ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
May
6,
1971
In the Matter of
#R 70—2
THERMAL STANDARDS, LAKE MICHIGAN
Supplemental
Statement by Samuel
R.
Aldrich, Board Member
Heat from the generation of electric power is
a resource which
over the long—term cannot continue to be treated as
a waste
product to be disposed of either in water or air.
Heat require-
ments
for space heating and industrial processes exisL at the
same
time and often in close proximity
to power generating stations.
Technology
for productive utilization of so—called
“waste heat~ is
being studied but must be accelerated.
Such technology will serve
the dual purpose of reducing pollution and conserving important
fuel resources.
As the opinion states,~if all plants now projected to year
2000
(about
20 new plants)
were operating and the heat were uniformly
dispersed,
the lake would rise 0.10
F
(0.055°C). I am confident
that
the necessary technology
to utilize by-product heat will
be
developed before there
is
any serious cumulative effect from
proliferation of electric generating plants situated
on Lake
Michigan.
Consecuently
I am less alarmed than
is indicated im the Opinion
of the Board
(prepared by Mr.
Currie)
about
the danger from power
plant proliferation.
As
a result,
I favor
a 5-year moratorium
rather than
a complete
ban on the construction of significant
new :-~eat sources.
I favor reevaluating
the entire situation
at the end of five
years
(aquatic
life effects,
the status of alternative cooling
techniques
both with respect to costs and environmentalJh~pact)
and approving additional once—through
cooling facilities
if the
facts warrent it.
While it is true that
a subsequent board has
the authority
to
follow the course that
I suggest,
if the electric power industry
assumes
the ban to he oermanent,
it will predicate all of its
plans on that assumption.
In the long—term the choice of cool—
ing technique will likely make little economic difference
to the
co~panies.
At
issue
is the best long-term decision
for all of
the people
in consideration of both economic and environmental
effects.
The undesirable features
of cooling towers are discussed
in the opinion.
Another alternative, cooling lakes are likely
to be
sited on agricultural
land.
Such
a
lake
is being vigorously
fought
in Brookfield townshio, LaSalle County.
Another group of
citizens
is attempting
to prevent siting on the Mississippi River
for once—through cooling.
The capacity
to accept heat
is much
less than in Lake Michigan.
1
—
723
PCB
May
6,
1971
In the absence of
a halt to growth in the use of electric power,
which
is not now
a viable alternative,
there
is no way in which to
escape environmental impact by shifting to alternative cooling
techniques.
We can only determine the time,
place, and form of
environmental impact.
I recognize that Illinois may justify
a more severe restriction
on the use of Lake Michigan
for cooling than Wisconsin and Michigan
because it has only
55 miles of shoreline much of which
is already
preempted for other than recreational
use.
An argument put forward by some opponents
of once—through cooling
is that there is little additional cost for cooling towers or lakes.
This
is an overly simplified concept.
They oppose piecemeal degra-
dation of Lake Michigan by small inputs but ignore the aggregate
economic impact of piecemeal incremental costs
for environmental
protection
a.nd improve.ment
5pecial interest environmentalists
who press
for near perfection
in matters pertaining
to their own
interests must become aware that the cumulative effect on standard
of living will be very great because other persons with different
interests
are adding small bdsts to
a myriad of other processes
and products including cooling towers.
Ic
LULL ti
Samuel
R, Aldrich,
Board Member
I,
Regina B.
Ryan,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
certify that Dr.
Samuel
B, Aldrich submitted the above supplemental
statement on
~
day of
1971,