power plants after being sucked into the intakes. The conferees could not
agree on a solution, however. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
nally endorsed the position, proposed by the federal conferees and initially
by conferees from three of the four states, that at a maximum distance of 1000
feet from the discharge of existing power plants or other large—scale industrial
facilities, the receiving water temperature should be no more than 3°F above
the natural temperature of the lake. In addition, the near—surface temperature
1000 feet from a discharge pipe should not exceed specied readings estab—
lished for each month to prevent excessive heat during critical periods in the
life cycles of aquatic organisms. As an additional requirement, large new
power plants would have to build closed—cycle cooling systems to reduce discharges to a minimum. As of this writing, only Indiana has subsequently
agreed to the federal proposals. EPA ofcials hope to resolve the differences
in a reconvened conference this September (1973).
Even if the new controls are ultimately enforced, those requirements set—
ting the temperature standard at a point 1000 feet from the point of dis—
charge rely on the conventional practice of establishing a certain zone for
wastes to disperse into water, despite ndings that point to the danger of 10—
calized damage from the thermal pollution.
The cooling wastewater discharge from the seven existing and proposed
nuclear power plants at Lake Michigan will contain radioactive wastes which
also defy the mixing—zone concept. The high—level radioactive wastes will be
shipped off to land—disposal sites, but low-level liquid wastes will be treated
and eventually discharged in the cooling water. Some of the radionuclides in—
jected into the lake will pose potential health threats, such as long—lived ce—
siurn 137 and the much shorter-lived iodine 131. Oîcials estimate that the to—
tal radioactivity of radionuclides thus discharged from the lake’s seven power
plants will be about one curie per year, exclusive of tritium—or radioactive
hydrogen—which is a lesser health hazard and is not removed from the waste
water. This estimate may be overly optimistic on the basis of experience at six
relatively small nuclear power plants which went into operation elsewhere
during 1961—1964. Four of the six plants discharged from 1.3 to 11.1 curies of
radioactivity per year apiece [8]. Thus the much larger nuclear power plants
at Lake Michigan would have to improve considerably on past performance
in the nuclear power industry if the ofcial prediction of a total of only one
curie of radioactivity per year
into the lake is to become reality.
Should a nuclear accident occur, discharges of course would be an alto—
gether different matter. “One serious nuclear accident on the shore of Lake
Michigan,” said F. W. Kittrell of the US. Department of the Interior, at the
second interstate conference session in Chicago, February 25, 1969, “although highly improbable, could release large quantities of long—lived radioactive material into Lake Michigan where it would be uncontrolled and
could have very
serious effects on future use of the lake.”
Current federal regulations would permit an annual average of some
490,000 curies of radioactivity from routine plant operations if mixed
throughout the entire volume of Lake Michigan, according to estimates by
…
"Hot Water"
13
agree on a solution, however. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
nally endorsed the position, proposed by the federal conferees and initially
by conferees from three of the four states, that at a maximum distance of 1000
feet from the discharge of existing power plants or other large—scale industrial
facilities, the receiving water temperature should be no more than 3°F above
the natural temperature of the lake. In addition, the near—surface temperature
1000 feet from a discharge pipe should not exceed specied readings estab—
lished for each month to prevent excessive heat during critical periods in the
life cycles of aquatic organisms. As an additional requirement, large new
power plants would have to build closed—cycle cooling systems to reduce discharges to a minimum. As of this writing, only Indiana has subsequently
agreed to the federal proposals. EPA ofcials hope to resolve the differences
in a reconvened conference this September (1973).
Even if the new controls are ultimately enforced, those requirements set—
ting the temperature standard at a point 1000 feet from the point of dis—
charge rely on the conventional practice of establishing a certain zone for
wastes to disperse into water, despite ndings that point to the danger of 10—
calized damage from the thermal pollution.
The cooling wastewater discharge from the seven existing and proposed
nuclear power plants at Lake Michigan will contain radioactive wastes which
also defy the mixing—zone concept. The high—level radioactive wastes will be
shipped off to land—disposal sites, but low-level liquid wastes will be treated
and eventually discharged in the cooling water. Some of the radionuclides in—
jected into the lake will pose potential health threats, such as long—lived ce—
siurn 137 and the much shorter-lived iodine 131. Oîcials estimate that the to—
tal radioactivity of radionuclides thus discharged from the lake’s seven power
plants will be about one curie per year, exclusive of tritium—or radioactive
hydrogen—which is a lesser health hazard and is not removed from the waste
water. This estimate may be overly optimistic on the basis of experience at six
relatively small nuclear power plants which went into operation elsewhere
during 1961—1964. Four of the six plants discharged from 1.3 to 11.1 curies of
radioactivity per year apiece [8]. Thus the much larger nuclear power plants
at Lake Michigan would have to improve considerably on past performance
in the nuclear power industry if the ofcial prediction of a total of only one
curie of radioactivity per year
into the lake is to become reality.
Should a nuclear accident occur, discharges of course would be an alto—
gether different matter. “One serious nuclear accident on the shore of Lake
Michigan,” said F. W. Kittrell of the US. Department of the Interior, at the
second interstate conference session in Chicago, February 25, 1969, “although highly improbable, could release large quantities of long—lived radioactive material into Lake Michigan where it would be uncontrolled and
could have very
serious effects on future use of the lake.”
Current federal regulations would permit an annual average of some
490,000 curies of radioactivity from routine plant operations if mixed
throughout the entire volume of Lake Michigan, according to estimates by
…
"Hot Water"
13