explained that these standards regulate the amount of heat which can be discharged by our plants into the river. Our generation of electricity requires large quantities of river water for cooling purposes. Water is drawn from the river, passed through condensers, and returned to the river basically unchanged, except for a rise in temperature. The heated water then mixes with the main stream of the river, and the heat is dissipated to the air. This process does not pollute the river in the sense of adding wastes like a sewage or industrial processing plant might do. On October 19 of this year Northern States Power appeared at a hearing of the commission and supported the commission's proposed standards for the Minnesota River which would be applicable to the control of the heat content of water discharged from Northern States Power's Black Dog plant.

In cooperation with the commission, Northern States Power has, during 1963 and 1964, conducted temperature surveys and studies of the Mississippi River downstream from its Riverside and High Bridge plants. These surveys and studies have been given to the commission and show that the operation of these plants, in fact, complies with the thermal standards adopted by the commission. Similar studies have also been made in connection with the operation of the company's Black Dog plant, and again show compliance with proposed standards. as adopted and proposed by the commission, adequately protect the public and various water users from any adverse effects that could be caused by the operation of these plants.

As a result of our experiences in operating said three plants, which have a combined total generating capacity of about 1,458,000 kilowatts. the company is confident that the operation of the proposed plant on the St. Croix River will also comply with standards established by the commission in connection with its operation.

As far as atmospheric pollution is concerned, the statutes of the State of Minnesota grant authority to the State board of health to control atmospheric pollution which may be injurious or detrimental to public health. Pursuant thereto, the Governor of the State of Minnesota has designated the State board of health as the State agency for the purpose of administering the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. The State board of health has had the benefit of information from the company with respect to the proposed plant, and, in addition, as I am informed, has retained the services of an independent consultant who is an expert in the field of atmospheric pollution and who has made studies with respect to this plant. I am also informed that the State board of health has had the benefit of research work and studies made by experts from the U.S. Public Health Service.

In conclusion, gentlemen, I am glad to have had the opportunity of explaining our position before your committee. Northern States Power Co. has had a policy throughout its history of being a good citizen in the community where it operates. We are deeply concerned, as your committee and as many other people are, with the protection of our natural resources and the avoidance of problems of water and air pollution. We have very carefully weighed these factors since the beginning of this project and we have reexamined them many times in recent months.

As a result of this consideration and concern, and reexamination, we are thoroughly convinced that the best interests of all the people in

this metropolitan area and western Wisconsin will be served by the construction of this plant as proposed.

From the beginning of this project. I have issued orders to our engineers to design it in accordance with the latest technical advances and to apply all reasonable safeguards against the possible dangers that we are considering here. We have proceeded in an orderly manner to obtain the necessary clearances from the regulatory agencies who have authority under existing law to give us permits to build this powerplant. On the basis of our experience I am informed by our engineers that we can conform with the standards which are likely to be adopted in view of, for instance, water pollution, in view of the standards that were adopted on the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. I am of the opinion, on the basis of the information my engineers have given me, that this powerplant can be built at this location and operated, and that the normal present activities regarding recreation and enjoyment of the St. Croix River can continue without impairment, and that the plant will be a good neighbor in this community. We are in no sense proceeding arbitrarily. We have very carefully reviewed these various aspects of the project, and we are proceeding, as I said, in an orderly manner to obtain the permits to allow us to proceed. We will comply with the regulations of the agencies which have authority to impose regulations in the area of pollution.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ewald.
Mr. EWALD. Surely.

Senator NELSON. As you may be aware, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution hasn't just selected this one area in the United States. It has been conducting hearings on the west coast, the Midwest, East, and South and, in fact, it is my understanding the chairman intends to continue with a whole series of hearings in all parts of the Nation. I don't think we have held any up on the Great Lakes, and some 15 or 20 hearings that were scheduled last year, because of the pressure of business, had to be canceled. So that there will be understanding by the public and the company, this is a part of a whole series of this hearing on this question all across the Nation. This subcommittee prepared a bill last year that set water quality standards in advance. It passed the U.S. Senate with majority support in both political parties and failed to come out of the committees in the House of Representatives. This is a series of hearings to gather information at the local level about the kinds of problems that are involved. This particular one happens to be interesting in that it involves two States, as well as the immediate pouring of the waters from this river into the Mississippi, which is an interstate water. It involves a question of what laws are applicable in the State of Wisconsin, if any, and what laws are applicable in the State of Minnesota, and what laws are applicable at the Federal level.

The purpose is to gather information for the purpose of deciding what we need to do, if anything, further in the field of Federal legislation. It also, of course, will be a beneficial record for use of the legislators of Minnesota and Wisconsin, as well as legislators across the Nation. It is a serious problem. You have maintained a good record in this field and you have preserved the upper St. Croix, which anybody who has ever lived along it recognizes and appreciates. Thank you.

On the question of thermal studies, has your company or has the industry done any studies on the effects of introducing heat-thermal pollution, so to speak-in streams or lakes as an effect on algae and fish? Mr. EWALD. Yes; there are such studies. I am not competent to review them for you.

Senator NELSON. I was wondering if there were studies.

Mr. EWALD. Yes; there are.

Senator NELSON. Have they been done by the industry or your company?

Mr. EWALD. Our company has made no specific studies along this line. However, we have engaged experts to assist us in our testimony before the Water Pollution Control Commission on this particular project on this subject.

Senator NELSON. I wasn't aware of the studies that were made. Did they get to the point of the effect on fish and algae and other kinds of aquatic life?

Mr. EWALD. I don't believe there have been any final decisions made; no.

Senator NELSON. I see. In the question of the difference in water temperature, are the comparative figures that are used to show the difference between the water temperature intake and the water temperature as it comes out of the plant taken of the water at the bottom of the river or at the surface?

Mr. EWALD. The only temperatures that we have talked about in our information thus far, and it is in the data sheet that you have, in that the water that is taken through the condensers, is that specific water will be increased in temperature a maximum of 17°. That is to say, under the worst conditions, the water-the difference in the temperature between the water taken in and the same water expelled from the plant condensers-will be a rise of 17°. An average will be 10°. Now, then, this water is dumped into the lake and returned to the lake. It immediately mixes with the other water so you would never have that much temperature rise in the area, you see.

Senator NELSON. What I was getting at is how the difference in the temperature is arrived at. Do you measure the temperature of the water at the bottom of the stream or when you take it out and when it goes back in. Is it surface temperature, and the temperature when it goes back in

Mr. EWALD (interrupting). I am sorry to say the complete development of this subject is very complex. We have employed the University of Minnesota to build a model of the river at this area in order that we can study the waterflow and the very temperature effects you are talking about. I am not able, today, to answer specific questions. This matter of how this water mixes and what these temperature changes are is a long one and it needs much more competent technical people to develop it than I.

Senator NELSON. We would be happy to have someone answer it for you.

If the difference is 10° at one stage, or 17° at one stage, is that difference based upon the temperature taken at the intake of the river below the surface, or the temperature at the plant, or at the surface of the river?

Mr. EWALD. I don't think I made myself clear to you before. If we take a given gallon of water that is going to go through the plant,

whatever its temperature was before it went into the plant, it will be increased an average of 10° as it goes through the plant. The 10° of temperature will be added. We will probably take the water out low in the river and it will go out on the surface.

Senator NELSON. Do you take the temperature of the water at the place you take it in at the bottom of the river? Is that where the temperature is measured or is it measured at the intake of the plant or at the river surface? Where do you get your two figures? You had to take the temperature two places because of the 10° difference. Mr. EWALD. It doesn't make any difference whether the water is taken from the bottom or top or whether it is hot or cold.

add 10° to the water, Senator.

We would

Senator NELSON. What I am getting at is that there have been instances where they take the water from the bottom, but the figures they use to show the difference were surface temperatures versus outlet temperatures, which is quite a difference. Do you get my point? Mr. EWALD. I think so.

Senator NELSON. The water frequently is 10° or 20° colder down at 30 feet than what it is on the surface. The difference between the surface temperature and the difference it comes out of the plant is one figure, and the temperature at the bottom of the river might be 10° or 20° colder. My point is: Where do you put the thermometer to get the differences in the temperature?

Mr. EWALD. I was being perfectly honest with you. I was telling you the water that is put through the condenser in the powerplant will be increased in temperature by 10°, a maximum of 170, and then that water is immediately mixed with the river water back in the river. I wasn't attempting to tell you what the change in the river temperature would be, you see. So, the addition of 10°, on the average, doesn't make any difference. The water will probably be taken out of the bottom of the river-that is the coolest water-but whether you add 10° to that water or add 10° to warmer water. In other words, we are making a perfectly honest statement of fact. This is what the condenser will do. The mixing and actual effect is a complicated story that comes under another study.

Senator NELSON. As I understand it, from the fact sheet you have submitted, do you use 660 cubic feet per second in the first unit, or approximately that?

Mr. EWALD. That is the figure I recall, Senator.

Senator NELSON. How does that consumption compare with the low flow of this river in the summertime?

Mr. EWALD. It is slightly more than-very slightly more than the lowest flow, as I remember it-but, of course, that is not of vital concern in that this is a large lake, as you know, and the fact that the amount of water taken through the plant approaches of the flow of the river doesn't concern us particularly. There will be recirculation, of course.

Senator NELSON. Then if another unit is added, slightly bigger, you will be using twice the low flow of the river?

Mr. EWALD. No; I don't think that is a correct conclusion. Senator NELSON. I didn't see the figure on the second unit. I assumed it would take twice as much.

Mr. EWALD. I am afraid I have misstated myself. I think it is with two units that we approach the low flow of the river, not with one.

40-957-65-7

Senator NELSON. Did I misread that?

Mr. EWALD. The low flow is about 1,300 cubic feet per second so this would be right. With the two units we would be approaching a figure of about equal to the low flow of the river. I misstated it the first time.

Senator NELSON. I note the Government's figures are that: once in 30 years, the low flow is 550 cubic feet; once in 20, it is 700 feet; once in 10, it is 1,000 feet; once in 5 years, it is 1,400 feet; once each year, it is 3,930. Did I understand correctly that it is 660 and, if it were two units, it would be roughly twice that?

Mr. EWALD. Assuming the second unit were the same size as the first unit, yes.

Senator NELSON. Is the power that you are producing here, all of it-well, what is the area of distribution, is what I am getting at.

Mr. EWALD. Well, we are part of a large interconnected network, as you know. We have been planning connections and doing quite a job of integrating our regional area here, so all these power facilities are connected together. In our own case, the Northern States Power Co. system, the Twin Cities metropolitan area represents about 65 percent of our load, and our present peakload is just about-our capacity at the present time is 2 million kilowatts and our load is a million eight. So, the production of this plant will be very largely for the metropolitan area of the Twin Cities.

Senator NELSON. I see. And what is the particular-I realize there are geographic questions, but what is the advantage of this location here over any area in the metropolitan area or any area nearby on the Mississippi?

Mr. EWALD. The first thing the matter of service is important. We wanted to have a plant on the eastern and northern side of the metropolitan areas, and the transmission connections to the metropolitan areas are shorter from this plant than from the available other sites we have.

Senator NELSON. What kind of cost factor is involved in the miles of transmission?

Mr. EWALD. In transmission itself there is an addition of $3.1 million of capital cost to get to an alternate site, compared to this one. Senator NELSON. Once you have the alternate site, was there a difference in the cost of transmitting it?

Mr. EWALD. Yes. This is a relatively minor cost, but nonetheless to be considered. A particular alternate that I have in mind that I inentioned would be $3 million of transmission. There would be a transmission cost due to losses of about $40,000 a year in connection with that transmission. There would also be higher construction costs at the alternate site than there are at this Oak Park Heights site. This is a particularly advantageous one from the point of view of foundations. It has a good rock ledge underneath, and we don't have to have much piling.

Senator NELSON. I don't believe you were here this morning, but there was an appearance on behalf of the joint State-Federal task force which was attended yesterday by the president of the Wisconsin company, and in the testimony of Professor Lord, he stated that the answers to these kinds of questions that I am asking here about alternate sites and costs would be taken up, and that would be part of their accumulation of information. Is that your understanding?