the waste water to the same drainage system that ultimately takes the treated
Chicago wastes to the Illinois River.
All of this leads to the question: What happens to the wastes now being
funneled into the Illinois and then into the interior river systems of the United
States? Toxic materials in the wastes, such as chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti—
cides and chemical insulators known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), are
long—lived and will be carried great distances in the water.
Beyond this, diversion—as it has been applied over the year—has been ex—
tended by modern engineering techniques to include uses far beyond the
emergency
needs of nineteenth—century Chicago. The diversion concept has
gained an established position that has yet to be fully assessed in light of mod—
ern pollution problems.
'
One of the most elaborate extensions of this concept was proposed re—
cently by R. T. ]aske and W. A. Reardon of the Battelle Pacic Northwest
Laboratories [3]. The investigators pointed out that a detailed study by Bat—
telle scientists for the US. Atomic Energy Commission showed that the reduced ow of the Ohio Biver and, to a lesser extent, of the Mississippi during
the late summer and early fall limited the number of nuclear power plants
that could be built along these rivers, since the discharge of heated cooling
.
water from the plants would not be diluted enough—during these periods of
'
low water to meet environmental stream temperature standards. Rather than
_
installing expensive cooling towers or other systems to recycle cooling water,
]aske and Reardon
the_Ç_reat Lakes to cool the power plant
condensers and at the same time to increase stream ow to dilute-municipal
sewage discharges. Citing the Chicago diversion as one historiCal precedent
for their plan, the Battelle scientists pointed out that this elabora‘te scheme is
within current technological capabilities since the engineering problems are
similar to those dealt with in building the-Grand Coulee Dam in Washington.
They favored two sites on Lake Brie—one near the inland headwaters of the
Allegheny Biver, the other at Cleveland. At each site, four lSOO—megawatt
nuclear power plants would be built. Water drawn from Lake 'Erie would
cool the condensers and then be directed south, perhaps through reservoirs, to
the Ohio River system to maintain an increased year—round ow in the river
to accommodate other nuclear power plants. The eight nuclear plants would
discharge up to 28,000 cubic feet per
second into the Ohio River system. At
Pittsburgh, where the Allegheny empties into the Ohio, the minimum year—
round ow of the Ohio River would be some 25,000 cubic feet of water per
second. This rate would
nearly twice the average low—water rate that now
prevails during ve months each year (june—October) [4].
As another feature, the authors suggested dive'rting Lake Superior’s water
to the Mississippi via
Croix Biver. This, coupled with the diversion of
LakeErie to the Ohio (which ows into the Mississippi}, would not only assist
the nuclear power industry but Would also benet another proposed diverS'i0n
;
…
.
.
project in the lower Mississippi—the $10 billion Texas Water Plant0 create'a
neW water supply for ,agri01ture in the west Texas highlands. The
_
ter Plan would require
of some 15,000 to 22,000
,
_Ï
.
Symèf°m°ç Ïf89‘ïfèñf
7 -‘
Chicago wastes to the Illinois River.
All of this leads to the question: What happens to the wastes now being
funneled into the Illinois and then into the interior river systems of the United
States? Toxic materials in the wastes, such as chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti—
cides and chemical insulators known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), are
long—lived and will be carried great distances in the water.
Beyond this, diversion—as it has been applied over the year—has been ex—
tended by modern engineering techniques to include uses far beyond the
emergency
needs of nineteenth—century Chicago. The diversion concept has
gained an established position that has yet to be fully assessed in light of mod—
ern pollution problems.
'
One of the most elaborate extensions of this concept was proposed re—
cently by R. T. ]aske and W. A. Reardon of the Battelle Pacic Northwest
Laboratories [3]. The investigators pointed out that a detailed study by Bat—
telle scientists for the US. Atomic Energy Commission showed that the reduced ow of the Ohio Biver and, to a lesser extent, of the Mississippi during
the late summer and early fall limited the number of nuclear power plants
that could be built along these rivers, since the discharge of heated cooling
.
water from the plants would not be diluted enough—during these periods of
'
low water to meet environmental stream temperature standards. Rather than
_
installing expensive cooling towers or other systems to recycle cooling water,
]aske and Reardon
the_Ç_reat Lakes to cool the power plant
condensers and at the same time to increase stream ow to dilute-municipal
sewage discharges. Citing the Chicago diversion as one historiCal precedent
for their plan, the Battelle scientists pointed out that this elabora‘te scheme is
within current technological capabilities since the engineering problems are
similar to those dealt with in building the-Grand Coulee Dam in Washington.
They favored two sites on Lake Brie—one near the inland headwaters of the
Allegheny Biver, the other at Cleveland. At each site, four lSOO—megawatt
nuclear power plants would be built. Water drawn from Lake 'Erie would
cool the condensers and then be directed south, perhaps through reservoirs, to
the Ohio River system to maintain an increased year—round ow in the river
to accommodate other nuclear power plants. The eight nuclear plants would
discharge up to 28,000 cubic feet per
second into the Ohio River system. At
Pittsburgh, where the Allegheny empties into the Ohio, the minimum year—
round ow of the Ohio River would be some 25,000 cubic feet of water per
second. This rate would
nearly twice the average low—water rate that now
prevails during ve months each year (june—October) [4].
As another feature, the authors suggested dive'rting Lake Superior’s water
to the Mississippi via
Croix Biver. This, coupled with the diversion of
LakeErie to the Ohio (which ows into the Mississippi}, would not only assist
the nuclear power industry but Would also benet another proposed diverS'i0n
;
…
.
.
project in the lower Mississippi—the $10 billion Texas Water Plant0 create'a
neW water supply for ,agri01ture in the west Texas highlands. The
_
ter Plan would require
of some 15,000 to 22,000
,
_Ï
.
Symèf°m°ç Ïf89‘ïfèñf
7 -‘