Committee as being, at this time, "arbitrary
       and not  defensible."
                We urge the conferees  to proceed along the path
30     indicated by the  Technical Committee subject to our
20     comments on the Technical Committee  report to meaningful
       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                              0. K. Petersen




 2      open again.



 3                MR. PETERSEN:  I understand that the record is




        not open but that the conferees —



 5                MR. STEIN:  No, we haven't made a ruling yet,




 6      Mr. Petersen.




 7                MR. PETERSEN:  Ah.1




                  MR. STEIN:  We won't until tomorrow.




                  MR. PETERSEN:  I did not understand then.



10                MR. STEIN:  Right.  I wanted to make that clear.



11                MR. MAYO:  I would like to make one statement,




12      Mr. Chairman, and that is to emphasize that the letter




13      from Administrator Ruckelshaus to the conferees was, in




        fact, based  on a considered appraisal of the material



        presented at the workshops — the Technical Committee repoi




        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



2Q      discharges into  Lake Michigan.  That was the motivation.




                  MR. STEIN:  Well,  just as  Chairman might say




22      that  the conferee prepares  this and  not  the Chairman,  so




        I have nothing to do with this.  But I might say  that  the



«i      people who were  talking  of  no  scintilla  of evidence,



        to make  accusations like  this  of a  personal nature of
t.

-------
 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. FRANGOS:  I have no questions.  I just —



 9                MR. STEIN;  I thought you had something you




10      wnat'^d to put in



                  MR. FRANGOS:  Well, are you finished with Mr.




12      Petersen?



13                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:  Ri*ht.



                  Your statement will appear in the record as if



        road, without objection.




20                (Mr. 0. K. Petersen's statement follows in its



        entirety,)




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                                             588
                      COMME3CTS REGARDING THE:

                 Recommendations of the Lake Michigan
                      Enforcement Conference
                       Technical Committee

                              on
                       Thermal Discharges

                              to
                           Lake Michigan

                            January 1971

             By:  Consumers Power Company - March 23-2U,  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 Wbrk-

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.

-------
          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."

CCMMENT;  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.

          U.  "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 Michigan 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 he 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."

COMMEM1;  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 Michigan,

          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








          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

-------
                                                                               598




                                                                         11







of these evaluations,  restrictive regulations  could be promulgated, if necessary,



with due regard for an 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

-------
                                                                >99
 1                           T,  G.  Frangos
 2               MR. STEIN:  Mr. Frangos.
 3               MS. FRANCOS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman,  I have a state-
 4     ment of the Wisconsin Power and Light Company$ and I would
 c     like to submit that for the record.  I only have two copies
       and I would like to have this distributed to the conferees
       tomorrow if the Federal conferees would like this.
                 MRC 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.
14               MR. STEIN:  Let's not let this fall in the
       cracks.  Is that taken care of, Glenn?
16               MR0 PRATT:  Yes.
17               MR. STEIN:  It is all reproduced?
                 MR. PRATT:  Yes.
19               MR<> FRANGOS:  I think the reporter does not have
20
21               MR. STEIN:  Right.
22               MR. FRANGOS:  Okay.  Very good.
23               Mrc 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 —
 5     that we did  not follow strictly the procedures, and I
 5     think it is  somewhat unfortunate that the Wisconsin Public
 7     Service Corporation could not make the presentation but
       that this will be made tomorrow morning.
                 (The statement of the Wisconsin Power and Light
10     Company follows in its entirety.)
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
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




                               -2-

-------
                                                                  603
extra 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 bo 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 £
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.

-------
                                                                   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 simdlar 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 thermal 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






                               -4-

-------
                                                                 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 interests.
                               -5-

-------
                                                                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




 #      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 rooiji?



18                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
                                        * V. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 441-075

-------