ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

9, 1971

In the Matter of

#R70—2

THERMAL STANDARDS,

LAKE MICHIGAN

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

We have before us

a variety of proposals concerning standards

governing the introduction of heat into

Lake Michigan.

The subject

has attracted an extraordinary degree of public interest.

We have

held

four days of public hearings on our own, and we have also

participated in two multip1e~dayworkshops on the subject sponsored

by

the

Federal Water Quality Administration and its successor

under

the umbrella of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference.

We have accumulated mountains of scientific testimony

as

to the

physical

fate of heat discharged into the lake,

as

to the effects

of heated discharges upon lake ecology,

and as to methods of reducing

heat discharges.

On May

3

we published

a proposed

final draft

requlation,

together with

a detailed summary of the facts and arguments

supporting that draft,

After allowing another month for additional

comments, we have today adopted the final regulation.

This opinion

qives

our reasons.

The present regulations applicable

to Lake Michigan

(SWB-7 and

SWB~l5)

orescribe

an absolute maximum lake temperature of 85°and

forbid an increase

of more than 5°F~ above natural temperature.

Technical Release 20—22, never adopted as

a regulation,

provides for

a mixing

zone of

600 feet from the point of discharge;

we have held

in the analogous case

of the Illinois River

(SWB-8)

that the technical

release states the implicit understanding of

the prior Board

in

adopting the water quality standard,

See

Application of Commonwealth

Edison Co~ (Dresden

#3),

#

70-21

(March

3,

1971),

With

the start of construction of several large nuclear

generating stations along Lake Michigan, considerable public concern

was expressed lest the addition of large inputs of waste heat cause

harm to lake ecology~

In response

to this concern Assistant SecretariEs

of the Interior Klein

and Glasgow,

in 1970, proposed to the Lake

Michigan Conference

——

composed of the water pollution agencies of

Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin,

and the federal government

——

that a new standard

be

adopted forbidding discharges more than 1°

above normal lake temperatures.

Shortly thereafter,

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency submitted

to the Board three alternative proposals regarding

thermal standards for

the Lake,

The first would preserve

the

present 85°and 5°—risestandard, presumably outside

a 600 feet

mixing zone;

the second would impose

a set of monthly maximum

1

—

697

---

lake temperatures and a 3°rise limit outside a

mixing

zone varying

with the volume of the discharge;

the third would impose the

Klein—Glasgow 10 effluent standard.

We scheduled

and

held extensive hearings, which were largely

duplicated in a conference workshop also held in the Pall of 1970.

The Federal agencies presented detailed written documentation

of their case for a strict effluent standard, whtch was by then

phrased so as to forbid any significant heated discharge.

In the

Conference workshop the federal agency also submitted its witnesses

for questioning.

Extensive testimony in support of the federal

position was presented by numerous citizens, conservation groups,

and elected officials, including the Attorney General of Illinois.

During

our

hearings and the workshop the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency refused to take a position on any of the three

proposals it had made, or to offer any evidence.

Later, however,

the Agency came out in favor of a ban on all heated discharges

larger than those from motorboats.

Extensive evidence was pre-

sented by power companier and by other witnesses, on our hearings

and in the workshop, in opposition to the federal proposal.

-

The Conference appointed i technical committee to draft a

recommended standard on the basis of the evidence.

The committee

report, received in January, 1971, essentially found the evidence

inconclusive and recommended that cooling devices to reduce heated

discharges

be required on all sources unless proof was made, by a

date to be set by the Conference, that no significant harm was

caused or would be caused by the discharge.

This proposal would

have had

the

effect of shifting the burden of proof and of

postponing the decision.

Another session of the Conference was held in March, 1971,

ostensibly to discuss the committee report.

In preparation

for this session the Board prepared detailed findings of fact

and a tentative statement of position, which were distributed to

other Conference members in advance.

On the evening before the

Conference reconvened, we were called into private session by

the federal conferee and for the first time given another new

federal position statement, together with detailed proposed

regulations for implementing it.

The essence of this position

was that cooling towers or the equivalent would be required on

large heat sources under construction as well as on those to be

built in the future, and that restrictions were to be placed on

some existing sources as well.

It

was

made clear that the

federal government intended to attempt to enforce its proposal

whether or not the States went along.

The March session of the Conference elicited a large quantity

power companies.

At the close of testimony the Conference adopted

1—~

---

virtually all of the Board’s suggested findings of fact.

311th

Illinois dissenting alone, the latest federal position ias

adopted.

The position of the Board, representing Illinois, was

that the addition of significant new heat sources not yet in

operation or under construction should be prohibited.

The

regulation adopted today

embodies

this

position.

The difference between our position and the fed~ralis

an important one, but it should not be exaggerated.

As is evident

from the unanimous Conference adoption of the essence of our fact

findings, there is no substantial disagreement as to the facts.

Our conclusion from these facts is that a few nuclear plants

can

be expected to have minor and local adverse effects, but, unless

they are placed so as to interfere with significant spawning

grounds, are not likely to affect the lake as a whole.

Most

significantly, the fear of an artificially warmed breeding

ground

for undesirable algae, so far as a single well—designed plant is

concerned, is essentially ruled out by the evidence.

Moreover, the

costs of backfitting alternative cooling devices are in the tens

of millions of dollars for an individual large plant, and the

possibilities that such devicet themselves——such as cooling towers——

might have adverse affects of their

own

has been raised and not

disproved.

On the other hand,

it,

is clear

that

the unlimited

proliferation of such plants could have a very serious adverse

effect on the lake, and it is this threat of proliferation that

forms the backbone of the case presented by the federal agencies.

Reasonable men can differ as to the proper’ course of action

to take on the basis of the essentially undisputed facts.

The

federal position is that, since we do not know for sure that plants

under construction will not significantly

harm

the lake, they

should be backfitted with cooling devices.

Our

view is that the

record tells us enough to make the danger of serious

harm

from

these few sources quite small, and that it would not be a wise

use of resources to require the expenditure of large sums of

money in order to avoid the relatively insignifcant.

harm that

is likely to result from a few instances of once—through cooling,

especially in light of the possible adverse effects of the cooling

towers themselves.

We think the most significant fact is that

all four states and the federal government are now firmly on

record as opposing proliferation of once—through—cooled plants

beyond those now under construction.

Proliferation is the

problem, and Illinois by the present proposed final regulation

will outlaw proliferation.

It is our sincere hope that the

other states will follow suit.

Moreover, we are committed to

requiring backfitting at any time that significant ecological

hArm

is in fact shown.

I

—

—

---

It should be added

that

the Board is required by statute

to base its decisions on an objective assessment of facts

presented on the record.

We have not the latitude to decide

on the basis of the preferences of the most vocal of

our

-

constituents.

One

result of

our

proceedings has been the

compilation of an extensive record and detailed findings

of fact.

The General Assembly, which

has

the last word, will

be free to take those findings and come to some other conclusion

I.

1.

Sources and Fate’ of Heat Discharges.

Lake

Michigan receives enormous natural heat inputs from the

sun and substantial ones from its tributaries, which commonly

exceed lake temperatures by as much as seven to twelve degrees

(ft.

732).

In addition,

existing

man—made sources in 1968 were

estimated by the Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the

Interior) to contribute about

110 billion BTU’s per hour.

By

far the largest single ‘cat~goryof

man—made

heat sources is

the electric power industry; nearly 30 billion BTU’s per hour

were said to be added in 1968 by plants totalZing 7,600

megawatts capacity.

The steel industry is said to account

for over half the rest, and municipal sewage effluent is

listed as a significant source as well.

Over one third of

the input from psiter

-

generation

and

most of that from steel

are found in the southwestern part of the lake shore,

including the Illinois shoreline.

Additional generating plants

under construction and scheduled for operation by

19711

would increase the total shoi’eline capacity to 15,626

megawatts——nearly twice what it was in 1968 (see Ex.1l,

USD1 Fish & Wildlife Service, Physical & Ecological Effects

of Waste Heat on Lake Michigan, pp. 27—34).

These facts

are not disputed.

Among

the generating stations now under construction are

two 1100 megawatt nt~c1earunits of Commonwealth Edison ,Company at

Zion,.Illinois, with respective completion dates of 1972 and

-1973 (Byron Lee,

ft.

.249, 254).

Because they are less efficient,

nuclear plants produce more waste heat per unit of electricity

Øroduced than do conventional fossd.l fuel plants, and much less

of the waste heat is discfr’rged directly to the atmosphere from

a nuclear plant

than

through the stacks of a conventional one.

-

per cent more heat to its cooling Mater than does .a conventional

plant of the

same

capacity (Philip Gustafson,

ft. 605—06).

Commonwealth Edison’s principal wj.tness on the physical aspects

1—700

---

nuclear unit

——

or a 1700 megawatt fossil unit

——

would discharge

to the water

6.8

billion BTU’s per hour, or “six one—thousandths

-

of one per cent of the average rate of heat imput to the surface

layers of the Lake due to solar radiation and atmospheric

radiation”

(D.

W. Prichard,

R. 362).

Each unit at Zion

will be ten per cent larger than this, so that the heat

rejected will be on the order of seven and one half billion

BTU’s per hour for each unit, or fifteen billion in total.

It is anticipated that cooling water for Zion will be taken

in about 2600 feet from shore, will be raised in temperature

as much as 20°F. as it passes through the condensers, and

will be discharged about 760 feet from shore, and that each

unit will require J670 cubic feet per second, or 750,000

gallons per minutes (See Ex.

lII,

Pritchard—Carpenter report

on Predictions of the Distribution of Excess Temperature in

Lake Michigan etc.,

p. 1).

These facts, too, are not disputed.

Water temperatures near the shores of Lake Michigan range

from 32°to 82°F.

(Ex. 11,

supra,

p. 10), and there are

substantIal shprt—term and short—distance fluctuations in

temperatures (PhilIp Gustafson,

ft. 608).

Predictions by the Fish and WildlIfe Service that electric

generating capacity along the lake, if unchecked, would

multiplyby the year 2000 to ten times 1968 levels

(Ex. 11,

supra,

p. 28)

were not denied.

The volume of the Lake is estimated atel,l70 cubic miles

(Ex. 11, p.

2).

Nobody took issue with the conclusion that,

if the heat input from all new sources projected for the year

2000 were evenly distrithited throughout the entire Lake, water

temperatures would be raised by less than one tenth of one

degree

(D.W. Prichard,

ft.

365).

No one argued that such a

rise would have any detectable effect.

On the other hand, all wit-

nesses agreed that such complete mixing was impossible and

that areas in the proximity of~heated discharges would bear

a

disproportionate

share

of

the

heat

burden.

1.

This

compares

with

an average flow in the Grand

River,

largest

tributary

of the Lake, that

ranges

from

1500

to

7700

cfs

depending

upon

the time of year (Philip Gustafson,

ft. 612).

1—701

---

It

is also agreed

that

all

substantial heat i~iputsthat are

contemplated will be discharged rather near the shoreline.

The

Fish and Wildlife Service, arguing for a strict limitation on heat-~

ed discharges, attempted to show that the effect of heat additions

will be essentially confined to a narrow

(3 mile) strip

of inshore

waters of less than 100 feet depth as

a result of currents that

force effluents to parallel the shore and of a thermal barrier

that develops chiefly during the spring and inhibits mixing with

deeper water

(Ex.

11. pp.

11, 13, ~8).

On these premises, and

on the further assumption that

a heated plume in contact with the

shore will be diluted only on one side and thus more slowly, the

Fish and Wildlife Service predicts the following:

1.

that

a single plume from a large power plant

discharging

at 18°above ambient lake temperature could raise lake temperature

2°or more over an area of twenty—eight square miles

(p.

83);

2.

that year—2000 discharges might be

“so close together

that their effects would merge”

(p.

86)

and might cause “warming

of a large proportion of the beach water zone and certain adjacent

waters”

(p.

88); and

3.

that )4j~ of the water in the “beach zone”

(up to thirty

feet in depth)

in the Chicago—Gary sector of the lake would be

drawn through power—plant

condensers

each day in the year 2000

(p.

90).

The impression conveyed by this presentatIon is that concentration

of predicted heat effects in the inshore waters of the southwest

corner of the

lake may warm a substantial portion of those waters

by two or more degrees in another thirty years.

Power industry testimony attempted to discredit the notion of

the thermal bar.

Dr.

D.

W. Pritchard testified as to experiments

si~ggestingthat there was considerable mixing across the thermal

gradient, amounting to 1.83

of the inshore volume each day, about

seventy times the quantity expected to be used for cooling in 1980

(H, ~427,889—90).

He also testified that a properly designed plant

(such as Zion) would assure dilution on both sides of the plume

by

directing the discharge sufficiently away from shore; would

avoid ~interminglingof plumes by directing the two discharges

at forty—five degree angles from the perpendicular, or

at right

angles to each other

(H.

373,

ili—15); would minimize contact

with the bottom and

affect only the top ten to fifteen feet

of water

(368,

439);

and would minimize the surface area

raised by more

than

one degree

F.

by discharging

at

a high velocity in order

to maximize

rapid dilution

(H,

372).

On the basis

of mathematical calculations

(modeling)

he estimated that the discharge of water 20°above

ambient from a 1000 megawatt nuclear facility

(10

smaller than

1

—

702

---

either

Zion

unit)

so

designed

would

raise

the

temperature tel

degrees in six—tenths of an acre;

five

degrees

in

ten

acres;

-

two

degrees

in

99

acres;

and one

degree in 391 acres

(ft. 380).2

On

the

same

basis

he

predicted

that

heated

discharges

from

power

plants

five—sixths

as

large

as

those

predicted

by

the

Fish

and

Wildlife

Service

for

the

year

2000

would

raise

the

temperature

ten

degrees

in

30.9

acres;

five

degrees

in

525;

two

degrees

in

5100;

and

one

degree

in 20,000

(ft. 387).

Twenty

thousand

acres,

he pointed out, are fourteen hundredths of

one per

cent

of

the

total

area

of

the

lake

(id).

Dr.

Prichard

also

attempted

to

show

that

the

length

of

time

any

one

molecule

of

water——and

hence

any

microorganism

in

the

water-—would

be

exposed

to

measurably

elevated

temperatures

would

be

much

shorter

than

if

the

area

affected

were

a

discrete

body

rather

than

part

of

a

very

large

lake

•

The

time

of

transit

from

condensers

to outfall at Zion is predicted to be two minutes;

an

organism

discharged

from

the

outfall

would

remain

ten

degrees

above

ambient

temperature

for

forty—seven

seconds,

five

degrees

above

for

six

minutes,

and

two

degrees

above

for

one

and

a

half

hours

(ft.

390).

Dr.

Pritchard’s

conclusion

respecting

the

thermal

bar

was

hotly

disputed

(see

Dr.

John

Can,

in

Ex.

10,

transcript

of

Conference

Workshop,

pp.

1235,

1238),

and

his

estimates

of

both

the

areas

affected

by

elevated

temperatures

and

the

exposure

time

of

any

given

particle

were

questioned

by

federal

witnesses

on

the

basis

of insufficient empirical verification of

his

model

and

because

his conclusions could

not

be evaluated without knowledge of the

equations on which they were based (Richard Callaway, Ex.

10, pp.

1320, 1331, 1380, 1393—84).

No one, however, presented any contrary

time

exposure

estimates

or

any

alternative

affected—area

tables

based

upon

similar

design

assumptions,

and

a

brief

independent

review

of

Pritchard’s

work

by

an

Argonne

National

Laboratory

scientist

engaged

in

similar

work

failed

to

disclose

any

obvious

flaws

(Barton

Hoglund,

ft.

869—70),

although

the

reviewer

disclosed

considerable

uncertainty

as

to

the

accuracy

of

one

assumption

employed

by

Pritchard;

whether this

uncertainty

would

result

in

a

larger

or

a

smaller

plume

he

could

not

say

(Letter

of

Barton

Hoglund

to

Hearing

Officer

Kissel,

Nov.

30,

1970).

2.

By

doubling

the

volume

of

flow,

Dr.

Pflchard

testified,

one could cut the discharge temperature to ten degrees above

ambient

and

significantly

reduce

the

area

raised

more

than

2°.

E.g.,

the

area

raised

5° would

be

reduced

from

ten

acres

to

2.6.

The

area

raised

10

to

2° would

be

very

slightly

increased

(ft.

871—72).

I

—703

---

Measurements

of the thermal plume

from

the existing l0~47megawatt

fossil—fueled generating station at Waukegan

(R.

~56),

which

dis-

charges at about twelve degrees F.

above

ambient

(FL

33k),

indic.ate

that the plume

is hard to detect at temperatures

less than two or

three degrees above ambient and that the plume

Is recognizable about

~4000feet

from the outfall at the surface and 1600 feet at the bottom

(Lawrence Beer,

F. ~~84).

2.

The Effects of Heat Discharges

The two types of possible heat damage most

stressed in the evidence

are adverse effects on fish

and the ‘encouragement

of undesirable

algae growths.

The following summary of heat effects on fish, which

is not

contradicted,

is taken frcm the paper Physical and Ecological

Effects

of

Waste

Heat

on

Lake

Michigan,

prepared

by

the

Fish

and

Wildlife Service

(Ex.

11).

Excessive temperatures can

kill

fish;

different

species

have different tolerance limits.

Adult coho salmon,

for example,

die after

60 minutes’

exposure to 77°

F.;

when they

pass

through

the beach waters in late summer to

spaw:o, average normal temperatures

are as high as 69°;a rise

of 8°F.

in

mid—August would raise

temperatures beyond the lethal limit(p,

51).

Fish

acclimated

to

high temperatures~moreover, are susceptible to being killed in

sudden upwellings of cold water

such as often occur in Lake

Michigan

~

53—5~).

Outright

fish

kills,

however,

are

not

the

only

adverse

effect

of

excess

heat:

“less

well

known

hut

equally

important

are

the

temperature

limits

for

sudcessful

survival

in

other

situations

where

unfavorable

temperatures

reduce

the

ability

of

the

organisms

to

move

about,

escape

predation,

compete

with

other

~

~or

food,

and

otherwise

successfully

complete

all

of

the

vital

life

processes and stages

(including reproduction)” (p~50).

For

example,

a heat dose

only

25

as

large

as that required to

cause

loss

of

equilibrium

(which

in

turn

is

less

than

that

re-

quired

to

cause

death)

“measurably

increases

the

susceptibility

of

juvenile

chinook

salmon

and

rainbow

trout

to

predaticn”

(p.

55).

The

growth

rate

of

coho salmon

is most

rapid

at

59°

and

is

calculated

to

decrease

to

zero

at

69—70°; the

eff’iciency

of

food

conversion

falls

below

80

of maximum

at 62°,and consequently “temperatures

higher than

62°

F.

during

the growth phase of the coho

salmon

car.

be expected

to

reduce the population success of this

species”

(p.

56).

Temperatures must be below

143°

for five months to assure

normal maturation of yellow perch eggs, and only five months average

that cold

in Lake Michigan now;

“any delay in cooling in the fall

1

—

704

---

or acceleration of warming in the spring will shorten the

time

available

for maturation to

a period

less than that required”

(p.

59).

NNitefish spawn in November

and December, and

a drop

to 42°

is required;

lake herring spawn somewhat later and require

temperatures

as low as

37—39°;

yellow perch spawn

in spring at

optimum temperatures

of

46—54°,

and

“one year in three, thE addition

of heat

to the spawning

areas at

the

start

of the spawning season

(May 15) would cause the optimum temperature for spawning to be

exceeded”

(pp.

61—62).

On the other hand,

spawning of the un-

desirable alewife, uhose massive die—offs have caused severe beach

nuisances,

would be promoted

by increased temperatures

(p.

62),

Above 43,2° the yield from whitefish eggs

i5 under

50,

and thus

too low to sustain

a successful population;

“1ake

temperatures

are already at 4he maximum tolerable for

the successful

incubation

of whitefish and

cisco

eggs

and the addition of heat

to the

lake an the rail

in areas where

tue eags

ox whuref~sh

or

ciscoes are incubating will reduce the viable hatch below the

50 percent level”

(pp.

63—64).

A

3.6°

rise over normal temferatures

would “shorten the incubation period of lake herring by at least

29 days

.

,

causing the fish to hatch in a potentially hostile

environment in which light may not be of the right intensity,

or food may

not be

of the proper kind

(sPecies), size,

or density

to ensure survival”

(p.

64).

No one disputed

•tbese arpuments, although there was

a considerable

stress on the fact

that

the Fish and Wildlife Service conclusions

were based

on laboratory

studies and on the difficulty of transposing

laboratory results

to actual field conditions.

Dr.

Edward C.

Raney, an

ichthyologist testifying

at

the request of Commonwealth

EdiSon Co.

,

agreed that no large heat

sources shoubd be constructed

on or near spawning streams

or where mirruatory paths would he

affected

(pp.

551,

582).

He agreed also

that

larpe structures

such as oower plants “will cause

some changes

in the

local en-

vironment”

(p.

557).

b.c agreed that

at

a plant

such as Zion

“most organisms including

fishes will be denied some livirg

spaoe”——”a matter of acres”——in

the vie i.nity

of the heated outfall;

that within “a small mixinc

zone”

summer water temueratures

would exceed lethal temperatures

for organisms normally found

in the

aue•a;

that “seasonal temperature requirenents

for re—

production anN other aspects of the life history of the

fishes.

ure predicted

to

be satisfactory”

“except

for

a few acres near

the base

of the plume;”

and that the question for decision

was

“are you going

to give

up

a few

acres.

in order to make

the

best

use of the resource?”

(F.

554—55,

595),

His argument

was

that the area affected would be

so small in relation to the

note

ra

taut no srzirf:caau

uran

x~ auld ecciogy or ur~ury

to recreational

uses would be expected

to result from con~truct~ion

of the plant at

Zion

(H.

55ig

t57ig8).

---

•

The

response cC

the

Fish and Wildlife Service is that the

proliferation of plants projected for the next

thirty

years

threatens

to

affect

a

significant

portion

of

the

inshore

waters

of

the

lake

(Ex.

11,

pp..

86—87),

with

consequent

significant

adverse

effects

on

the

ecology

of

the

lake

as

a

whole.

A related

issue

is

the

thermal

and

physical

damage

to

organisms

drawn

through

the

condensers

of

power

plants

along

with

water

used

for

cooling

(Ex.

11,

pp.

74—75).

For

example,

the

Fish

and

Wildlife

Service

argues

that

studies

have

shown whitefish

larvae

will

not

survive

in

the

hottest

part

of

a

thermal

plume

from

a

power

plant,~and

therefore

they

will

not

survive

passage

through

the

condensers,

where

tempestures

are

at

least

as

high

(T.A.

Edsafl,

Ex.

10,

pp.

1290—91).

Mr.

Edsall’s

conclusion

is

that

“all

ox’

nearly

all

of

the

organisms

in

this

intake

water

would

be,

in

fact,

kifled”

(id,

p.

1292).

Dr.

Raney,

for

Edison,

countered

with. results

of

a

California

power

plant

experiment

showing

that

95

or

more of

young

chinook

salmon

survived

for

ten

days

after

five

minutes’

passage

through

condensers

with

a

25°

rise

CR.

556—57).

With

respect

to

algae

drawn

through

the

condensers,

Dr.

Andrew ‘Robertson

(also

for

Edison)

believed

it

“unlikely”

that

all

would

be

killed

and

said

that

“any

cells

killed will

be

replaced

quite

rapidly

as

these

materials

are

made

available

to

other

cells

as

part

of

this

natural

cycle”,

so

that

“it

seems

extremely

unlikely

that

any

noticeable

effect

on

the

ecology

of

the

lake

will

result”

CR.

523—24).

The

Fish

and

Wildlife Service referred also to ,taboratory

studies

showing

that

when

water

is

supersaturated

with

oxygen

and

other

gases

(as

can

occur

when

saturated

water

is

warmed

so

as

to

decrease

gas

solubility),

fish

can

be

killed

by

emboli

CE.

10

p.

1357);

(Ex.

11

p.

76).

The

growth

of

undesirable

types

and

quantities

of

algae

and

other

aquatic

plants

has

been

an

increasingly

serious

problem

in

Lake

Michigan.

A

report

by

Stoermer

and

Yang

in

1969

CEx.

11

p.

79)

reported

that

“Lake

Michigan is

probably

at

the

present

time

about

at

the

‘brea4c

point”

between

rather

moderate

and

transient

algal

nuisances,

largely

confined

to

the

inshore

waters,

and

drastic

and

most

likely

irreversible

changes

in

the

bntirè

ecosystem”.

It

is

the

position

of

the

!‘ish

and

Wilflife

Service,

and

a

fear

expressed

by

numerous

witnesses,

that

“temperature

increases,

whatever

the

amount, will tend to pi~’omotethese undesirable

changes,

especially

in

inshore

waters”(ibid).

The

principal.

argument

in

support

of

this

position

is

that

increased

temperatures

will

tend

to

favor

growth

of

the

less

desirable

algal

species,

such

as

the

so—called

blue—green

algae,

which

have

a

preference

for

high

temperatures

and

which

have

a

tendency

to

accumulate

in

large

smelly

decaying

masses

along

the

beach.

The

Fish

and

Wildlife

Service

points

to

the

annual

succession

of

algal

species

in

Lake

Erie

as

an

example

of

what

might

happen

in

1— 706

---

Michigan as nutrient supplies increase:

“Diatoms appear

first

in late winter or early

spring

when temperatures begin to rise

above freezing, following the winter period of relatively little

algal activity.

Diatoms reach their

maximum

at temperatures of

350

p~ When the temperature rises above 500 F, green algae

become

dominant

and

remain

dominant

until

the

temperature

nears

its

maximum

of

about

750

F.

Above

750

blue—green

appear,

and

as

the

lake

begins

to

cool,

very

large

blooms

frequently

occur”.

Thus

it

is

argued

that

a

rise

in

lake temperature would cause this

succession

to

occur

earlier

in

the

year

and

would

“lengthen

the

period

of

dominance

of

blue—green

algae

by

simply

sustaining

temperatures above 70°for a longer period” (id., pp. 77—78).

Although one Edison witness testified

that

temperature

changes “can

change”

not only the types but also “the amounts”

of algae

(Andrew Robertson, R.

522), another asserted that while

increased temperature increases the rate at which

growth

takes

place, “this does not mean

that

the

total biomass, i.e.,

amount

of algae ~resent in the water, will be increased,” since “the

total amount of algae and other aquatic plants present in a given

body of water is primarily dependent on the availability of aquatic

plant nutrients, rather than on temperature” (Fred Lee, R. 506).

F±shand Wildlife Service witnesses did not disagree with thIs

conclusion

(John

Carr,

Zx. 10 pp.

l2115_16, 1258—59), except of course

for their argument that algae might be abundant for longer periods

of the year.

As

‘or

the effect of

warming

on

species

distribution,

Dr.

Lee

(for

Edison)

testified

that

the

causal

relation

between

high

temperature

and

blue—green

species

was

unclear,

since

“some

of

the

highest

concentrations

ever

encountered

by

the

author

have

been

found

under the ice in winter”

(R. 510), and Dr. Robertson (also for

Edison) added that the seasonal succession of blue—greens might

be related to increasing light and

to

the

presence

of

the

thermocline——

which ~.nhibits

passage of organisms into the deeper

and

darker

parts

of

the

lake——rather

than

to increasing temperatures

(R. 956).

Fish

and

Wildlife

countered

with

the

belief

that

temperature

is

causal

(Charles

Powers,

Ex.

10

p.

1371).

An

EdIson

witness

did

concede

that

species

changes

“could

happen”

if

“certain

parts

of

the

water

volume”

were

permanently

warmed

above

ambient”

(Andrew

Robertson,

R.

576).

However,

Edison

wItnesses

maintained,

because

“the

exposure

to

increased

temperatures

for

any

particular

parcel

of

water

will

be

quite

restricted

in

time”,

and

because

algae

growth

is slow in relation to residence time,, the effect will not

be

the

same

as

if

a

small

pond

the

size

of

the

affected

area

were

heated;

“there

will

be

little time for new species, favored by the

Increased

temperatures,

to

be

established

in

a

parcel

of

water

before the water is returned to ambient temperature.”

For this

reason, and because the area affected will be

small

in relAtion

to

the

whole

lake,

they conclude

that

“there seems little likelihood

that temperature conditions from a station like the one proposed

at Zion.

.

.will have

any

appreciable effect on the ecology of

the planktonic plants in the lake”

(Fred Lee,

R. 510; Andrew

1

—

707

---

Robertson,

R.

525—27).

Fish and Wildlife did not

argue

against

the

premise

that

a

single

plant

would

expose

algae

to

high

temperatures

too

briefly

to

affect

specie

distribution;

its

position

was

that

“an

extensive

zone

of

thermal

influence”

attributable

to

a

number

of

plants

close

together

would

favor

the

undesirable

blue—greens

(Ex.

11

p.

85).

Of

related significance is the possibility that increased

temperatures

might

increase

the

incidence

of

the

bottom—attached

plant

Cladophora,

which

accumulates with detrimental effects along

Lake

Michigan

beaches.

Testitying

that

Cladophora

does

“cause

a

significant

deterioration

of

water

4uality”

in

the

lake,

Edison

witness

Dr.

Fred

Lee

predicted

that

“if

a

suitable

substratum

for

the

attachment

of

Cladophora occurred in the region of the discharge

plume,

Cladophora

would

be

present

at

a

slightly

earlier

date

each

spring

as

a

result

of

heating

the

water

in

the

order

of

a

few

de-

grees

above ambient”.

He did not consider

this

possibility to

represent “a significant effect on water quality” because the in-

crease

wodld

be

“barely~

perceptible”

and

since

the

area

affected

would be “completely insignificant”

(R.

507—08).

Dr. Robertson’s

testimony was

similar.

Recognizing the undesirability of Cladophora,

agreeing that water temperature is a major factor controlling the

types

of

attached

algae,

and

saying

that

it would therefore be

undesirable

to’have

“any

but

a

very

small area of the bottom of the

lake

exposed

to

substantial

temperature

increases”,

he

stated

that

the

Zion

outfalls

Vould

be

“directed

away

from shore and in deep

enough

water

so

that

little

if

any

of

the

bottom

wouad

experience

substantial

temperature

changes”

(R.

518—20).

Fish

and

Wildlife

also

argued

that

“areas

of

high localized

temperatures”

could

stimulate

growth

of

the

bacterium

Clostridium

botulinum

type

E,

“which

has

caused

dieoffs

of

fish—eating

birds

on

Lake

Michigan

and

has

caused

human

mortalities”

(Ex.

11

p.

7k,

Ex.

10

p.

1362).

One

power

company

witness

argued

that

this

organism

is

anaerobic

and

thus

should

not

be

found

in

heated

plumes

in

Lake

Michigan,

where

oxygen

is

presumably

abundant

(Jud

Hipke,

Ex.

10

p. 1360).

Carlos Fetterolf of the Michigan

water

pollution agency

observed that the most pronounced outbreaks of botulism have occurred

in the fall when temperatures have begun dropping (id.,

p.

1366).

There is a shortage of field information on the actual effects

of discharges such as are contemplated for the Zion plant upon

an

environment

like

that

of

Lake

Michigan.

The

most

relevant,

but

admittedly

not wholly conclusive, study that has been made

was an

April 1968 survey by

Drs.

Wesley 0. Pipes

and Lawrence P.

Beer of the thermal

plume

from CommonweAlth Edison’s Waukegan

generating station.

Dr. Pipes testified that the study failed to

show “any significant difference between the Waukegan Station

discharge plume and the control area on the basis of the water

quality and plankton samples”; that “the benthic

(bottom) organisms

.

most

indicative

of

good

water

quality.

.

.were

found in reasonable

numbers”,

and

in

“not

greatly

different” numbers than in the control

i-lOS

---

area,

in the area of the plume;

that “gross pollutional effects

as

a result of condenser water

discharges

into Lake Michigan have

not been found”; that

any gross

effects

that might occur in the

next

several

years

“should

be measurable

as subtle effects

now”;

and

that “between 500

and 1,000 samples collected over

a one~

year

period”

would be required to demonstrate such subtle effects

(H.

301,

302,

306,

309,

310).

The study is now under way

(R.

315).

Dc,

Pipes acknowledged

that

she

Waukegan study

had consisted

of

“about

a

week’

5

work on the

lake”;

that the Waukegan plant’ s

capacity

was about

the same as either of the

two units planned

for Zion;

that

a nuclear plant rejects more heat than does

a

fossil fuel plant

(like Waukegan)

of the

same capacity; that

extrapolation

to

a situation involving numerous overlapping plumes

would be dangerous;

that

the temperature rise across the Waukegan

condensers (12°F,) is

less

than that

(20°)planned for

Zion; that

he could not

guarantee the effects

of

heat would

be

the same at

a

more

advanced

stage

of

eutrophication;

that

his

tests

did

not

include

fish,

although

Conservation

Department

tests

showed

salmon,

pike,

and

trout

near

the discharge;

that bentnic organisms

are

relatively

scurce

In

tne

Waukegan

plume

because

of

wave

action;

and

that

there

were

considerably

more

nematodes

and

oligochaetes——

indicators

of

pollution——in

the

Waukegan

plume

than

in

the

test

area.

He

attributed

this

last

circumstance

to

organic

pollution

in

the

plume

area.

(H.

329,

33l~39,

922—25,

Ex.

11.

pp.

10

Throughout

the

proceedinas

Edison

contended

that

any

adverse

effects

that

might

occur

as

a

result

of

thermal

discharges

in

the

next

few

years

would

cc

not

only

minor

and

local

but

also

reversible:

Thermal

discharges,

unlike

other

discharges,

do

not

leave

a

rcsDdue

in

the

water

which

must

be

flushed

from

the

lake

upon

termination

of

the

input,

The

thermal

discharges

continuously

equilibrate

with

the

atmosphere,

there

are

no

long

term

effects

on

water

quality

after

the

discharge

is

stopped.

.

.

It

is

reasonable

to

expect

that

upon

termination

of

these

discharges

the

affected

aquatic

organism

wi 11

recover

and

reoopulate

the

affected

area

with

norpal

oruanisms.

(Fred

Lee,

H.

5ll~l2,)

Reminded

that

there

are

heat—induced

changes

(such

as

the

making

of

toast)

which

are not

reversed

by

subsequent

cooling,

Edison

later

presented

several

studies,

none

directly

in

point,

designed

to

show

that

thermally

induced

changes

are

reversible——so

long,

of

course,

as

a species

iS

not

reduced

below

viable

numbers

before

heat

inputs

are

terminated.

These

studies

were

concerned

with

conditions

sufficiently

far

downstream

from

a

thermal

discharge

to

permit

cooling

of

the water during

passage,

and

with

the recovery

of

a

river

after

the

results

of

of

discharges

of

various

kinds

are

washed

away

by incoming water

of

relative

purity

(see

P.

910—22),

I

—

709

---

A variety

of

other

possible

heat

effects

were

mentioned during

the

hearings,

including

a

reduction

in

oxygen

solubility

concurrent

with

an

increased

rate

of

oxygen demand to degrade materials in

the water

(Rep.

Robeit

Mann,

R. 69); the possible reduction of

ice

that

protects beaches against winter erosion (B. 1096); possible

increases in corrosion of industrial cooling facilities

(R. 269);

more comfortable swimming temperatures

(B. 275); and a longer

navigation season

(B. 276).

Dr.

Lee

testified, relative, to the

first item

iii this paragraph, that

Lake

Michigan was sufficiently

free of biochemical oxygen demand and

that

time—temperature

doses

would be sufficiently short

that

dissolved

oxygen

concentrations

would not be significantly affected

(B. 500—03).

3.

Methods of Controlling Thermal Discharges

The Federal Water Quality Administration (predecessor to the

presónt Water Quality Office of the federal Environmental Protection

Agency) prepared a study entitled Feasibility of Alternative Means

of Cooling for Thermal Power Plants near Lake Michigan

(Ex. 12),

which discusses .four possible methods for minimizing heat

discharges tn Lake Michigin:

evaporative cooling towers, dry

cooling towers, cooling ponds, and spray canals.

Some witnesses

urged that waste heat be put to. beneficial use (e.g., Rep.

Robert Mann,

B.

611), but there was no evidence that this laudable

goal is practicable in the immediate future.

Emphasis in the

hearings was placed primarily on cooling towers, and to a lesser

extent on cooling ponds.

No one denies that in appropriate cases all these alternatives

are technically feasible.

Edison’s witnesses acknowledged that wet

cooling towers have been rather extensively used elsewhere (George

E. McVehil,

R. 1036) and stated that the company was “by no means

opposed to cooling towers or cooling ponds as a general matter”

(0.D. Butler,

R. 991—92).

Moreover, no one denies that wet

towers can be backfitted onto existing power plants, so long

as adequate land is available.

This capability in fact forms

the basis of Edison’s promise that if permitted to complete Zion

with once—throug1~cooling, it will install cooling devices later

if harm to the lake ecology is shown (Byron Lee, B.

256—57), and

Edison has prepared detailed esiimates of the cost of Such back—

fitting with the clear implication that tI)is is feasible (0.D.

Butler, B.

996).

The arguments over wet cooling towers have

rather to do with

their

costs and thejr possible adverse effects,

as well as whether there is any justification for requiring their

use.

It is also conceded that dry towers have been employed in

sizes up to 150 mw; Edison argues that there may be danger in

extrapolating design and cost figures to a plant the size of Zion,

and FWQA does not argue

that

it is reasonable to backfit dry

towers (B.

988,

991)

lain

---

FWQA presented the following estimates of the

impact

of

alternative cooling means upon busbar costs of electricity

(which include both capital

and

operating costs of generation but

not the costs of transmission or distribution) from new large

Fossil Plants

Nuclear Plants

Once—through

cooling

11.57 to

7.53

11.37

to 7.60

Wet mech draft

tower

11.65 to 7.65

11.116

to

7.71$

Wet natural

draft tower

11.71 to

7.75

11.51 to 7.82

Cooling pond

11.58 to

7.57

11.39

to

7.66

Spray

canal

11.62 to 7.60

Dry

mech draft

tower

5.03 to 8.23

Dry natural

draft tower

(Ex.

12, p. V-22 and Supplement A, p.

13).

On the basis of these estimates FWQA states that the

maximum

economic penalty associated with a wet cooling tower system on either

fossil or nuclear plants is on the order of 0.2 mills per kilowatt—

hour, less than

3

of total busbar cost

(cx. 12, p. VII—2; Supplement

A, p.

111).

Cost estimates were not made for spray canals or

dry

towers on nuclear plants, but FWQA states that “one would not expect

any

constraints upon their application to nuclear plants” (Supp.

A, p.

114).

Capital costs alone for wet towers FWQA estimates

at from $3.49 per kilowatt of generating capacity (for a mechanical

draft tower on a fossil plant) to $6.91 (for a natural draft tower

on a nuclear plant)

(Ex.

12, p. V—2l. Supp. A, p.

13).

Dry tower

capital costs (for fossil plants) are estimated by FWQA

$.n the

range of $20 per kilowatt.

On these figuPe~the cost of wet natural

draft towers for the

two

1100—mw units at Zion would be $15,200,000.

FWQA estimated that in the case of a new fossil plant the addition

of wet mechanical towers would increase the average residential

electric bill by five cents per month

(O.D. Butler, R.

997).

I —711

---

Edison

argued

that

FWQA’s

estimates

were

lower

than

manufacturers’

quotations

it

had

received

even

for

new plants; but its principal

argument was that

the

FWQA estimates were not applicable to the

situation at Zion, largely because “more than 80

of the structural

work” at Zion has already been completed.

Consequently, Edison

maintains,

“the costs of applying wet or dry cooling towers at

the

present stage of construction of Zion station are in the order

of

5

to

6 times

the cost estimates

in

the report”

(O.D.

Butler,

R,

982—83).

FWQA conceded

that

its estimates did not take into

account

the

peculiarities

of

individual

sites

(Ex,

12,

p.

VIl-l).

Edison’s figures contemplate

a hybrid wet tower with mechanical

draft but with a tall(250’)

hyperbolic shell,

in order

to minimize

ground

fog

problems while avoiding heights that would interfere

with nearby aircraft operations

(O.D. Butler,

R,

996-97).

Largely

because of backfitting,

Edison’s figure for the

capital

cost of

such

towers

to serve the entire Zion capacity

(2200

mw)

is

$116,855,000, as compared with FWQA’s ~l5,200,000

for

a natural

draft tower,

for capital

costs

of$53.72

per

kilowatt as compared

with FWQA’s

$6.91.

(Ex.

36,

p.

2).

The increased cost of such a tower

to

the average residential consumer Edison estimates

at sixty—n~ne

cents

per

month,

assuming an ~average present bill of $11.44.

(p,

998)

To

backfit dry

towers at Zion, Edison

says, would require

the

plant

to be substantially rebuilt at

a cost of half

a billion

dollars,

increasing the average, monthly residential bil.l by

$2.95,

or 25

(See Exhibits

C,

D, and

E

to the testimony

of

O,D,

Butler;

R.

990,

997-98),

As

for cooling ponds, Edison

contends that FWQA ignored the cost of construction;

that ponding

is not

a feasible alternative at Zion because “adequate land is

not available”;

and that

to build

a pond at

Zion would add ninety-

seven cents

per month——not the two or three cents predicted by

FWQA--to the average consumer bill

(A.

990,

999;

Ex.

A

to testimony

of

O,D. Butler).

FWQA,

since our hearings,

has submitted

a

particularized critique of

the company’s

Zion cost estimates,

concluding

for numerous reasons

tha’t

the estimates

are

too high

(Ax.

28),

A report recently prepared for the Illinois

Institute

for Environmental Quality by Datagraphics,

Inc., reviewing

the con~

flicting estimates, concludes that

“of the

two estinates,

the

FWQA data are more believable, probably accurate for wet towers and

50

percent low

for dry .towers,

The power company’s estimates

are

probably high by factors of

2

to

4,”

(Ax.

34,

p.

107).

Edison argues that cooling towers themselves——especially wet

towers——can have substantial adverse effects on

the e.nvironment.

Towers are massive—up

to 500 feet tall and up to

a half

a nile

long;

they are “almost certain

to be considered undesirable additions

to

the aesthetics of the Lake t’4ichigan landscape”

(A,

984,

1008).

‘Ic

be tornado—proof, Edison contends,

towers must withstand

300 m.p.h.

winds, but the strongest now designed can withstand only

170

(A.

984,

1003).

The noise from fans

in mechanical towers would be

‘a

“very

serious” problems at Zion and other existIng

sites,

“due to the l~.mi’ted

size of the sites

and the

p’roximity of populous areas”

‘(A,

985).

3.

These estimates

and those below include the indirect costs passed on

to the consumer by industrial and commercial useis of electricity.

---

Wet towers cool largely by evaporation, so that considerable volumes

of water vapor are emitted into the air.

This raises the possibility,

Edison observes, that evaporative losses

may

be charged against

Illinois’ limited authority to divert water form Lake Michigan

(R. 986—97

and

Memorandum Regarding Consumptive Uses

Under

the

Lake Diversion Decree, filed by Isham, Lincoln & Beale, attorneys

for Edison).

It also suggests the possibility, much stressed by

Edison, of fogging

and., related effects on the atmosphere.

Wet towers at Zion, according to Edison witness George McVehil,

would evaporate 18,000 gallons of water per minute

(R.

1032).

Taller towers would decrease the incidence of fog; the hybrid

250—foot towers contemplated as an alternative for Zion would,

according to McVehil, cause tog episodes on five to thirty days

per

year,

mostly

in

winter,

mostly

between

there

and

nine

a.m.,

and

mostly

“to the north and over Lake Michigan”

(R.

1033—311).

Icing is to be expected as well as impairment of visibility, and

“a significant number of occurrences are indicated west of the plant,

in the town of Zion, around Waukegan Airport, and especially

along highways to the northwest”

(R.

10314).

Moreover, plumes even

from tall towers “will often be extensive and persistent,” and they

“should be expected to at times create appreciable increase in

cloud cover over the lake shore area, possibly interfering with

aircraft traffic around Waukegan Airport”

(H.

1033—311).

Pictures

of dense visible plumes from existing towers are in the record

(appended to statement of O.D. Butler); Edison also reports a

survey indicating that 17 of

147

utilities surveyed reported

ground fog and 20 icing problems, a result Edison deemed especially

significant since “the larger plants surveyed were all in the

southwest or arid plains states”

(H.

1035—36).

Spray canals would

cause more fog because they evaporate the same quantities of water

and at ground level; cooling ponds would cause less because the

evaporation occurs from a much larger area (H.

1039).

Dry towers avoid fog and diversion problems, but questions

have been raised——not answered——concerning the possible effects

of massive installations on the weather:

“It has been estimated

that such dry towers could induce sufficient vertical circulation to

produce cumulus clouds of extensive magnitude.

.

.

.

Changes in

precipitation and other weather effects are found down wind

of

large cities,

These are believed to be

.‘..

In part, by heat from the city.”

(H.

987—88).

of many of these adverse effects

P.

usually by back—flushing into the Lake”

(H.

601—16).

solution either

(H.

682).

1—713

---

FWQA’s

feasibility report anticipated several of these

objections

and

sought

to

minimize

their

importance.

Sites

should

be chosen,

FWQA

said,

as

far

from

highways

and

airports

as

possible,

and downwind from

them;

in

any

case, studies are cited to show

that’ fog from wet towers

has

proved no problem even in the foggy

Appalachian region; and calculations based on emission volumes

and dilution capacity’ of

the

air

are said to indicate that

“weather conditions in the Lake Michigan area are seldom severe

enough to cause extensive fog conditions in th~vicinity of

wet cooling devices”

(Ex.

12, pp. VI—3

—

VI—20).

FWQA compares evaporation’ losses from wet cooling devices

with those induced by adding heated water to

the

Lake in order to

show that the difference is not so great as might be supposed;

Under conditions in which evaporation from a wet tower would

amount to 10.6 cubic feet per second,

once—through cooling

would cause evaporative losses of 8.2 cfs (id.,

p. VI—25).

The blowdown problem,

FWQA

suggests, can be reduced “practically

‘to the point of extinction by increasing the concentration

multiple” because “the concentration of dissolved solids in the

Lake Michigan is very low”

(id.,

p. VI—29).

This point was

challenged during the federal thermal workshop, but FWQA adds

that adverse effects can be minimized by chemical treatment of

blowdown water

(id., pp. VI—31, VI—38).

Finally, FWQA adverts

to the possibility of “drift”:

“water that is carried out of the

top of a wet cooling tower or from a spray canal in~liquid

droplets rather than vapor.”

Drift, FWQA concedes, can cause

problems with nearby transmission lines, but FWQA finds that

drift

problems have been “limited to the immediate vicinity of the tower

installation” and adds that “mechanical draft towers can be

purchased today with certification of drift elimination to the

0.02 percent level”

(id., p. VI—27).

FWQA does not comment

on possible aesthetic objections to cooling tower; on noise, or

on

any

weather effects from dry towers.

Edison pointsout that site—location methods of avoiding

fog and drift problems are not feasible alternatives for Zion

because of the advanced state of construction there

The Illinois State Water Survey, at our request, has performed

a two—month investigation of the atmospheric effects of cooling

towers.

The Water Survey’s preliminary report conveys much useful

data but concludes that “meteorologists have not acquired adequate

‘information to define in quantitative terms the meteorological

consequences of the large amounts of heat energy and water vapor

that

are released into the atmosphere from cooling towers associated

with nuclear power plants” (Ex.32,

p.

8).

1—714

---

~t.

Summary

of

Pacts.

a.

The

area

that

would

be

raised

in

temperature

more

than

5° by

the

heated

discharge

from

a

1000

mw

nuclear

plant,

designed

so

as

to

maxim±zedilution, could be limited to the order of ten

acres,

and

the

area

raised

2° to

the

order

of

100

acres.

b.

Such

a

plant

could

be

built

so

that

any

given

particle

of

water,

or

any

organism,

drawn

through

its

condensers

would

be

exposed

to

temperatures

20° above

ambient

for

two

minutes

during passage, and,

any

particle

or

organism

discharged

or

en-

trained

would

be

exposed

thereafter

to

temperatures

more

than

10° above

ambient

for

the

order

of

forty—five

seconds,

more

than

5° for

six

minutes,

and

more

than

2° for

one

and

a

half

hours.

c.

A properly designed discharge structure can avoid any

significant

increase

in temperature on the lake bottom or along

the

shore.

d.

The

lake

as

a

whole

would

not

be

perceptibly

warmed

by

even

a

tenfold multiplication.of present generating capacity on

e.

Perfect

m±xing, however,

is

not possible.

Consequently,

if

no

limits

are

imposed

the proliferaticn of electric plants

along

the

lake

may

result

in

the

warming

by

several

degrees

of

a

large

fraction

of

the

inshore

waters,

especially

in

the

southwest

portion

of

the

lake.

f.

‘The

interaction

of

two

or

more

thermal

plumes

may

have

a

more

than

linear

effect

on

the

area

affected

by

a

rise

in

temperature

and

on the

residence’

time

of

any

particle

at

elevated

temperatures.

g.

A

single

1000

mw

nuclear

plant

will

create

a

zone

of

a

few acres

uninhabitabe

by

fish

during

the

warmer

months

and

unsuitable

for

spawning

and

other

significant

fish

activities

at

various

tImes.

h.

Many,

but

an

unknown

percentage, of organisms passing

thorugh

the condensers of such a power

plant

will

be

killed

damaged

by

heat

and

by

physical

shock.

i.

A

s~~ng1e

large

plant

located

in

a

spawning

ground

or

across

a

migratory

route

would

significantly

dIsrupt

the

balance

of

the

affected

species throughout the lake.

3.

There

is

substantial

agreement

that

the

residence

time ‘of

algal

cells

in

the

heated

plume

from

a

properly

designed

single

1000

mw plant is tooshort to cause any detectable shift to less desirable

species, and no increase in total algal mass is to be expected.

k.

Unless

it is located so as to ~nterferewith spawning or

migration, a single isolated 1000 mw plant will have local effects as

noted above but will not upset the balance of the lake as a whole.

1

—

711

---

1.

Unlimited proliferation of electric plants along the lake

could seriously worsen the problem of nuisance algae by favoring

the less desirable species and could seriously~alter the balance

of fish and

other

organisms

in

the

lake

as

a

whole.

m.

Various alternative methods of heat disposal are technically

feasible, including wet and dry cooling towers, cooling ponds, and

spray canals.

The backfitting of all but dry towers is feasible.

n.

To

backfit

wet

towers

at

the

2200—mw nuclear plant now

under construction at Zion, Illinois, would cost somewhere from

fifteen

to

117

million

dollars;

at

a

maximum

this

would cost

residential customers each sixty—nine cents per month.

o.

All alternative cooling means may have some undesirable

environmental effects.

Wet towers can cause fog problems; the

Commonwealth Edison Company estimates fog from a wet tower on five

to thirty mornings per year at Zion, usually in unpeopled areas.

All towers discharge soipe polluted blowdown water that must be

treated before release.

Dry

towers

may

cause as yet undetermined

meteorological changes.

Both wet and

dry

towers are bulky and

unattractive additions to the lakefront.

Evaporation from wet

towers or spray canals arguably would be charged against Illinois’

limited authority to divert water form Lake Michigan.

Cooling ponds

consume about two acres of land per megawatt, land that could be

‘II.

On the record we see the ,following possibilities for action:

1.

Impose no limit on heated discharges to the lake.

This

alternative is wholly unacceptable, since unlimited proliferation

of heat sources could very well have a very substantial detrimental

effect on the ecology of the lake as a whole.

2.

Outlaw all heated discharges to the lake, or all discharges

above a given temperature (e.g.,

10

or 5°above ambient), or

above a given volume

(e.g., 50 gallons per hour), with or without

a grandfather clause.

Such an approach would have the virtue

of avoiding a later difficult and uncertain decision as to when

the point of serious ecological risk is reached by a firm

and

early declaration that no significant thermal’ sources are to be

allowed, and it would establish the position that not even a

small percentage of the lake is to be sacrificed in the interest

of inexpensive cooling.

1 —716

---

3.

Attempt to determine todgy the approximate thermal input

that can be tolerated without hafling the aake as a whole and

without sacrificing undue percentages of the lake ‘in the interest

of inexpensive cooling, for example by limiting inputs to fifteen

billion btu per hour

within

each twenty—mile stretch of lakeshore.

This approach, while necessarily arbitrary in

the

same sense as

is

setting

the

voting

age

at

18

or

at

21

years,

has

the

advantage

of attempting to avoid overall lake damage while accepting the

argument that it is not worth millions of dollars to avoid

making perhaps twenty acres uninhibitable by fish, and while

allowing considerable use of a valuable natural resource, the

cooling capacity of Lake Michigan.

1j~

Accept

the

federal

‘Committee

proposal

to

defer

decision

a

few

years in the hope that

more

complete

information

will

be

obtained,

by placing the burden of proof on those discharging or

planning

to discharge heated effluents to show that their action will

not eause ecological damage.

This alternative preserves

maximum

flexibility to accommodate neW knowledge, with a concomitant

III.

Reasons for Our Decision

There are two arguments for forbidding

any

new

thermal sources to Lake Michigan.

The first is that the people

should

not

be

asked

to

sacrifice

even

a

few

acres

of

the

Lake

in the interest of inexpensive cooling, that the exclusion of

fish from a few acres near the outfall and the

damaging

of

the

organisms drawn

through

the plant condensers are in themselves

intolerable even though the effects are entirely local.

The

second is that the only logical place to draw the line is at

the, beginning, that it is likely to be as impossible in any

future case as it is today to find that any particular plant

will cause harm to the lake as a whole, and therefore that unless

all future discharges are forbidden there will be a proliferation

of heat sources that will have serious effects on the whole lake.

The analogy is to the slow acre—by—acre

filling

of

San

Francisco

Bay:

Each few acres may be insignificant, but the net effect

after a few years is to diminish radically the area and utility

of the Bay.

One difficulty with the first argument is that it may not

be worth fifteen million dollars

(to use the lowest estimate),

or

about

117

million (to use the highest), to prevent the

bruising or broiling of a number of organisms of no significance

to the overall lake ecology and to assure fish a few more acris

to inhabit.

A second difficulty is that to order an end to

further heat discharges is to forbid the use of a valuable

natural resource, the cooling capacity of the lake water, in

order to

prevent

a

rather

minor

injury

to

the

Lake

•

A

third

1 —717

---

is

that

there

may

be

environmental

disadvantages

from

alternative

cooling methods as well:

fogging (and possible accidents) from

wet towers and possible meteorological effects from dry; the

displacement

of

worthy

land uses by cooling ponds; the unattractive

and

bulky

insults

to

the

lakeshore

from

any

type

of

tower;

and

the

added

power

that

must

be

generated,

with

its

own

environmental

problems,

in

order

to

drive

fans

in

mechanical

draft

towers.

It

is

not

altogether

clear

that,

given

the

existence

of

a

power plaht

on the lakeshore in a more or less populated area (as at Zion),

once—through

cooling

really

would

be

worse

for

,the

environment

than

would

any

of

its

alternatives.

The

plain

fact

is

that

there is no known means of producing electricity wtthout some

degradation of the environment.

The villain of the piece is

our

apparently insatiable demand for electric power, which

doubles

every

ten

years.

Some

day

we

may

have to ask ourselves

whether

we

are

not

producing

enough

power,

in

light

of

the

environmental costs of producing more.

In the meantime we must

recognize that to keep the heat out of the lake is not to avoid

all

harm

to the environment,

and

that

the

environmental

costs

of alternative cooling means must be considered before we require

enormous expenditures to avoid re,atively minor damage to the lake.

In

other

words,

to

allow

once—through

cooling

at

any

new

site is to allow some degradation of the Lake, and thus It must

be viewed with distaste.

But we cannot ignore the costs of

avoiding that degradation, and we cannot ignore the fact that

some other part of the environment will be degraded if we attempt

to give the Lake absolute protection.

Perhaps the strongest argument for the second theory for

forbidding all new sources today——that the line must be drawn

at the beginning to avoid proliferatIon——is that

the

above

argument against strict regulation will apply equally to the

second

proposed

plant,

and

to

the

third,

and

so on.

:t is

unlikely

that

our

information

will

ever

be

complete

enough

to

permit us to identify which straw wIll break the camel’s back.

Shifting the burden

of

proof

to

the

power

companies

to

demonstrate

the lack of

harm

seems

not

an

answer

to the real problem;

depending on what is accepted as sufflcient proof, this solution

seems

likely

either

to

be

the

equivalent

of

a

ban

on

future

sources

(since

no

one

will

be

able

to

prove

there

will

be

no

harm)

or

to

result

in

very considerable proliferation (because

the

same

showing

of

localized

effect

can

be

made

of

the

two

hundredth plant, assuming it does not interact with other plumes,

as

of

the

first).

We are therefore confronted with a situation ~.nwhich an

absolute

ban

would impose costs——in money, in secondary environmental

effects,

and

in

nonuse

of

the

cooling resource——that are not

justified by

the

benefits

to

be

gained,

while

at

some

point

in

the

continuum of additional sources the balance will be shifted.

Where

1—718

---

that shift t&ces place we do not know, and v~r:’: rouah!:’

we wtl,

never know.

It therefore sects prudent to sot a rir~ ii’,.:t loday

on

flaw

heat sources to the Lake that Is ca’cui~te4

t,

si?nificant use of the cooling rebource ano tr~avou

effects of alternative cooling means

w”il:,e at tb—

dar.age to the lake as a whole or the sacrifl’~eof exn.az~:Iv,Loca

acre—

ares.

It Is orcper to consider aa well the b,zilt—,,u

nttu”~.or

‘R)’t

ot

tue nlinois shore and the desirability of ~.antain,r.;

sone open

~nc.

for recreationai pirposes, as weL a~the ~enJma,

nl’~y

.nat LaI:e

Micaigan should be given special protection

a;’

e un,~a~I,:

va~’za’)i’~

renreattonal and water—suppl~r~source. ~‘ne

r:unoi:

~ucefrort

i-s not t:~ebest place to put power

rrants,

h2Ja’:sc ootL the

Jan-I

ann the water are badly needei for other yurrc)a.~.

it is for these reasons as wefl as tat advanceI .t&-~

-

cunstructton of the Zion plant that it sects aprraç “Ltt~t~Lraw

the line so as to allow operation of that on~tacilItj—-

with

its

twin

slOO

megawatt

ur.Its——eithoat

r~uirr.-

en’

Its.’

devices,

so

Long

as

certain

ar31;n

precaatios~art’

takcr.,

sat

the

company

nas

agree.

t5

10,

o~..t

;..

£orbj

‘ta:

aLIttk,n’.,,.,

‘1

‘xat

dischar;es

tu

tie

kflnota

portion

‘1.

tue

.‘t~-t.

~..ifl’

the

Ed,,aon comocn~

nas

r~o‘stated rt,ht to ~e,in.te”at:i;

‘,‘:

,iant

as

designed,

tho

advanced

stare

c’J

cunotl’u31

~.

‘~

r~ct

that

must

be

conslaere~.

it

moans

tint

~1ter’nY

,.

c

‘n.:

;cnc.;e~

would

be

more

expensive

ta~n if

they

‘i~:-c

ueI

14Y

‘-

“I’

U

plart

at

the

‘Iee,,sn. ctc:e.

It

means

wc

are

et’zn;:

C-~

--

plant

on

the

Lake

whether’

a”

ii

t

we

ForLid

~

n

An~it

sean:

that

aLt~r“zat~

v~idcvi cea

s

3CC

‘V

3

‘nUn.

‘~

t”

arc

als’

lflel:

to

,e

,L.?at.’-i

rL’ht

at

the

Ia,

c

?r’c!tt,

~

t’i

wIsl

be

a~’their

nost

cYcJt’•)naLle.

t’I’

~e,r.

‘,.~

I :~t

N’

‘~‘

bA,dcfittti-~.x? ~~zcr

devine;’

U

.‘.vi~us

~t’ar

c~’cr’.’

C’~

-

.!t2

—

tnrolch c~oflng

nas

ccjrnr.ncea,

,i’n

wit’t ?easrrttJi~ar’s nr~,-

an7

:~ar

q

done wIll be

ncaa

~:fl

“everc’ti)lc.

fn~.a’aestir.n netunrsfl~

..‘e~i~’

“icrq

‘s~

c’sr~j’u’tt”; ~‘er-’.,t.4

ir

ev—:~ ‘,,ne

s&’:tC

littI

t,n~r,.L1 iril

tt.

‘.

)

aaaO

~icr:

:a’~,

ILitor,

••(.j’d~j

,~“

avcith’.~

L’

ex,stln’- tecrnn’L,

‘,

1:. U;Lt

,,.f nir ‘ttch

stc-u’c.

a:orolbr.

to inputa

auezi u “~rcurj ~aJotner toxc

tat”u.

Onund ~.olIo,’,

as mu

LC

the ,~t&tutc Jtso)f,

r’nuir-e...

~..

:‘

rss2dar tie cost.’ a~.:a:ll au

‘.‘,e benefits of

~aL1~i

:on e

.z

‘‘,

ar.s

it ia a reasonaole pcslti’n’. tz:at

-~,

sin;le

lox-.’e

~

-

‘~

on

Lrake .~U3higai~

wtfl ca~ce

sc.

1Attlt

harnr

t’:-it

it

is

ttt

:.~

severa. ciillion ‘lollars to avoid it, espectalli

‘Iflc~:

(I.~’”

adve.’se environmental eftects ~‘oudbo ~cly

Lo r”wult

s,Lternative means were use’i.

This conc!uvicx. is a4secA

uçnc

the record in this proccedin~,which -etalLlsnes in s~ditt-rto

tn’

above facts that beat ~tseif is :ot a nulaanca, a~U son-c; tir.

it is not cersistent or biologicail~~oncen;rateJ,as is

:

~‘r

1—719

---

and

that

its

effects

are

likely to be reversible.

It is perfectly

consistent to make an entirely different assessment of probable

costs and benefits

in dealing

with another pollutant with different

characteristics, even though in both cases there is an inability

to quantify the benefits of pollution control.

Similarly,

todayts

ruling

in

no way binds

the Board

to adopt the same thermal

regulation for other bodies of

water,

since

the

relevant

facts

——

such

as the volumes available for dilution purposes

--

may

differ

from stream

to stream,

Accordingly,

we

have

adopted

three different standards according

as

the heat source is already

in operation, under construction,

or

proposed

for

the

future.

Large

future

sources

are forbidden

to

employ once—through cooling without auxiliary cooling devices because

the proliferation of

such sources would mean that not just insignificant

portions of the Lake are being warmed.

Sources under construction

——

Zion

——

are required

to meet conditions,

substantially agreed to by

Edison,

to assure that the area affected is small, but are

not required

to

employ

auxiliary

cooling

because

the

backfitting

expense

does

not

appear

justified

in

light

of

the small area

concerned.

Existing

sources,

which are relatively

small,

and new sources not

large enough

to

fall within the requirement of auxiliary cooling are required to

meet

a 3°~above—natural~temperature

standard, and

to satisfy specified

monthly maximum temperatures,

at the edge of

a miixing zone whose

area

is that of

a circle with

a radius of 1,000

feet,

The basis of

this regulation, which departs somewhat from that presently in force,

is that while

the heating

of

any significant portion of the

Lake

would be intolerable,

the considerable

costs

of

auxiliary cooling

make

it unwise

to outlaw small mixing

zones

in which temperatures

may be elevated somewhat above natural.

A more detailed discussion

of this last provision, which applies to all sources now or to

be

constructed,

is in order.

The standard as adopted is consistent with

the recommendations

of

the National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria

(NTAC)

(Ex.

35,

p.

43)

and is essentially the same

as

that proposed

by

the federal Environmental Protection Agency at the March 1971

session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference,

It differs

from the existing standard in

a number of ways.

First, where the existing standard provides

a single maximum of

85°which

is never

to be exceeded the new standard specifies

a

series

of monthly maxima intended to preserve natural seasonal temperature

variations.

The monthly maxima presented at the conference by the

federal EPA represent the dual policy that temperatures

should be

kent near normal at all times

and that there are certain extremes

that must be avoided

even when normal variations are preserved.

The

need

for

a ranqe

of

monthly

limits

to replace the existing 85°

maximum was explained by Dr. Donald

Mount, Director

of the Natibnal

Water Quality Laboratory:

1

—

720

---

By way of introduction,

I would emphasize that unlike pollutants

such as DDT or

lead

we

are

not

striving

for

a

zero

concentration,

but rather for a range of temperatures which

is best for the

well-being

of

the aquatic biota of the Lake,

and we further

recognize

that

the

temperature

range

is

clearly

different

in

various seasons~

While toxicity levels may

vary some, on the

whole there is little difference in safe concentrations of

DDT or lead as the seasons change.

This

is not so with the

temperature requirements and so a

single value

is not enough

to specify necessary temperature conditions~

The problems of

establishing acceptable temperature limits ~are further complicated

because within some limits the aquatic biota has

the capability

of

shifting critical seaspns such as spawning to coincide with

a

faster or slower warming rate

of’ the water,

either from natural

or

artificial

causes.

On

the other hand,

since many

of

the

important species require rather specific foods, particularly

when

they first hatch from the eggs, there is

a

danger

of

upsetting the timing of

food

supply

of the right type with the

various life stages of the desirable fishes

in

the

Lake

(Ex,

33,

p.

104),

In addition,

the n~ standard imposes

a 3°rise above natural

temperature limitation at all times

at

the edge of

a 1,000 foot

mixing zone

as opposed to the present 5°rise limit at 600g.

In

terms

of

the relative areas affected

the difference

is

a

case of

six of one

and

a~halfdozen of the other,

In illustration of

this

Dr. Pritchard~smodel

(Ex,

14

p.

54)

of

Edison~s Waukegan

Plant~s

plume indicates that 17 acres are heated 5°above natural temperature.

This area is two thuds

(65)

of that permitted by

a circular 600~

mixing zone

(26 acres)

For 3°the affected area is

4’8 acres which

is still two thirds

(65)

of that allowed by

a l,000~ zone

(72 acres)~

Thus the 2°decrease in permitted temperature rise is just offset by

the increase

in the mixing zone caused by going from 600~ to l,000~,

The change, though

a minor one, has’been tentatively accepted by our

sister Lake Michigan states and therefore

to help insure

the

adoption

of consistent lake~wide standards

we

modify our existing standard

accordingly.

it is of course

the area of the Lake subjected

to

a temperature

increase which

is the determining

factor in this entire discussion,

For

this reason the regulation as adopted specifies an areal

rather

than

a linear mixing zone concept,

It is the amount of

lake affected

not

an arbitrary distance from

a point which is important.

It is

equally important, however,

that th~emixing area be fixed and not

allowed to migrate with

the vagaries of wind and current, both to

afford relatively easy enforcement and to ensure that the affected

area~4s, in

fact,

limited,

The regulation

as

adopted would permit

the, use of discharge structures designed to minimize harmful effects

even if such structures result

in a fixed mixing zone of simple form

other

than

a circle provided that the area affected is no larger than

would be included in

a circular zone,

This provision is in keeping with

the recommendation of the NTAC that:

~Mixing should be accomplished

as

quickly as possible through the use of devices which insure that the waste

is mixed with the allocated dilution water in the smallest possible

area,~

(Ex,

35,

p.

31),

I

—

721

---

The requirement that temperatures be raised no more than three

degrees above natural at the edge of the newly defined mixing zone

should impose no greater burden on existing dischargers than did the

previous regulation.

The largest such source

is

the Waukegan generating

station of Commonwealth Edison and Edison~sown testimony

is that the

Waukegan plume is

3°above

ambient within only

46 acres, while our new

mixing zone affords them about

72

(Ex,

14,

statement

of D,W, Pritchardj

e,

54),

The accura~Tofthis estimate has been questioned;

an Argonne

estimate

is 270 acres

(Ex,

38,

letter from J,

G, Asbury to Pollution

Control Board, April

13,

1971),

If the Edison estimate is right,

Waukegan can easily meet

this part of the new regulation;

if Argonn&s

is right, Waukegan is in violation of both the new and

the old standard,

and the area affected is far too large,

We trust the Agency will

investigate the question,

Edison objected strenuously to

the ~elated

federal proposal

for

existing sources,

arguing that it might require the backfitting of

cooling towers at Waukegan

(at

a cost of $l2-l6,000,000)

and that

in any event it would necessitate modifications in intake and discharge

structures costing $9,000,000

(Ex,

36, Statement of 0,0, Butler to

Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference April

23,

1971,

pp.

3-5).

IL is not at all clear that our new standard will have any such

effect,

It will require modificfations of the discharge structure

if Argonne~sestimate

of the plume area is correct’.~but

so would the

old s~tandard,

It seems probable that the intake modifications dis-

cussed by Edison would be attributable

to the federal recommendation

that intakes be designed to minimize harm to entrained organisms,