    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    004(s
                                        I Zl(*d
                               M-'-InformaWh

                                                                          JR4

                TK
                1193
                .G7
                 53
                1975
                                           ISS
                                           19-15

                  N
                                  j

    														04925

          Coastal Zone
           Information
             Center

                                   POWER PLANT SITING ISsuEs AND PQLICIES-
                                      FOR THE GREAT LAKES COASTAL ZONE

                                                      By

                                                Chris A. Shafer
                                           Water Resources'Planner

                                                                       OCT 21975

                                               Prepared f or, the
                                         Great Lakes Basin Commission
                                 Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management

    								DRAFT

                                                February 3, 1975

                                                ABSTRACT

                                 POWER PLANT SITING ISSUES AND POLICIES

                                    FOR THE GREAT LAKES COASTAL ZONE

                                                   By

                                             Chris A. Shafer

                       Projections for future energy requirements necessitate increases in

                  energy production. Electric energy production and thermal power cooling

                  represents a vitally important use of the water resources of the Great

                  Lakes. However, accelerated energy production in the Great Lakes Basin

                  vill result in increased competition for land and water resources through-

                  out the Basin. The coastal zone of the Great.Lakes is projected to be. the

                  principal problem area due to the huge amounts of water require d for large

                  thermal plants. The location of power plants, as well as the water and

                  land resource utilization of those plants, may be in direct conflict with

                  recreational demands, ecological stability of the littoral zones of the

                  Great Lakes, and aesthetic requirements. Increased energy production has

                  certain inherent potential environmental impacts, including aquatic,

                  terrestrial, meteorological, and social, economic, and insti'tutionial

                  impacts.

                       Environmental impacts of electric power generation can be minimized

                  through intelligent power plant siting policies. Power plants should be

                  prohibited from certain environmentally critical areas, and sited in areas

                  most capable of assimilating the additional environmental stresses. State

                  power plant siting laws, in conjunction with certain Federal licensing and

                  permitting systems, represents a mechanism for controlling the location of

                                                                            Chris A. Shafer

                  power plant sites and transmission corridors   State coastal zone manage-

                  ment programs and a variety of extensive research programs are vitally

                  concerned with power plant siting, and should provide essential informa-

                  tion to direct the location of power plants in the coastal zone.

                       This paper discusses and analyzes the many issues and policies

                  relevant *to the complex problem of power plant siting in the dre'at'Lakes

                  Region. The paper represents a state-of-the-art assessment designed to

                  be of value to managers and policy makers who must resolve energy issues

                  throughout the Great Lakes Region.

                                          US Department -of Commerce
                                          140AA conotal           C,@.nter Library
                                          223,' -Iouth rc'
                                          CharlestorL,

                                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                        The author extends special thanks to those representatives of state

                   and Federal agencies, universities, utilities, and consulting f irms who

                   generously contributed much of the information contained in this paper.

                                                 LIST OF TABLES

                   Table 1     Great Lakes Basin Power Region-S-mary     . . . . . . . .      6

                   Table 2     Proposed Locations of Nuclear Power Plants
                                  on the U.S. Side of the Great Lakes    . . . . . . . .      9

                   Table 3     Main Provisions of Great Lakes States
                                  Power Plant Siting Laws   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      62

                   Table 4     Federal Statutes and Regulations Related to
                                  Siting of Electrical Energy Facilities   . . . . . . .    71-72

                                                 LIST OF FIGURES

                   Figure 1    Great Lakes Basin Generating Plants 10 MW and Over
                                  Existing and Scheduled  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       8

                                                        vi

                                     oil-

                                                  PREFACE
                       The intent'of the author is to discuss and analyze issues and policies

                  relevant to power plant siting in the Great Lakes Region. The reader of this

                  paper should not infer that the author condones continued proliferation of

                  nuclear energy production. The environmental implications of increased

                  reliance on nuclear energy production, including an increase in background

                  radiation, the dangers of sabotage or accidents, the dubious safety guarantees

                  of the Emergency Core Cooling System, the large number of highly respected

                  scientists vehemently opposed to nuclear energy production, and perhaps most

                  significantly, the transport and ultimate disposal of extremely toxic and

                  hazardous radioactive wastes, raise at least a reasonable doubt as to the
                  desirability and prudence of nuclear energy production.I  Consequently, I

                  support the concept of a moratorium on nuclear power plant construction

                  contained in the Michigan House Bill No. 6126, introduced in the 1974

                  legislative session. This Bill would completely halt construction of nuclear

                  power plants for a period of five years or until such time as the unresolved

                  issues regarding- nuclear power production are irrefutably and unequivocally

                  resolved. Through  energy conservation measures, increased production

                  efficiency and increased reliance on solar energy, our society can accommodate

                  reasonable increases in electric power demands, without depending on nuclear

                  power. However, even if a complete moratorium on nuclear power plants was

                  implemented, additional conventional fossil fuel plants, possibly including

                  coal gassification or solvent refined coal, will be required and therefore,

                  additional power plant sites must be identified and acquired.

                       The author is cognizant of the practical reality that this country

                  is virtually commited to nuclear energy production.  Therefore, this paper

                       1Gofman, John W. and Tamplin, Arthur R., Poisoned Power, June 1971.

                                                    vii

                   addresses the issue of nuclear power plant siting.' However, in the words of

                   Arnold Reitz, "An environmentalist having to write of nuclear-powered generating

                   plants is a bit like a devote Hindu having to choose between hamburger or

                   common meatball s--excep t that in the case of atomic energy, all choices are
                   poisonous."1

                         1Reitz, Arnold, Environmental Planning: Law of Land and Resources,
                   1974, pp. 17-71.

                                                    V-1ii

                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

                       PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     vii

                   1.  INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .      1

                       Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       1

                       Purpose of Paper  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .       3

                       Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3

                  II. ENERGY SUPPLY-DEMA-ND PROJECTIONS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS            4

                       Energy Supply and Demand Projections   . . . . . . . . . . . . .      4

                       Projected Location of Additional Power Plants in the
                          Great Lakes Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       7

                       Alternative Energy Futures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      10

                 III. ENVIPONMENTAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY POWER PRODUCTION AND
                          THERMAL DISSIPATION--OPERATION AND CONSTRUCTION    . . . . . .    13

                       The Coastal Zone--Pressures and Principles   . . . . . . . . . .     15

                       Aquatic Impacts Caused by Power Plants   . . . . . . . . . . . .     19

                       Terrestrial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      23

                       Meteorological Impacts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      24

                       Social, Economic, Institutional Impacts  . . . . . . . . . . . .     28

                       Construction Impacts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      30

                       Environmental impact Assessment--Tools and Methods    . . . . . .    33

                  IV.  14INIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THROUGH PROPER
                          POWER PLANT SITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      38

                       Offshore Power Plant Siting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   43

                       Transmission Corridors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..    45

                       Land Capability Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      46

                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

                  V. POWER PLANT SITE AND TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR
                          SELECTION METHODOLOGY   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         49

                       The Utilities' Selection Process    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        49

                       A Consulting Firm Approach to Site Selection     . . . . . . . . .       52

                       New York State Site Survey   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         53

                 VI.   STATE POWER PLANT SITING POLICIES     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        57

                       State Siting Policies in General    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        57

                       The Maryland Siting Process    . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...         59

                       Great Lakes States Power Plant Siting Policies     . . . . . . . .       61

                          Illinois  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           63

                          Indiana . . . . . .                . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        64

                          Michigan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .          64

                          Minnesota . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          65

                          New York  . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           65

                          Ohio  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           66

                          Vennsylvania  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          67

                          Wisc'onsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          68

                VII. FEDERAL LAWS AND LICENSING PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO
                          POWERTLANT SITING    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          70

                       Federal Influence in Power Plant Siting      . . . . . . . . . . .       70

                       Proposed Federal Power Plant Siting Legislation       . . . . . . .      75

               VIII. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND POWER PLANT SITING       . . . . . . . .       79

                       The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972      . . . . . . . . . . .       79

                       Great Lakes States Coastal Zone Management Programs
                          and Power Plant Siting Issues    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        83

                                                         iv

                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

                  IX. CURRENT POWER PLANT SITING RELATED RESEARCH
                          IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .   87

                      State Research Activities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    87

                      Federal Research Activities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    88

                      University Research Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    91

                      Private Research Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    92

                   X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    94

                      Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    94

                      Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    95

                                                      v

                                                CHAPTER ONE

                                               INTRODUCTION

                   Problem Statement

                        The Laurentian Great Lakes, which cover approximately 95,000 square

                   miles of surface area, constitute the world's largest body of fresh water.

                   These Great Lakes are a major natural resource of North America and are

                   vital to the economy of both the United States and Canada. The Great Lakes

                   are presently utilized to satisfy a wide variety of demands placed upon them

                   by the Basin residents. Electric energy production and thermal power cool-

                   ing represents a vitally important use of the water resources of the Great

                   Lakes. There are many important aspects of energy production that impinge

                   upon water quality and which may degrade the water sufficiently so as to

                   preclude further or multiple'use. Numerous institutional dimensions, such

                   as intense opposition to inter-Basin diversions, legal complexities of the

                   rip arian doctrine, and the diverse mix of governmental entities with goals

                   which are often conflicting, are very important in relation to water for

                   energy production. Accelerated energy production in the Great Lakes Basin

                   will result in increased competition for land and water resources throughout

                   he Basin. The location of power plants, as well as the water and land

                   resource utilization of those plants, may be in direct conflict with recrea-

                   tional demands, ecological stability of the littoral zones of the Great

                   Lakes, aest:ietic requirements, and municipal and industrial water supplies.

                   Increased energy production also has certain inherent potential environmental

                   impacts. Environmental implications of increased nuclear power production,

                   ecological impacts of thermal discharges, power plant blow-down, pelagic

                   organism entrainment, and the possible alterations of meteorologic systems

                   due to thermal discharges or supplemental cooling systems are environmental

                   concerns of great magnitude.

                         Projections for future  energy requirements necessitate increases in

                   energy production. In order   to accommodate these reasonable increases and

                   yet assure maintenance and enhancement of a high quality environment, while

                   minimizing conflicts in land and water resource utilization, intelligent

                   policy considerations and management options must be formulated. Power plant

                   siting policies and criteria, thermal impact assessment, efficient clean

                   energy production, and energy conservation methods are needed to accommodate

                   energy production while minimizing detrimental environmental impacts.

                         The problems inherent in energy production are compounded by the com-

                   plexity of the issues. These include economic, technological, social,

                   environmental, and ecological dimensions. It should be stated at the outset

                   that power plant siting criteria and policies are only one aspect of the

                   extremely complex energy production scenario. Additional critical facets

                   of this scenario include: accurate energy supply and demand projections to
                   justify the need for additional power production;  1  total energy efficiency
                   systems analysis;2  and a comparative environmental impact assessment of

                   alternative fuels and means of'production. All of these should precede siting

                   considerations. These factors must be considered at least at the regional

                   level and preferably at the national level, as they cannot be accurately

                   factored into an individual site-specific resolution or justification.

                          Personal communication, William A. Blinn, Secretary of Ohio Power
                   Siting Commission, December 14, 1974.
                         2Personal commi nication, Dr. Herman Koenig, Professor at Michigan State
                   University, October 14, 1974.

                                                        2

                  Purpose of Paper

                        The purpose of this paper is to discuss and analyze issues and policies

                  relevant to power plant siting in the Great Lakes region. This will include

                  supply-demand projections, resource requirements, environmental impacts,

                  siting criteria, site selection methodologies, power plant siting policies at

                  both the State and Federal levels, the relationship of coastal zone management

                  and power plant siting, a discussion of current energy related research in

                  the Great Lakes region, and finally, a set of recommendations pertaining to

                  future energy policy and planning requirements. The intent of the paper is

                  tb'distill a voluminous amount of information down to a reasonably comprehen-

                  sive, albeit not exhaustive, document.   It is hoped that this state-of-the-

                  art assessment will be of value to managers and policy makers who must resolve

                  energy issues throughout the Great Lakes.

                  Methodology

                        A combination of literature review and personal interviews of State,

                  Federal, and university experts in energy policy and coastal zone management

                  was utilized to compile the information contained in this report. Due to the

                  sheer volume of information and the excellent assistance of many people, the

                  primary difficulty encountered was in "wading through" and organizing the

                  reference material and information derived from interviews into a hopefully

                  cogent and concise presentation. The information contained in this report

                  was assembled during the period extending from July 1, 1974 to January 7,

                  1975.

                                                      3

                                                CHAPTER TWO

                         ENERGY SUPPLY-DEMAND PROJECTIONS AND RESOURCE REQUIRENENTS

                  Energy Supply and Demand Projections

                        In order to assess the total number of required power plant sites,

                  accurate energy supply and demand projections must be made and the size

                  of the plants must be known. Electric energy consumption is primarily

                  related to the population size and per capita rate of consumption.  In the

                  recent past, both the growth of population and rates of per capita energy

                  consumption have been increasing exponentially. While the Great Lakes

                  Basin occupies only 4% of the U.S. land area, it contains about 15% of the

                  U.S. population. The vast majority of this population is concentrated in

                  major urban-industrialized centers located along the southern shores of the

                  Great Lakes. The abundance of water for use in manufacturing and in trans-

                  portation of raw materials, made possible by the natural waterways, has

                  enabled the Great Lakes region to develop into a major industrial area.

                  Many heavy energy-using industries including the steel industry, the petro-

                  chemical industry,. and the automobile industry, have concentrated in the

                  Great Lakes Basin.

                        Thermal electric plants now comprise approximately 88% of all the
                  electric generating capacity in the Great Lakes region.I  That portion is

                  expected to increase to 90% by 1980. Predictions of the patterns of genera-

                  tion beyond 1980 are complicated by several factors, not the least of which

                  is the accuracy -of 'estimating power requirements beyond that date. Historically,

                  the electric power industry has been one of the most dynamic in the United

                  States, having experienced an annual growth rate of more than 5% compounded

                         Great Lakes Basin Commission Framework Study, Appendix No. 10, Power,
                  Draft No. 3, November 1971, p. 57.

                                                     4

                   annually for a number of years. The technology of electric power generation

                   and supply has been changing rapidly, resulting in a trend towards larger

                   and larger production units.

                         In 1971, the Great Lakes Basin Commission Power Work Group completed
                  1projections for future energy requirements for the Great Lakes Region. They

                   projected that the annual energy requirements would increase to 2,193 billion

                   kWh by 2020, from 160 billion kWh in 1970. This projection represents an increase

                   of -5.4% average annual compound growth rate for the 50-year period. In view

                   of the present energy situation, this rate of growth is probably unreasonably

                   high. The rate of population growth has decreased slightly since these pro-

                   jections were made, and it is reasonable to anticipate some decrease in per

                   capita energy consumption as the cost of energy escalates and conservation

                   measures are implemented. The National Water Commission warns, however,

                   -Electrical energy demands will 'continue to grow, even if not at the present

                   rate of doubling every ten years. It has been pointed out that even assuming

                   near zero population growth, a drop to one-half the present rate of growth

                   and individual wealth, and a corresponding 50% reduction in the current rate

                   of increase in power use in the next decade, the United States consumption
                   of electricity will still triple by 1990.112  The existing and most recent,

                   albeit somewhat inflated, projected power requirements and supply for the

                   Great Lakes region are summarized in Table 1. The Federal Power Commission

                   is currently completing revised energy supply-demand projections. These
                   projections for the Great Lakes Basin should be available early in 1975.  3

                         1 bid., P. 58.
                         2National Water Commission, Water Policies for the Future, 1973, p. 171.
                         3Personal communication, Herbert Rinder, Federal Power Commi  ssion,
                   December 13, 1974.

                                                               Table 1

                                                   GREAT LAKES RASIN POWER REGION

                                                                SUMKkP,Y

                                                   Power Requirements and Supply

                                                               1965        1970      1980       2000      2020
                      Annual Peak (MW)            6            20.641    27,944   50,138    150,769    364 639
                      Annual Energy Reqmnta.(10    kWh)    118,606       161,303  294,807   901,076  2,192:872
                      Annual Lood Factor (%)                   65.6        65.9      66.9       68.0      68.5

                      Installed Capacity (F.W)
                         Thermal                               20,867    28,745   55,447    174,327    449,076
                         Hydro                                 4,075     4,067       5,940     6,900   _10,200
                           Total                               24.942    32,812   61,387    181,227    459,276
                      Vet Generation (10 6  kWh)
                         Thermal                               98,538    129,704  287,455   949,461  2,434,475
                         Hydro                             -21,060       26,274   25,163     26,761  - -32.2@4
                           Total                           119,598       155,978  312,618   976,222  2,456,729

                                             Composition   of the Thermal Power Supply

                                                       Capacity                                 Capacity
                                            Energy      Factor Capacity                Energy    Factor Capacity
                                         (10 6 kWh)        M       (MW)              (106 kWh)       M        (MW)

                                                          1965                                     1970

                      Noncondensing            561         24         269              1.736         11      1,744
                      Fossil Fuel            97,796        54     20,523              123,702        56    25,173
                      Nuclear                  181         28            75            4,266         27      1,828
                         Total               98,538        54     20,867              129,704        52    28,745

                                                           1980                                    2000

                      Noncondensing           5,761        21      3,190                26,283       20    14,948
                      Fossil Fuel           145,565        51     32,482                73,763       28    29,670
                      Nuclear               136,129        78     19,775              849,415        75   129,709
                         Total              287.455        T9     35,447              949,461        @-2  174,327

                                                           2020

                      Noncondensing          75,333        20     42,858
                      Fossil Fuel            36,090        43      9,500
                      Nuclear             2,323,052        67     396,718
                         Total            2,434,475        T2     Z49.076

                           Source: Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 10, Power

                  It is interesting to note, however, that the Federal Power Commission still

                  projects the same conversion trend to nuclear power embodied- in Table 1,

                  despite mounting support for a moratorium on nuclear energy production.

                  Pro@ected Location of Additional Power Plants in the Great Lakes Reaion

                        With respect to energy production, the principal problem area in the

                  Great Lakes is projected to be the coastal zone of the Lakes. The majority

                  of future thermal electric plants are expected to be installed at or near

                  the shoreline of the Great Lakes because they will require huge amounts of

           Jos    water for cooling purposes. For the steam generating capacity projected to
         P! @
        0 7
                  be installed in the Great Lakes by 2020, contained in Table 1, the amount of

                  land required for thermal plants would be about 69,000 acres. This assumes

                  that 150 to 200 plant sites are required. tf all of these sites are situated

                  on the lak-eshore, a maximum of 200 miles of shoreline would be required out
                  of about 4,000 miles of existing mainland shores.2  in addition to the amount

                  of land required for projected power plants, the circuit miles of transmission
                  lines planned by 198"di@require an additional 74,000 acres of land, and

                                                                                             3
                  those contemplated between 1981 and 1990 will require another 34,000 acres.

                  As can be seen from Figure 1. the vast majority of existing and projected power

                  plant sites are indeed along the Great Lakes shoreline. A more recent pr04 Ctio

                  of nuclear power plant siting along the Great Lakes, contained in Table 2,

                  further serves to indicate that the coastal zone of the Great Lakes will

                  continue to be utilized for power plant siting in the near future.

                        lPersonal communication, Herbert Rinder, F.P.C., July 15, 1974.'
                        2Great Lakes Basin Commission Framework Study, Appendix No. 10, Power,
                  Draft No. 3, November 1971, p. 62.
                        3Ibid.
                rGi

                                                     7

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          LE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           0 CONVENTION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PUMPED STO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          w K Ph
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     FOSSIL FUE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     NUCLEAR PL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.1 RIVER BASIN
                                                                    'r-, c4%
                                                                    .41                                        a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     SUBBASIN N
                                           MINNESOTA                      0 i,

                                                                                                                                                                  9=11
                                                                                                              LAKE           SUPFR)OR               114
                                                                    Z.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ONTARIO

                                                                                2
                                                                                            X
                                                                                                                                                N
                                                                                                                                                           .4

                                                                                                                    Ivis.
                                                  @o
                                              w                                                                                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                                                                                        A
                               Cm
                               0
                                                                                                                               7                                                                                                                      MAY
                   OD          H                                                                                                                                                 @2
                               m                                                                                           2   1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    LAKE         WRON
                                                                                                   WISLON@ N
                                                                                                                                                                            2.4
                                                                    m                                                                                                                                                                                                                         'tKIC (jNT-
                                                                                                                                                                       r7A .                                                                                                                                     OLD,
                                                                    z                                                                                                             HIGAN
                                                                    m                                   I... "..-                             I/            Pd                                  32
                                                                                                        r->                                                                                                Ap
                                                                    mM                                                                                                                                                                                                                 e-"         3-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1,2             7
                                                   rn               >jo
                                                                                                                                                               3                             Sid
                                                                                                                                                                  luWdo..                             I                                                                                          )
                                           0       Uj               @-;;
                                                                                                                                                                                                            110
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 S, cu. 11.-                                                   4.
                                                                                                                     md
                                           om       2;                                                                                                                                                             4                                                                                             y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0.
                                            0       0               r-                                                                                                             (7)"        Q                                   f,
                                                                                                                                                                                   1@1-'                             rV-"
                                                                                                                                                                                                               fiq         -
                                                                                                                                                                            KA21 w.                                                                                    ItIf
                                                                                                                                                                                      (D                                           is
                                                                                                      ILLINOIS            ;5
                                                                    z>                                                                  22
                                            Cr                      -A A -
                                                                    M

                                                    17TI
                                                                                                                                                                            MIC 1.
                                                                    (n

                                                                                                         ILLINOIS
                                                                                                                                        117                                                                                                              v
                                                                                                                                                                   J,@Jl@nd                                        'Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ?
                                                     C:                                                                                                                                    J) a
                                                                    >
                                                     m                                                                                                                                6               4.2
                                            0                                                                                                                         1 oil
                                                                    z
                                                                    0                                                                              1 N D I A N A                                                                  0 H 10
                                                                    <

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Source: Great Lakes Bas
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appendix 10, Po

                                                                                                                                                               ell /"7-4

                                                          PROPOSED  LOCATIONS OF NUCLEAR PLANTS ON THE U.S. SIDE OF THE GREAT LAKFS
                                                                                                          (net)          Cooling        Date goes
                               Unit                   City,   State              MW -Thermal         MW -Electric        Method         critical.         Lake       Status

                      Bailly                      Gary, Indiana                     1,931                  660           CCIINDCT       1979              Mich.      Being built
                      Davis-Besse                 Fort Clinton, Ohio                2,789                  906           CCH0CT         Sept.' '75        Erie       Being built
                      Fermi no. 2                 Monroe, Michigan                  3,293                1,093           CC11NDCT       Aug. '76          Erie       Being buil-t
                      Fermi no. 3                 Monroe, Michigan                  3,579                1.171           CCIINDCT       1981              Erie       On order
                      Big Rock Point              Charlevoix, Michigan                 240                    75            OT          Sept. '62         Mich.      Licensed to op.
                      Cook no. I                  Bridgeman, Michigan               3,250                1,060              OT          Sept. '74         Mich.      Being'built
                      Cook no. 2                  Bridgeman, Michigan               3,250                1,060              OT          Sept. '75         Mich.      Being built
                      Fermi no. I                 Monroe, Michigan                     200                   60.9           OT          Aug. 163          Mich.      Shut down
                      Fitzpatrick                 Scriba, New York                  2,436                  821              OT          June   '74      Ontario      Being built
                      Ginna                       Wayne Co. New York                1,455                  490              OT          Nov.   '69      Ontario      Licensed to    op.
                      Kewaunee no. I              CarlLon, Wisconsin                  7                    541              OT          Mar.   '74        Mich.      Licensed    to op.
                                                                                                                                                                                           t23
                      9 Mile nn. 1                ScrIba, New York                  1,850                  625              OT          Sept. '69       Ontario      Licensed    to op.
                      9 Hile no. 2                Scriba, New York                  3,323                1,080              OT          Nov.   '78      Ontario      On order
                      Palisades                   Southhave  n, Mich.               2.212                  700              OT          May  '71-         Mich.      Licensed    to op.
                      Point Beach    no. 1        Manitowic, Wisconsin              1,518                  497              Ot          Nov. '70          Mich.      Licensed    to op.
                      Point Reach    no. 2        Manitowic, Wisconsin              1,518                  497              OT          May  17'2         Hich.      Licensed    to op.
                      Zion no. 1                  Zion, Illinois                    3,250                1,050              OT          May  '73          Mich.      Licansed    to op.
                      Zion no. 2                  Zion, Illinois                    3,250                1,050              OT          Dec. '73          Mich.      Licensed    to op.

                      (CCHNDCT) Closed Cycle Hyperbolic Natural Draft Cooling,Tower                                               Source: James E. Miller
                      (OT) flnce Through                                                                                                     Atomic Energy Commission

                                                                                                                                                       September 30, 1974

                      VW5

                          In addition to the large amounts of land required for future energy

                    production, large volumes of water are also required for thermal power

                    cooling. In 1970, 19,308 mgd of water were utilized for thermal power cool- -

                    ing. At  the rate of energy production contained in Table 1 for the year 2020,

                    assuming once-through cooling systems, 249,734 mgd of water would be withdrawn.

                    Assuming all supplemental cooling, 3,963 mgd of water would be withdrawn in
                    the year 2020.1   In addition to the water withdrawals, the consumptive use

                    of thermal power cooling water is also important. In the year 2020, with

                    once-through cooling systems, 1,947 mgd would be consumptively used, and with

                                                                              2
                    all supplemental cooling, 3,032 mgd would be consumed.        The water supplies from

                    Great Lakes sources, inland lakes and streams, groundwater, and instream or

                    offstream reservoir storage are projected to be sufficient to meet these

                    water withdrawal requirements. This will remain true, provided that water

                    quality remains high enough to enable efficient and economic resource utili-

                    zation. The criteria for land use,, in conjunction with wa                    d

                    not be underestimated. This may be the single most important factor in           11"

                    facilitating or restricting increased energy production and water resource

                    utilization for the future in the Great Lakes Basin.

                    Alternative Eneray Futures

                          As suggested earlier, several factors may influence the future energy

                    supply-demand curve and, therefore, reduce the number of projected required

                    power plant sites.   Increased prices of electricity and stringent energy

                    conservation measures will probably reduce the per capita rate of

                    energy consumption and thereby reduce the overall energy requirements.

                          1Great Lakes Basin Commission Framework Study, Appendix No. 10, Power,
                    Draft No. 3, November 1971, p. 83.

                          2
                           Ibid.

                                                        10

                  In concluding its three-year Energy Policy Project, the Ford Foundation (1974)

                  reports that energy growth can be cut to 2%, or less than half the current

                  rate, without adversely effecting the economy or amenities of American

                  lifestyles. Technological innovations, including increased efficiency of

                  energy production and alternative production fuel sources, could also dras-

                  tically alter the future energy requirements. One very real possibility is

                  the use of solar collectors for heating and cooling of homes and office

                  buildings. Barry Commoner asserts that, "There presently exists opera-

                  tional technology for using solar energy for space heating and hot water,

                  which would represent 20% of the national energy budget.    He also indicates

                  that solar collectors could be manufactured very easily in auto plants, and

                  thereby reduce the cost substantially from the present $4,000 cost for an
                  average home solar collector. 2. Further evidence of the reality.of

                  solar energy collectors is that Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries now

                  commercially markets solar collector cells which would be used for heating
                  and hot water.3 Although electric generation by solar energy is much further

                  in the future, rapid technological improvements are being made. One concept

                  that is being advocated by researchers at the University of Arizona is known

                  as solar farms. The proposal involves covering 5,000 square miles of relatively

                  unused land in the southwest with solar film panels which would collect the

                  sunis heat and then be converted into electricity by huge turbines. The

                  researchers submit that such a solar farm could harvest a billion kilowatts

                  of electricity, which would be a substantial fraction of our energy needs

                         1Ann Arbor News, December 12, 1974.
                         2Ibid.
                        .3 Environmental Science and Technology, November 1974, p. 976.

                                                    11

                   in the year 2000. 1. At the present time, a National Science Foundation

                   demonstration house in Minnesota, a University of Delaware. demons trat ion

                   house, a Maryland school, and a Denver, Colorado office building are

                   successfully utilizing solar energy for heating and cooling and supplemental
                   energy production.2

                        Although predictions regarding future energy requirements are difficult

                   to make, and at best tenuous estimates, it is essential for power planning

                   and site identification and acquisition that improved projections be made.

                   These projections should include allowances for the influence of energy

                   conservation measures, price increases, and technological innovations, all

                   of which may reduce the total amount of energy required and the number of

                   sites needed. This energy planning and projection formulation should be

                   conducted on the regional level arxd related to national and international

                   projections in order to encompass entire energy systems and regional demands

                   and supplies. This will increase the overall energy system reliability and

                   facilitate a regional planning and policy perspective and analysis. This is

                   essential to identify regional resource trade-offs and resolve possible

                   interstate conflicts over siting or energy production considerations.

                        1National Wildlife, August-September 1974, p. 20.

                                   April 1974, pp. 7-13.

                                                    12

                                               CHAPTER THREE

                           MIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY POWER PRODUCTION AND

                              THERMAL DISSIPATION--OPERATION AND CONSTRUCTION

                        Potential impacts of thermal dissipation from power production, known

                  as "thermal pollution" has been a significant issue for several years. In

                  1969, the National Symposium on Thermal Pollution concluded that, "A large

                  share of research has dealt with effects on individual species and not on

                  biotic communities or ecosystems. Alterations should be directed toward

                  knowing how a natural community is established and how natural aquatic
                  ecosystems are structured and function." 1 The topic of thermal discharges

                  was the central theme for discussion at the Michigan Governor's Conference

                  on Thermal Pollution, held July 18, 1969. Thermal power cooling systems,

                  power consumption projections, potential impacts on aquatic systems,

                  and feasible solutions to thermal dissipation were discussed at this con-
                  ference.2  Lake Michigan has specifically received a great deal of attention

                  by the United States Department of the Interior. The economic and engineering

                  feasibility of alternative cooling methods and their impacts on the environ-
                  ment were discussed in a 1970 publication. 3  In a second document by Dept. of

                  Interior, the physical and ecological impacts of thermal dissipation into

                  Lake Michigan were examined. This document asserted that thermal dissipation

                  into Lake Kichigan could warm a significant portion of the littoral zone of

                  the Lake and could accelerate eutrophication of the littoral zone in areas

                        1Krenkel and Parker, Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution., 1969, p. 384.
                        2Governor's Conference on Thermal Pollution, 1969, pp. 4-8.
                        3U.S. Dept. of Interior, Feasibility of Alternative Means of Coolin@
                  for Thermal Power Plants Near Lake Michigan, September 1970.

                                                     13

                    where nutrients are approaching critical levels.   1  Based on the evidence

                    discussed in this report, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that only

                    slightly elevated temperatures, if improperly timed and sufficiently long,
                    could be critical to the life stages of Lake Michigan species.    2  In 1972,

                    MIT investigated issues in electric power production, shoreline recreation,
                    and air and water pollution of relevance to' New England and the nation.    3

                    Also completed in 1972 was an excellent document written by the National

                    Academy of Engineering. This document analyzes issues of environmental

                    protection and energy production, power plant siting and transmission

                                                                                                     4
                    corridor selection, and the relationship between energy and economic growth.

                    In 1973, the Council on Environmental Quality published a book which discussed

                    impacts of energy production, factors causing increases in energy consumption,
                    and total energy systems impact analysis.  5  An extensive and comprehensive

                    analysis of environmental issues caused by energy production was completed

                    in October 1973 by John Clark. This document analyzes the value of coastal

                    ec osystems and impact on these systems, both internal and external, to power
                    plant siting and-operation. 6  The United States Geological Survey, in 1974,

                           U.S. Dept. of Interior, El@ysi@al and Ecological Effects of Waste Heat
                    on Lake Michigan, September 1970, pp. 86-87.
                          2Ibid., p. 90.
                          3Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Power, Pollution and Public Policy,
                    1972.
                          4National Academy of Engineering, Engineering for Resolution of the
                    Energy-Environment Dilemma, 1972.
                          5Council on Environmental Quality, Energy and the Environment--Electric
                    Power, August 1973.
                          6Clark, John, Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental
                    Issues, October 1973.

                                                        14

                   completed an analysis of water requirements for expanding energy development

                   throughout the nation. This analysis of water demands includes steam electric

                   generation, oil shale production, coal gassification-liquifaction, and extraction
                   transport and refining parameters.I

                        Thermal power production impacts the environment in many ways during

                   both construction and operation phases. Impacts on aquatic environments,

                   terrestrial ecosystems, meteorological systems, and social and economic impacts

                   are all extremely important dimensions of the energy production scheme. These

                   impacts, as well as common impacts resulting from construction of power plants,

                   will be discussed in the sections that follow.

                   The Coastal Zone--Pressures and Principles

                        The pressures for resource utilization, competition among conflicting

                   demands, and the threat of imminent destruction of an invaluable resource is

                   perhaps stronger within the coastal zone than is evident eisewhere with our

                   land and water resources. With over 4,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline,

                   the coastal zone of the Great Lakes represents a tremendous natural resource.

                   The coastal zone of the Great Lakes is utilized extensively for harbors and

                   marinas, industrial location, power plant sites, second-home subdivisions,

                   valuable fish and wildlife habitat, and a wide spectrum of recreational

                   demands.

                        The coastal zone is the interface between the water resources and the

                   adjacent shoreland resources. Determination of the coastal zone boundary

                   depends on the location along the shoreline and the specific state which

                   the shoreland lies in. Many states have adopted a rather arbitrary definition,,--

                   of the coastal zone which extends 1,000 feet beyond the            fevel.

                        1U.S. Geological Survey, "Wat-_@ L#6mands for Expanding Energy Development",
                   Circular 703, 1974.

                                                    15

                  Other states are looking at a more physical definition of the coastal water-

                  shed as a delineation for the coastal zone. The coastal watershed is defined

                  as a "drainage basin immediately adjacent to coastal waters, which is comprised

                  of lands, all or some of which drain directly into coastal waters, and does

                  not include lands of drainage basins that drain wholly into tributary channels

                  to coastal waters".   These shorelands are included in the definition of the

                  coastal zone because they have a potential for significant impact on coastal

                  waters. These shorelands must be included in any coastal zone management

                  program in order to protect coastal waters from degradation by sediment,

                  nutrient and toxic pollutants, to maintain the hydrologic balance of the coastal

                  zone, or to preserve the source of coastal beach materials.

                        The ecosystems of the coastal zone are usually ecologically complex

                  and exceptionally rich. Characteristically, the coastal zone tends to be

                  more productive than either the open water on one side or the adjacent land
                  on the other.2  Several extremely important ecological parameters of the

                  coastal zone are: the ecological systems integrity; water as a linkage

                  transport medium; inflow of water into the coastal zone; coastal zone water

                  circulation; flow and amount of available energy; capabilities for energy

                  storage; concentration of available nutrients, principally nitrogen and

                  phosphorus; depth of light penetration; temperatures; and dissolved oxygen

                  content. Additional physical parameters of importance in the coastal zone

                  include: beach composition; impacts of waves and winds; the importance

                  of littoral sediment transport; impacts of storms; and the disruption of

                  the natural physical processes by man, including breakwaters, groin structures,

                         Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, p. 167, 1974.

                        2
                         Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology, 1971.

                                                    16

                  jetties, and other shore protection devices. I  These physical and biological

                  parameters of the coastal zone are combined in many ways to provide for an

                  almost infinite variety of coastal systems. Barren sand dunes, rocky shores

                  and bluffs, fertile estuarine systems, and semi-enclosed coves, are examples

                  of the great heterogeneity of coastal ecosystems. Each of these various

                  types of coastal ecosystems has its own inherent tolerance for development,

                  and each must be managed accordingly and individually. This diversity

                  inherent in coastal ecosystems is important in another dimension. Ecologists

                  frequently speak of the "health" or stability of an ecosystem and measure this

                  stability in terms of the ability of the ecosystem to resist disturbance, or
                  maintain itself from external perturbations. 2 Habitat and species diversity

                  are critical factors in an ecosystem's ability to tolerate external pressures.

                  These pressures may be natural, such as a temporary change in climate, or

                  they may be man-caused, such as dredging and filling activities, or a temporary

                  influx of nutrients. The greater the diversity of both habitat and species

                  of the ecosystem, the higher the probability of the ecosystem maintaining

                  its stability. According to Cooper, "Any form of landscape planning must

                  consider the stability characteristics of the resident ecological systems.",
                  and this certainly applies to management of the coastal zone. 3

                        The coastal zone contains many of the most ecologically valuable

                  components to be found in the Great Lakes. In many areas of the coastal zone,

                        1U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Shore Protection Manual,
                  Volume 1, pp. 1-21, 1973.
                        2Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology, 1971.
                        3Cooper, William E. and Vlasin, Raymond D., "Ecological Concepts and
                  Applications to Planning", in Environment: A New Focus for Land Use Planning,
                  National Science Foundation, 1973.

                                                     17

                  such as Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, Green Bay, and Maumee Bay, extensive wetlands

                  provide invaluable ecological functions, such as prime breed.ing grounds

                  for many species of fish and wildlife, valuable wildlife habitat, nutrient

                  and sediment buffer zones which purify surface run-off, and the rooted
                  aquatic plants provide a natural mechanism for shoreline protection.  I A

                  wide variety of est-uarine ecological systems are also found along the

                  coastal zone -of the Great Lakes which serve many of the same functions as

                  wetlands. Both estuaries and wetlands are areas of critical environmental

                  and ecological value. The rooted aquatic vegetation found in wetlands and

                  estuaries also provides a valuable hydrologic function in that they serve

                                                         2
                  to regulate the flow of run-off water.

                        In addition to the ecological value of the coastal zone, there is

                  an extremely important economic dimension. An intense competition for shoreland

                  resources exists among industrial complexes, thermal power generation plants,

                  and the desire for recreational and residential developments along the

                  shoreline.  It should be stressed that the recreational pressures on the

                  shoreline represent a significant source of competition for resource utili-

                  zation. The ecological significance of the coastal zone and the desire

                  for public access and recreational facilities, as well as quality sport

                  fishing, are vitally important to the Great Lakes Basin economy, as well

                  as to the resident's enjoyment. Therefore, the location of industrial

                  complexes and power plants may be in direct conflict with the recreational

                  demands, ecological values, and intelligent natural resource management.

                         1Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, p. 68, 1974.
                         2Ibid., p. 68.

                        While water availability, per se, does not represent a.significant

                  obstacle to increased energy production in the Great Lakes, several other

                  facets of water resource development represent potential constraints to

                  increased energy production. There are many aspects of energy production

                  that impact upon water quality and may degrade the water sufficiently so

                  as to preclude further use. The discharge of power plant cooling water

                  into lakes or streams, sometimes known as thermal pollution, may degrade

                  water quality sufficiently to affect either species diversity or abundance.

                  The environmental impacts of waste heat are very difficult to completely

                  determine because heat is not persistent and does not build up in the

                  water like chemical pollutants such as nutrients or pesticides. Another

                  important dimension is that receiving waters naturally undergo daily and
                  seasonal temperature flucuations which are quite often very pronounced.  1

                  Temperature is an extremely important water quality parameter which regulates

                  the life cycle of many organisms in the aquatic environment. The United

                  States Environmental Protection Agency has iummarized the detrimental
                  impacts of artificial temperature increases as follows:2

                       "l. Heat affects the physical properties of water such as density,
                       viscosity, vapor pressure, and solubility of dissolved gasses. Con-
                       sequently, such processes as the settling of particulate matter,
                       stratification, circulation, and evaporation can be influenced
                       by changes in temperature. Since the solubility of oxygen in
                       water decreases as temperature increases, thermal pollution re-
                       duces the oxygen resources. Most aquatic organisms depend on
                       dissolved oxygen to maintain growth and reproduction.

                         Michigan Water Resources Commission, Thermal Discharges and Water
                  quality Control, June 1974- p. 5.
                        2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proceedings in the Matter of
                  Pollution of Mt. Hope Bay and Its Tributaries", (2 volumes) , 1972.

                                                    19

                         2. Heat affects the rate at which chemical reactions progress, and
                         it can speed up the formation of undesirable compounds or change
                         dynamic chemical equilibria. It also effects the biochemical reac-
                         tions and can result in a more rapid depletion of the oxygen resources.
                         If sufficient heat is added, temperatures can be elevated enough to
                         sterilize the environment by killing all living organisms.

                         3. Environmental temperatures are important to the living resources.
                         Physiological processes such as reproduction, development, and
                         metabolism are temperature dependent. The range of many species
                         of 'fishes and the species composition of the communities are governed
                         to a great extent by the environmental temperature. Temperature
                         anamolies'also can block the passage of anadromous fish, greatly
                         reducing future populations. An increase in temperature can result
                         in synergistic actions; that is, the simultaneous effects of
                         separate agents is greater than the total sum of individual
                         effects. Prime examples are increased toxicity of some materials,
                         increases in susceptibility of fish to diseases, and increased
                         virulence of fish pathogens.

                         4. Thermal pollution affects other aquatic organisms such as the
                         aquatic plants, the benthos, and the bacterial populations.
                         Increased temperatures may reduce the number of species in the
                         community and stimulate excessive populations of individual
                         species to nuisance conditions."

                          One other potential water quality problem associated with cooling

                    water usoge is the use of chlorine to keep aquatic growths from "fouling"

                    the plumbing of the plant. Chlorine is discharged with the cooling water

                    and, if the residual concentration is great enough, may have detrimental

                    effects on aquatic organisms in the discharge channels or the receiving
                    waters.1  This'' 'blow down" water is frequently concentrated in supplemental

                    cooling systems. When released from the plant, this water represents a

                    significant potential contribution to water quality degradation. Further

                    research conducted by the National Environmental Research Center in

                    Corvalis, Oregon demonstrated that zinc and chromium compounds, which are

                    frequently included in blow down water, are also very toxic components,

                    and that synergistic effects may occur in other mixtures containing a

                           IMichigan Water Resources Commission, "Calculated Residual Chlorine
                    Concentrations Safe for Fish", April 1973.

                                                        20

                    variety of compounds.

                          For many years, the primary ecological concern about power plants, other

                    than the dangers of nuclear energy, was thermal pollution. A recent inves-

                    tigation into the impacts of power plants in the coastal zone concluded

                    that the preoccupation of environmentalists with thermal pollution was not

                    justified and that the most detrimental impact to aquatic ecosystems was

                    the ex tremely high mortality of organisms suspended in the water and drawn

                                                                    2
                    into the power plants with the cooling water.      The environmental impacts

                    resulting from massive entrainment and death of organisms such as plankton

                    and larval stages of many fish species, in combination with the impingement

                    of large fish on intake screens, is of great magnitude. Many species of fish

                    are quite commonly attracted to the vicinity of power plants in colder seasons

                    of the year due to the higher temperatures of the effluent waters. Once

                    these fish are near the plant, they are extremely vulnerable to impingement

                    and almost certain death on the intake screen. Many species of fish, par-

                    ticularly the smaller species, become entrapped on the intake screen, simply

                    because they are unable to overcome the force of the water being pu"idped.

                    It appears that exhaustion, suffocation, and external and internal mechanical

                    impacts are the primary mechanisms of f ish mortality caused by impingement

                    on power plant screens.

                          Many forms of life small enough to go through the power plant screens

                    face several lethal hazards in passage through the cooling system. The resulting

                    loss of organisms is frequently referred to as entrainment kill. As the

                          IGartin, R. B., "Biological Effects of Cooling Power Blow Down", 1973.
                          2Clark, John, Electric Power Plants in thecoastal Zone: Environmental
                    Issues, 1973, p. 1.

                                                         21

                   cooling water passes through the plant, the temperature increases drastically

                   as it passes through the condensor tubes, dissolved oxygen is usually greatly

                   reduced, and increases in pressure and nitrogen often result in a gas imbalance.

                   Fish larvae and plankton organisms are greatly stressed and often suffer almost
                   complete mortality.1 This problem is especially dramatic in estuaries and

                   coastal.zones habitats because a substantial portion of species stock can

                   be eradicated by this entrainment kill. Estuarine species and coastal zone

                   species typically have suspended young stages that are vulnerable to entrain-

                   ment and are frequently concentrated in limited are-as within the coastal zone.

                   Entrainment kill of these suspended organisms appears to be an extremely

                   serious impact of power plants with once-through cooling systems that are

                   located in estuaries or prime coastal zone breeding areas. The aiagnitude of

                   this impact is illustrated by the case of the Indian Point Power Plant, located

                   on the Hudson estuary. Up to 30% or more of the annual brood of an estuarine

                   spawning fish, such as the Striped Bass, can be killed by the operation of one
                   1,000 megawatt plant located in a prime breeding area such as the Hudson estuary.2

                   The overall combination of thermal shock and power plant entrainment kills a

                   great deal of fish food in the littoral zone as well as reducing the number
                  ,of viable fist, larvae. The littoral zones of the Great Lakes represent the
                   most biologically productive portion of the Basin. The possibilities of dis-

                   ruption of the food chain, impacts on fish populations, alteration of species

                   diversity-abundance relationships, and the reduction of ecological systems
                                                                                M

                   stability of the littoral zone are all extremely important ecological con-

                   siderations.

                        1-Marcey, Barton C., "Survival of Young Fish in the Discharge Canal of
                   a Nuclear Power Plant", in Journal of Fisheries Resources, p. 1058, 1971.
                        2Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Impact Statement---
                   Indian Point No. 2, 1972.

                                                    22

                "Terrestrial Impacts

                        Accelerated energy production in the Great Lakes    Basin will result

                  in increased competition for land resources throughout    the Basin. For

                  example, recreational pressures on the lake's shorelines represent one

                  significant source of competition for resource utilization. The ecological

                  significance of the littoral zone, as well as the public's desire for

                  access to it for recreation and sport fishing, make it vitally important

                  to the economy and quality of lif e in the Basin. Many people go to the

                  shorelands of the Great Lakes seeking a psychologically rejuvenating

                  experience. Therefore, it is obvious that the location of power plants,

                  as well as the water and land utilization of those plants, may be in

                  direct conflict with recreational.. desires and demands.                         Ir
                        Another very significant potential area of conflict is in rela't'ion

                  to land use allocations for power plant sites and transmission 'Line corridors.

                  As indicated earlier in this report, the projected requirement of as much

                  as 200 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, as well as thousands of acres of

                  land throughout the Basin for transmission corridors, represents a significant

                  )demand on the land resources in the Basin. At the same time, there is
                 /dramatically increasing demand for agricultural output, forestry products,
                 i1wetland preservation, and residential and urban expansion.    It is readily
                 Iapparent that conflict among these various competing land uses is irmninent.

                  It should also be emphasized that the construction and location of a power

                  plant are essentially irreversible. commitments of land resources. Consequently,

                  should a power plant be located on prime agricultural land, this land would

                  be lost from agricultural productivity. This might be especially important

                  in areas where the micro-climatic conditions, created by the lakes along

                  the shoreline, provide the necessary environment for very lucrative vineyards

                  and cherry and apple orchards.

                                                      23

                          Additional terrestrial impacts resulting from power plant location

                    include possible wildlife habitat destruction or alteration, adverse aestheticc

                    impacts, and the disruption and alteration of the coastal watershed hydrology,
           le,      resulting in artificial flow characteristics and increased sediment and

                    nutrient input. Power plants located along the coastal zone frequently
    ell
                    have jetties or harbor-like structures protruding into the    . .1ittoral zone.
     )L
                    These structures frequently disrupt the natural littoral sediment transport

                    patterns, resulting in ac'celera ted shor.eline erosion.down drift from the

                     tructure. Countless examples    of this accelerated  erosion can be found

                    along the Great Lakes shoreline by examining t1he numerous harbor and groin

                    Structures.   Between 1970 and 1974, the period of recent extreme high

                    lake levels, a tremendous amount of erosion and property loss has occurred

                    along nearly all of the coastal area of the Great Lakes. Lakes Erie, Huron,

                    and particularly the east coast c4f Lake 'Michigan, have been the location of

                    severe shoreline recession    Many millions of dollars in property loss and

                    damage from both erosion and flooding has been suffered by public facilities

                    and private real.es -tate. The disruption of the natural littoral drift

                    patterns can result, in very severe consequences and represents a significant
                    impact to'shoreland resources. 2

                    Meteorological Tmpacts

                          Electric energy production exerts pressures on many aspects of complex

                    meteorological systems. Operation of conventional fossil fuel plants Lsually

                    results in the increased discharge of various air pollutants including

                    particulate matter, oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide,

                       V_"Larson, Curtes E. , "The Cultural Variable and Shore Erosion Alon- the
                    Illinois Shore of Lake Michigan", December 1972, p. 3.
                          2Ibid., p. 20.

                                                         24

                   and many hydrocarbons.    A major source of mercury in the environment is

                   the tremendous quantity of mercury released    each year from consumption

                   of fossil fuels. This significant source of mercury is largely discharged

                   to the atmosphere, and may reenter the terrestrial or aquatic environments
                   by fallout or precipitation.  2

                          The total impacts of power plant thermal discharges and supplemental

                   cooling systems on various meteorological systems are not well understood.

                   As more and more power plants are located along the shoreline, the potential

                   for substantial alteration of the meteorological systems of the Great Lakes

                   -becomes more significant.   it is possible that these long-range potential

                   hydrologic and meteorological alterations represent more deleterious environ--
                   mental consequences than those experienced by once-through cooling systems.     3

                   Presently, the atmospheric effects of waste heat dissipation are currently

                   observed to be of only slight significance. However, the Atomic Energy

                   Commission is currently evaluating about a dozen sites for power parks, where

                   huge amounts of power will be generated in concentrated locations. The energy

                   released in the form of sensible heat combined with the moisture dissipation
                   from th ese power parks may result in very significant meteorological impacts.    4

                   Until these relationships are thoroughly understood, these operations

                   should be vieved w4-tb concern and considcraticn given to possible

                   constraints on this form of concentrated energy production. The

                   potential for weather modification, including cloud formation, increased

                          -'National Academy of Engineering, Engineering for Resolution of the
                   Energy-Environment Dilemma, 1972, p. 36.
                          2Donaldson, William T., Mercury in the Environment, December 1973, T). 3.
                          3Personal communication, Dr. William Cooper, Mich. State University,
                   October 3, 1974.
                          4Hanna, Stephen R., "Research Needs Related'to Hydrometeorologic Aspects
                   of Future Energy Production", November 1974, p. 120.

                                                        25

                  precipitation, fogging and icing, as well as the alteration of the growing

                  seasons, represent environmental consequences of great magni tude. Accelerated

                  thermal dissipation into the Great Lakes Basin must not be allowed to occur

                  until the consequences of such actions are fully understood.

                        All of the various cooling methods available for installation today

                  have certain inherent advantages and disadvantages.   Flow-through cooling

                  systems -have the lowest economic cost and the least consumptive use of

                  water, but have an inherent danger of exceeding the natural thermal assimilative

                  ca2acity of the receiving water, with resulting ecological damages.    Potential

                  entrainment problems are also greatest with f low-through cooling systems.

                  Cooling ponds can be used for multiple-use purposes, including recreation,

                  but have extremely large land requirements and are relatively inefficient in

                  dissipating thermal heat, especially during extremely humid or hot climatic

                  conditions. Wet cooling towers, either natural draft hyperbolic towers or

                  mechanical draft towers, reduce the cooling water temperature, but increase

                  dramatically the consumptive use of water, result in increased energy

                  consumption and large capital expenditures, contribute greatly to aesthetic

                  quality deterioration and have a significant potential for fogging and icing.

                  Another possible cooling alternative is the spray canal system. This has

                  several advantages, including reduced land requirements and efficient thermal

                  dissipation, but presently the systems require tremendous maintenance costs
                  and do not adequately control thermal discharges. I Another cooling option,

                  dry cooling towers, greatly reduce the consumptive use of water, but are

                  tremendously expensive and greatly increase energy allocations to the cooling

                          Croley, Thomas and Kennedy, John, "Research Needs Related to Heat
                   Dissipation from Large Power Plants", November 1974, p.  120.

                                                     26

                   process which detract from the overall power. plant productivity.
      41                 It is obvious that the Great Lakes contain a tremendous body of

                   fresh water. A dimension of the Great Lakes that is frequently overlooked

                   is that the natural thermal assimilative capacity is a natural resource

                   and should be utilized, provided that detrimental environmental impacts

                   are adequately controlled and/or mitigated. According to the National

                   Water Commission, "The capacity of water to absorb and dissipate heat is
                   a valuable resource which, under many conditions can be safely used." 2

                   The Commission further asserts that "Using water bodies to accept waste

                   heat provides two major benefits:

                         1. Water as a solution, dispersion, and dissipation medium is four

                   and one-half times more efficient than air on a weight basis and forty-two

                   times more efficient on a volume. basis, and

                         2. The improved efficiency of the cooling process reduces the allo-

                   cation of resources and the production of energy otherwise required for this
                   function."3

                         In view of the potential detrimental environmental impacts and increased

                   requirements of cap ital and energy of the various cooling alternatives, once-

                   through cooling systems should not be arbitrarily eliminated from consideration.

                   Properly sited and designed power plants, utilizing once-through cooling systems

                   along Great Lakes shorelines could result in fewer adverse environmental impacts,

                   reduced energy and economic costs, and result in efficient resource utilization.

                          Furlong, Don, "The Cooling Tower Business Today", in Environmental
                   Science and Technology, August 1974.
                         2National Water Commission,,Water Policies for the Future., 1973, p. 175.
                         3Ibid., p. 176.

                                                     27

                   Social, Economic, Institutional Impacts

                         In the case of power plants, as with any important installation,

                   there are numerous social, economic, and institutional dimensions, both

                   positive and adverse. In many sections of the Basin, reliable energy

                   sources are vitally important to the region's economy. Real or perceived

                   energy-related needs can exert a tremendous influence on a community. The

                   intense opposition or adament support for nuclear power production can

                   completely fragment the community's social and economic foundation. It

                   is extremely important that adequate technical assistance be provided to

                   local political bodies which would lead to an early identification of

                   economic dis-benef its to local interests, as well as benefits, and lead to

                   the establishment of a more equal distribution of benefits and costs.

                   Several importa nt direct and indirect impacts of construction and opera-

                   tion of a power plant on local public facilities are increased school

                   enrollment, increased demand on police - fire, and recreational facilities, and

                   increased demand for housing, which frequently results in temporary increases

                   in rental payments. Positive economic impacts of the facility on the local

                   community include increased payroll and employment opportunities, increased

                   property tax revenues, and increased demand for service and supply businesses.

                        Secondary impacts on the local socio-economic structure resulting

                   from energy facilities should also be considered. These may include an

                   influx of new industries into the area due to the availability of assured

                   energy supplies at a reasonable price. These additional industries may

                   exert significant pressures on the community's sewage treatment plant and

                   municipal water su-P-ply systems. Therefore, it is not sufficient to analyze
       ID               'Williams, J.S. and Spiegel, S., Socio-Economic Impact of Estuarine
                   Thermal Pollution, 1974.

                                                      28

                  only the immediate site-specific impacts, but it is important to look at
                  entire community-'wide impacts, both primary and secondary. Such impacts

                  as increased air pollution, higher levels and greater intensities of

                  noise,, aesthetic deterioration of the community, destruction of important

                  historical and archaeological sites of the community, are all critical

              7, Jacets that should be considered in a comprehensive analysis.

                       Aai institutional conflict of long 'Standing in the Great Lakes Basin

                  is the issue of inter-basin diversions. Historically, the opposition to

                  inter-basin transfer often has varied inversely with lake levels. As the

                  lake levels have increased, more and more people have become amenable to

                  the idea of diverting excess water out of the Basin. However, when the

                  lake levels recede, residents intense@y oppose the loss of lake water through

                  inter-basin diversions. Future proposals for additional inter-basin diversions,

                  as well as suggestions for Federal jurisdiction over water rights in order

                  to facilitate alledgedly more efficient water resource utilization, will

                  meet with strenuous opposition from many private and governmental entities

                  throughout the Basin.  In addition, the constitutional implications of

                  Federal jurisdiction over water rights are extremely complex and serious.

                        Another potential institutional problem area is associated with the

                  legal concept of riparian rights in the Great Lakes Basin. Under the

                  Riparian Doctrine, all water withdrawals must be reasonable in their

                  scope. They cannot contribute significantly to water quality degradation,

                  nor can they interfere with other legitimate riparian interests. Therefore,

                  any dramatic increase in consumptive use or degradation of water quality

                  due to water utilized for energy production in the Basin will be in direct

                  conflict with this doctrine.

                        'Walker, William R. and Cox, William E. , "Legal Aspects of Water for
                  Coal Gassification", November 1974.

                                                    29

                        The diverse mix of governmental institutions operating on   several

                   levels within the Great Lakes.Basin also represents a potential problem

                   area with respect to energy production. Conflicting goals, uncoordinated

                   planning, and poor management of policy formulation all prevent efficient

                   and beneficial resource utilization in the Basin. The planning and manage-

                   ment of.water and related land resources relating to increased energy pro-

                   duction throughout the Basin is an example of an area in which the Great

                   Lakes Basin Commission should be intimately involved. The Commission should

                   facilitate socially desirable, environmen tally compatible, economically

                   feasible, and politically tenable resource policy and plan formulation.

                   The Commission is charged, under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

                   (P.L. 89-80), to coordinate the land and water resources planning within

                   the Great Lakes Basin and to prepare a comprehensive coordinated joint plan.

                   Energy-related planning and policies are an integral part of this comprehensive

                   coordination and planning effort.

                   Construction Im2acts

                        According to John Clark, "The disruptions consequent to power plant
                -1@eonstruction are a potential source of significant adverse effects."'

                   Estuaries and adjacent wetlands are especially vulnerable to impacts from

                   shoreland construction, such as destruction of wetlands and bay bottom

                   habitat; degradation of wetlands through alteration of the hydrologic

                   regime; and a detioriation of water quality resulting from agitation and

                   suspension of sediment and an influx of nutrients.  Several major potential

                                                                                           2
                   disturbances to coastal ecosystems are set forth by Coutant as follows:

                        IClark, John, Electric Power Plants and the Coastal ZQne : Environmental
                   Issues, 1973, p. 12.

                         Coutant, Charles, "Evaluating the Ecological Impact of Steam Electric
                   Stations on Aquatic Systems", December 1972.

                                                      30

                       "Dredging for an intake channel or discharge pipeline is the con-
                       struction activity which can have the greatest impact on aquatic
                       biota. Removing sediments from fresh water is known to have
                       potential for biological- damage to populations (1) in the immediate
                       area of dredging (by disruption of bottom organisms in the habitat);
                       (2) in areas of intentional disposal of dredge materials (by covering
                       existing bottom organisms and modifying habitats); (3) in unexpected
                       areas within the general region where water quality may be altered
                       (increased turbidity, reduction in quantity of dissolved oxygen due
                       to suspension of oxygen-demanding sediments, release of toxic
                       materials, etc.) or bottom organisms that are covered by smothering
                       siltation. Dredging new channels in water bodies or marshes, or as
                       outlets for bays, may significantly change existing circulation
                       patterns and greatly modify aquatic habitats."

                        The extensive estuarine or coastal zone marsh landscapes offer especially

                   attractive sites for power plants, particularly nuclear sites because the

                   price per acre of marsh land is relatively low and frequently a high degree

                   of isolation is possible. Power plant siting in these areas conflicts with

                   state and national programs for the protection of critical wetlands. The

                   many policy alternatives for regulating development in these critical environ-

                   mental areas' will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
                        Hittman Associates pr!epared a general environmental guideline for

                   evaluating the effects of nuclear power plant site preparation and trans-
                   mission corridor construction for the Atomic Industrial Forum.1  They point

                   out that the various construction operations involved insite preparation
                   and plant construction constitut-c@@          upces of various types and

                   amounts of air, land, and water pollutants. The various phases of power

                   plant construction include the following: pre-construction activities,

                   site work, permanent facilities construction, and project close-out. The primary

                   measures to be employed during earth work include control of storm water

                      Atomic Industrial Forum, "General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating
                   and Reporting the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation, Plant and
                   Transmission Facilities Construction", February 1974.

                                                     31

                   drainage, soil erosion by water and wind, downstream damages from sediment

                   and increased stream flow volumes. Perhaps the most serious impact of site

                   work on water resources are the effects of dewatering on the groundwater

                   supply, and on adjacent wetlands or other vulnerable aquatic ecosystems.

                   Any of the pre-construction and construction impacts inherent in power

                   plant preparation may also be relevant to transmission corridor construction.

                   Frequent irretrievable commitments of resources resulting from these types

                   of construction include impairment of the natural physical environment,

                   such as the loss of wildlife habitat; destruction of nesting, breeding or

                   nursing areas; interference with migratory patterns; loss of valuable or

                   aesthetically valued areas; and the expenditure of directly utilized land,
                   water, and building resources.1  In order to reduce the total impact,

                   Hittman Associates suggests proper power plant site location and general

                   protective measures including the following;  seasonal timing of construc-

                   tioa activities to avoid mass clearing and grading operations during

                   seasons of the year when heavy rainfalls can be expected; staging of con-

                   struction c@peratLo@ns and activities so that all clearing, grading, and

                   stabilizing operations are done in each area before moving on to another;

                   utilization of vegetative filter strips, contour strips, and uncleared portions

                   of stage development projects to filter sediment and nutrients; exposed

                   soil stabilization, including seeding, mulching; sediment basins and diversion

                   structures to contain run-off and sedimenc; and streambank and shoreline

                   protection measures, including maintenance of original vegetation and
                   possibly regrading and immediate revegetation.2

                         IAtomic Industrial Forum, "General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating
                   and Reporting the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site PreDaration, Plant and
                   Transmission Facilities Construction", February 1974, p. 47.
                         2Ibid., D 1-20.

                                                      32

                   Environmental Impact Asses sment--Too ls and Methods

                        Accurate environmental impact assessment is a critical phase of

                   predicting the consequences of power plant construction and operation.

                   According to Dr. Andrews, two principal tasks of an impact assessor are

                   to "identify what functions of the affected resources would be modified

                   by each -alternative proposal and to predict reliably the directions and
                   magnitudes of the modifications likely to result from each alternative".'

                   Historically, many impact assessors have gathered voluminous amounts of

                   information and data on a wide spectrum of potential areas of environmental

                    pact. However, if environmental impact assessment is to serve the needs

                   of decision makers, it must gather information selectively and clarify

                   impacts on valued resources and natural resource systems rather than

                   accumulating vast bodies of empirical data. This large collection of

                   empirical data often does not serve to facilitate sound decision making...-

                        There are a great many problems inherent in environmental impact

                   assessment. Perhaps the foremost of these problems is the significant

                   degree of uncertainty and a lack of knowledge of what many of the inter-

                   relationships are in the natural systems that may be impacted. Several of

                   the reasons for this uncertainty are a general lack of knowledge, areas

                   in which impacts are only probabilistic in nature, and others, such as the

                   continued exposure to low level radiation, the accumulative effects of

                   which are simply not known. A second significant problem encountered in

                   impact assessment is deciding which alternatives and impacts should be

                   studied and in what detail. This is an area in which the multi-disciplinary

                   impact assessment team can be of great assistance 'in delineating the critical

                        Andrews, Richard N. L., "A Philosophy of Environmental Impact Assess-
                   ment", 1973, p. 198.                                                         C
                  @
                   of

                   im

                   ac

                                                     33

                   potential impacts of the various alternatives. Costs and time are always

                   critical factors  in deciding the amount of detail that is feasible and

                   attainable.

                         Environmental impact assessment is a very sophisticated task, requiring

                   a great deal of professional skill, scientific knowledge, and predictive

                   insight. Many of the environmental impact assessment methodologies developed

                   in recent years have not reflected the required degree of sophistication to

                   ascertain accurately the consequences of developments or actions impinging

                   on the natural environment.    It is imperative that impact assessment clarify

                   the consequences of public decisions. This process should communicate,

                   unequivocally, the implications of choosing one action over another, with

                   respect to all competing users of the resource systems affected. It is

                   important that the process be an on-going one, continuing from the initial

                   definition of a planning problem, through the entire course of implementing

                   the project or program. Without this continual cognizance of environmental

                   impacts and modifying projects and programs accordingly, impact assessment

                   is flat worst. a paperwork problem, and at best an expensive subsidy for
                   consultants".'

                         With the  tremendous proliferation of environmental impact assessment

                   methodologies,  it has become increasingly necessary to review and critique

                   these methods.   One of these reviews of impact assessment methods has been
                   conducted by contract with the Environmental Protection Agency.    2   This review

                   divides the various methodologies into five types, based on the way impacts

                          Andrews, Richard N. L. , "A Philosophy of Environmental Impact Assess-
                   ment", 1973, p. 203.
                          -I'
                          Warner, et. al..,.!!A__R_qview of Environmental Impact Assessment
                   Methodologies".-If-April 1974.

                                                       34

                  are identified. These classifications are:

                        1. Ad hoc--These methods provide a rather superficial guidance to
                  impact assessment, merely delineating broad areas of possible impacts.

                        2. overlays--This is the McHargian approach, in which a set of maps
                  of environmental characteristics are prepared for the project area and then
                  overlayed to produce a composite characterization of the regional environment.

                        3. checklists--These methods present a specific list of environmental
                  parameters to be analyzed for possible impacts, but often do not require
                  the establishment of direct cause and effect linkages.

                        4. matrices--This method incorporates a list of project activities
                  in addition to the checklist of potential impacts and links the two together
                  in a matrix, which alleges to identify cause and effect relationships.

                        5. networks--This type of assessment method deals with a list of
                  project activities to establish cause-condition-effect networks.   This is
                  designed to identify a series of impacts, which may be triggered by a
                  particular project action.

                        The Water Resources Council, with the establishment of their Principles

                  and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources, have attempted

                  to establish'a type of environmental impact assessment. These Principles

                  and Standards require, for each alternative plan, that a complete display

                  or accounting of the relevant beneficial and adverse effects on the national

                  economic development and environmental quality will be prepared. The beneficial

                  and adverse effects are to be measured in either monetary or non-monetary terms.

                  These accounts are established in order to measure and display in appropriate

                  terms the net changes or potential impacts, with respect to the two objectives,
                                                               1                 7
                  that are generated by the alternative plans.

                        In order to accurately assess environmental impactg and predict conse-

                  quences of these impacts, a great deal of data is required.   Collecting this

                  data requires a combination of various tools available to the impact assessor.

                         Volume 38 of the Federal Register, Monday, December 10, 1973.
                 [
                  im

                  of

                  ov

                  pa
                  th

                                                     35

                   The use of aerial photographs is a very important tool for obtaining a

                   significant amount of physiographic, geologic, soils, vegetation, water

                   resources, and ecological habitat information. A skilled aerial photo

                   interpretor can derive a great deal of valuable information from black

                   and white photographs. For a thorough discussion of this tool for impact
                   assessment, see Terrain Analysis by Douglas S. Way. 1  Similar types of

                   data and information on a much larger scale can be derived from remote

                   sensing photographs such as those derived from the ERTS satellite, the
                   Skylab operation, and the high altitude RB 57 aircraft. 2  The principal

                   advantage of this remote sensing is that it utilizes a multi-spectoral

                   scanner which differentiates between bands of various radiation, and allows

                   a more detailed analysis of land forms and water resources. In addition,

                   the thermal band contained on the Skylab and the RB 57, as well as the

                   lower altitude sensing devices, greatly facilitates data collection and

                   environmental impact assessment relevant to power plant discharges and

                                    3
                   thermal analyses.

                         The use of modeling in impact assessment has increased greatly in

                   recent years. Both mathematical modeling and hydraulic modeling or scale

                   modeling have been utilized to predict the consequences of particular

                   developments on the natural resources systems. Scale modeling is much

                   more accurate for ascertaining potential impacts on small scale developments.

                   However, these hydraulic models are usually quite expensive and do not always

                         'Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., 1973.
                         2Personal communication, Fabian Polcyn, ERIM, July 18, 1974.
                         3Sollars, Scott C. "Nature's Dynamics: An Elevated Perspective", 1973.

                                                      36

                   accurately represent the natural systems.   It should also be noted that

                   they are primarily limited to physical parameters and cannot. accurately

                   represent biological systems. Mathematical modeling, on the other hand,
                   is used to simulate both the physical and biological processes.  1  However,

                   the predictive capabilities of this type of modeling are greatly curtailed

                   when adequate data is not available to verify the model. Also, the state

                   of the art for biological modeling, and particularly ecological systems

                                               2
                   modeling, is-very primitive.   However, both these types of modeling are

                   valuable tools to utilize for environmental impact assessment.

                         The environmental impact assessor should realize that there are a

                   wide variety of potential tools for data collection. Aerial photography

                   and remote sensing data collection are valuable methods. But on-site

                   inspection and detailed field work are often required to verify results

                   derived from photographs. It is also axiomatic that field work must be

                   conducted to accurately assess biological communities, ecological relation-

                   ships, such as species diversity and abundance, and critical breeding and

                   resting areas for a wide variety of aquatic species. It is, therefore,

                   imperative to utilize field work, sometimes laboratory analysis, aerial

                   photography and remote sensing, and mathematical and scale modeling, to

                   accurately determine and predict environmental consequences of proposed

                   actions.

                         'Hydroscience, Inc., Limnological Systems Analysis of the Great Lakes-,
                   March 1973.
                         2Personal communication, William Cooper, Professor--Michigan State
                   University, October 10, 1974.

                                                       37

                                                 CHAPTER FOUR
       40                         NaNIMIZING ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS THROUGH

                                           PROPER POWER PLANT SITING

                         In addition to energy conservation measures, which would reduce the

                   total amount of electrical energy consumption, intelligent power plant

                   siting policies represent another alternative for minimizing environmental

                   damage.- A generalized site selection criteria should include a thorough

                   analysis of the following parameters: electric power demands and load

                   center identification; seismic, geological, and soil stability characteristics;

                   dispersion climatology; hydrologic characteristics; ecological dimensions,

                   including prime breeding areas, species migration, and temperature-sensitive

                   aquatic species; surrounding land use patterns and population density; unique

                   natural resource areas and important historical or archaeological sites;

                   and aesthetic considerations, including transmission corridors and the

                   actual power plant site. Proper location of a power plant represents an

                   extremely complex problem and requires an extensive environmental analysis

                   and inventory of various processes and resources within the coastal zone.

                   The construction and operation of a power plant facility is essentially a short to

                   moderate term (30 to 40 years) irreversible commitment of capital, land, and
                   natural resources. 1  The improper location of a power plant may result in

                   disastrous environmental impacts, such as increased air pollution, inadequate

                   dissipation of thermal effluents, severe depletion of planktonic species

                   and fish larvae, and in the case of nuclear power production, continuous

                   exposure to low level radiation. For these reasons, it is imperative that

                         IFisher and Krutilla, "Valuing Long-Run Ecological Consequences and
                   Irreversibilities", 1974, p. 98.

                                                      38

                    power plants not be located in wetlands, estuarine areas, and other areas

                    of critical environmental importance, such as prime breeding grounds or

                    waterfowl sanctuaries.

                          Specific power plant siting criteria may be found in several sources.

                    The following criteria were prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus

                    Laboratories, for utilization by the Atomic Energy Commission. Their recom-

                    mended criteria include:

                          1.  General seismic  and geological characteristics--adequate information

                    on seismic and geological  characteristics of a proposed site should be avail-

                    able in order to provide a reasonable degree of assurance that the plant can

                    be constructed and operated without suffering damage that will have adverse

                    Impact upon the environment.

                          2. Soil stability and topography--preferred sites for power plant

                    location are in  areas with.good soil stability, adequate drainage and limited

                    topographic relief, and in areas where there is no danger of subsurface sub-

                    sidenc

                               loods and waterwaves-power plants should be located in areas where

                    they are removed from danger resulting from storm induced waves, flooding, severe

                    shoreline erosion,  or on the Great Lakes, increased water levels due to

                    precipitation or barometrically induced seiches.
                          4.   Climatological dispersion--a proposed site should provide adequate

                    atmospheric dispersion of low level radioactive emissions, waste heat, and

                    various air pollutants, sufficient to protect the surrounding environment

                    from degradation.

                           Battelle Memorial Institute, General Environmental Siting Guides for
                    Nuclear Power Plants, Draft, December 1973.

                                                        39

                           5. Atmospheric dispersion--shoreline sites, proposed sites should be

                     located in areas where maximum mixing and dissipation of thermal effluents

                     can occur.

                           6. Fogging and icing--power plant sites which would utilize cooling

                     towers, cooling   ponds, or spray canals should not be located in areas which

                     would result in   unacceptable fogging and icing.

                           7. Adequate water supply--an adequate water supply must be available

                     to provide for continued plant operation over the design life of the facility.

                     Presumably, any site along the Great Lakes shoreline would satisfy this

                     requirement. Utilization of     groundwater reserves is not generally recommended for

                     thermal power cooling due to the dangers of exceeding the natural recharge

                     rate of the aquifer and, therefore, causing a lowering of the regional water

                     table.

                           8. Stratified water bodies--water bodies or areas within the littoral

                     zone which are stratified at any time of the year need special consideration

                     for their vertical mixing characteristics in order to maintain efficient

                     cooling capacity while not exceeding the thermal assimilative capacity.

                           9. Ecological parameters--power plants should not be located in critical

                     environmental areas Vnere the effects of entrainment or ther-mal dissipation

                     may have deleterious impacts on the populations.          Areas specifically to be

                     precluded from siting of power plants include prime estuarine and wetland

                     breeding habitats, species migration areas for anadromous spawning species, or

                     waterfowl resting or breeding grounds.

                          10.   Land use dimensions--the proposed site should be in an area in which

                     the plant  will be compatible with existing land uses. Specific consideration

                     should be  given to possible secondary increases in development due to the

                     operation  of the power plant.

                                                           40

                        11. Human interest factors--unique natural resource areas, historical

                   areas, archaeological sites, and important fossil and rock deposits should

                   be avoided when siting power plants.

                        12. Aesthetic considerations--special architectural design and landscape

                   screening or placement should be considered in relation to both power plants

                   and transmission corridors to minimize the impact on the aesthetic quality

                   of the environment.

                         The Atomic Energy Commission has recently released draft site suitability
                   criteria for nuclear power stations. I  These proposed criteria are substantially

                   the same as those formulated by Battelle, but include a more extensive section

                   on social and economic impacts similar to those discussed in Chapter Three.

                   The AEC proposed regulations also emphasize the issue of population density
                ___T,g6rrounding a proposed nuclear power station and state, "As set forth in 10 CFR
                  ;!Part 100, a -nuclear power plant site must have a low population zone immediately
                   surrounding the exclusion area in which the population is sufficiently limited

                   in number and distributed in such a way that there is a reasonable probability

                   that appropriate measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a
                   serious accident."2  The AEC regulatory--s-taff has found that a minimum exclusion

                   distance,,of 0.4 mile usually provides assurances that engineered safety features

                   can be designed to allow only "reasonable,". 'emissions of low-. level-radioactive
                                                               ----------
                   particles. In addition to the regulations proposed by the AEC, the Federal

                   Power Commission has released general environmental impact criteria for hydro-
                   electric and pumped storage facilities. 3  The FPC variables are very similar

                         1
                          U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.7 Draft, September 1974.
                         @Ibid., p. 4.7-7.
                         3Federal Power Commission, Order No. 485, June 7, 1973.

                                                      41

                  to those included in the AEC guidelines.

                        John Clark has proposed the following as recommended constraints to

                  power plant siting:

                       "1. Wetlands, and other vital areas are inappropriate sites for power

                  plants.

                        2. Open cycle cooling is acceptable only for open coast or offshore

                  Great Lakes and ocean sites, away from areas of environmental concern, and

                  then only if appropriate safeguards are employed in the design of cooling

                  water systems and the location of intakes and outlets.

                        3. Closed-cycle cooling is required for all power plants located on or

                  adjacent to estuaries, bays, lagoons, and other areas of environmental

                  concern.

                        4. Power plants are not to be located on or adjacent to vital areas

                  regardless of cooling system--and these areas are to be delineated in biotic

                  surveys and set aside as zones of exclusion for power plants and other instal-

                  lations with a similar potential for environmental disturbance."

                        In, addition to the proper location of power plants, Clark further

                  acknowledges that the proper design of cooling systems to minimize entrainment

                  and impingment of aquatic organisms on intake structures, and power plant

                  operating strategies, including the elimination of chlorine as a fouling

                  agent, utilizing instead mechanical devices or back flushing of thermally

                  heated water to kill undesirable species or organisms, would serve to
                  significantly minimize adverse environmental impacts of power plant operation. 2

                        1Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, 1974, p. 140, 141.
                        2Clark, John, Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental
                  Issues, p. VIII-I.

                                                    42

                        An interesting power plant siting option for Lake Erie has been proposed
                                                                                                     'LIE.
                  by Dr. Richard A. Cole, Michigan State University. He suggests that  in view

                 !of the shallow and gentle bottom slopes of Lake Erie, the potential exists

                  for building cooling ponds into the lakes. Dikes could be constructed around

                  many of the power plant sites so that a cooling pond is created which would

                  result in a potential increase of shoreland values. The cooling pond con-

                  struction could possibly be utilized for public recreational purposes, marsh

                  development which could be used by wate r fowl and other marsh species, and

                  of course, a reduction of thermal dissipation into the open lake.   Dr. Cole

                  asserts that management of heated discharges with cooling ponds would "protect

                  the environment much more effectively than cooling towers which require more

                  makeup water, kill everything that enters the cooling system, requires more

                  additives (biocides, anti-scale) , and may locally degrade some aquatic resources
                  and cause more local fogging and cooling".2

                  Offshore Power Plant Siting

                        Offshore siting of nuclear power plants has been proposed as an alter-

                  native which allegedly would alleviate concerns about the environmental impacts

                  of power plants. Another potential advantage of offshore siting of power

                  plants is the capability to locate the power plant close to the load centers,

                  but not directly within densely populated areas. Two types of offshore power

                  plants are the floating nuclear power plant and the artificial island concept.

                  According to Joseph Stadelman, vice-president of Offshore Power Systems, "The

                  floating nuclear. power plant offers a siting flexibility which is new and

                          3
                  unique."   Water depths of about 40 to 50 feet are required for offshore siting
                     @_@,Cole, Richard A., Environmental Changes in Lake Erie and Their Future
                  Impacts on Lake Resources, 1973, p. 74, 75.
                        2Ibid., p. 75.
                        3Stadelman, Joseph, "Floating Nuclear Power-Plants, A Case in Point",
                  September 1974, p. 64.
                                                   43

                   of nuclear power plants. The marine coastline appears to be more condusive

                   for offshore power plant siting due to the presence of tides which would be

                   used to dissipate the thermal discharges. The Atomic Energy Commission has

                   conducted studies to determine the engineering feasibility and safety of

                   floating nuclear power plants, and apparently endorse the concept.

                         While the offshore power plant siting concept appears to have some

                   advantages, it also has some rather significant disadvantages. Impacts of

                   extensive dredging and filling activities, damages resulting from storms or

                   ships colliding with the facility, and the hazards of transporting radio-

                   active materials both to and from the offshore facility are important con-

                   siderations. As in the case of improperly located shoreline power plants,

                   offshore siting could result in significant impacts due to entrainment or

                   thermal discharges. Therefore, offshore siting of power plants should not

                   be considered a panacea for resolving the siting dilemna.

                         Presently, it appears that offshore power plant siting, especially

                   for the Great Lakes region, will not become a reality in the near future.

                   The leading proponent of offshore power plant siting, Offshore Power Systems,

                   has recently announced that it is postponing for three years its production

                   of floating nuclear power plants. Offshore Power Systems is located in

                   Jacksonville, Florida, and is jointly owned by Westinghouse Electric Corporation

                   and Teneco, Incorporated. The firm cited a breakdown in negotiations and the

                   current economic climate as the explanation for the delay. The delivery date
                   for the first floating power plant is now anticipated to be May 1985.    2   It is

                   unlikely that a floating nuclear power plant could be delivered to the Great

                          Atomic Energy Commission, A Survey of Unique Technical Features of the
                   Floating Nuclear Power Plant Concept, March 1974.
                         2Coastal Zone Management Newsletter, December 4, 1974, p. 2.

                                                       44

                   Lakes region until a much later date, if ever. The restrictions of the

                   St. Lawrence Seaway would mak e it virtually impossible to float a nuclear

                   power plant into the Great Lakes, and it will be many years before a pro-
                   duction plant woul'd be located within the Great Lakes region.

                   Transmission Corridors

                        Many of the land use, aesthetic, and construction impacts inherent

                   in power plant siting are also relevant to transmission corridor planning.

                   Here again, however, intelligent planning and locational policies can minimize

                   adverse environmental impacts. Preservation of natural landscapes and mini-

                   mizing conflict with present and planned land uses should be important criteria

                   for the selection of transmission corridors.  Power plant siting decisions

                   should also consider the disturbances of land us'es resulting from acquisition

                   of land for transmission line corridors.  In addition to these impacts, extra

                   high voltage transmission lines frequently result in several electrical

                   environmental effects. These may include radio and television interference,

                   audible noise resulting in noise pollution, induced voltages on ground objects

                   which may result' in impairment of public satety and comfort, and increased

                   quantities of ozone which may affect the ambient air quality.

                         Transmission line corridor selection criteria should include the

                   following dimensions: impacts on natural ecosystems resulting from construction

                   processes and permanent installation of transmission facilities should be

                   minimized; areas of population concentration and intense activity should be

                   avoided; future.land uses should be considered and areas of future popillation

                   concentration and intense activities should be avoided; areas of important

                   aesthetic or cultural values should be avoided; and, where possible, existing

                          Personal communication, Dr. Steven Long, Maryland Power Siting Commission,
                   December 18, 1974.

                                                      45

                   and proposed rights-of-way should be utilized. The visual impacts of

                   transmission corridors can be  minimized through a variety of. techniques.
                 jISelection of colors for structures which blend in with the natural land-

                   scape tend to minimize visual impact. Visual screening, through the use

                   of natural vegetation or topographical features such as ridges, can also
                   minimize aesthetic impact. 1  Technology is developing rapidly which utilize

                   compressed gasses as an insulation medium, thereby enabling underground
                   transmission lines to become a reality. 2  Another alternative which deserves

                   more attention is the usage of common rights-of-way for utility corridors,

                  ;which could include power, water, gas, and telephone lines. Transmission

                   corridors may also be used for recreational activities such as cross country

                                     3
                   skiing and hiking.   This recreational potential of transmission corridors

                   should definitely be analyzed further, and may represent a "true multiple

                   uself approach to natural resources management.

                   Land Capability Analysis

                         A potentially far-reaching concept implicit in this discussion of

                   power plant siting criteria is a fundamental change of attitude towards

                   our environment. We must accept that the environment has its own inherent

                   laws which present intrinsic opportunities and constraints to human use.

                   It is all too clear that man cannot continue to manipulate natural systems

                   in a detrimental manner without suffering dire consequences. While this

                          National.Academy of Engineering, Enr2ineering for a Resolution of the
                   Energy-Environment Dilemma 1972, p. 258.
                          2. bid., p. 252.
                          L_
                          3Stewart, Ronald, "Helping Power to be a Good Neighbor", N.O.A.A.,
                   April 1974, p. 18.

                                                       46

                   fundamental attitude change is primarily a philosophical one, it can be

                   translated into policy measures to serve as useful tools for implementing

                   desired programs. One approach to this environmental planning involves

                   analyzing the land to ascertain its potential for economic development.

                   The tool that is employed for this purpose is similar to Ian McHargis concept

                   of physiographic determinism.  The natural processes that are examined include:

                   topography and subsurface geology, surfate and groundwater, climatic and

                   hydrologic relationships, floodplains, soils, and vegetation. A set of

                   physiographic principles are then formulated. The principles indicate the

                   categories of development and densities that are environmentally acceptable.

                         Examples of these principles are: essential agricultural lands should

                   be preserved; development should be prohibited over prime aquifer recharge

                   areas; 100-year floodplains should be exempted from all development, save

                   agriculture and recreation; and slopes of 25% or greater should be prohibited

                   for development. Utilizing a natural systems approach to planning facilitates

                   rational and intelligent guidance of development. Development in consonance

                   with physiographic opportunities and liabilities allows the preservation of

                   valuable natural systems and the enhancement of the quality of life by accom-

                   modating required development while ensuring the highest level of amenity.

                   The State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources is currently utilizing this

                   land capability analysis in conjunction with sophisticated computer programming

                   to formulate county land use plans, develop wild and scenic river corridor plans,

                                                          2
                   and analyze the Lake Erie coastal zone.

                         A second approach to environmental planning involves ecological sys-Lems

                   analysis to determine regional tolerances for development. Ecological analysis

                         1McHarg, Ian, Design With Nature, 1970, p. 81.
                         2
                         Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Lake County Land Capability
                   Analysis, October 1974.

                                                     47

                   considers: biological communities; ecological irrevers ibili ties; ecological

                   potentialities for production and assimilation capacities; fragile systems
                   such as estuaries and shorelin'es; and energy and materials  c osts and flows.

                   John Clark utilizes this ecological systems analysis to categorize coastal

                   zones into either preservation areas which should not be developed, develop-

                   ment areas which are comparatively suitable for development, and conservation
                   areas which serve as buffer areas between the preserved and developed areas.    2

                   Ecolog ist Eugene Odum has proposed four landscape compartments: the productive

                   compartment, which is composed of agricultural or managed forest lands; the

                   protective compartment, which contains those areas which serve a vital function

                   in environmental protection; the urban-indus trial compartment, which includes

                   land already intensively developed or best suited for such development; and the

                   compromise or multiple use compartment, which includes all lands not falling

                   exclusively into one of the other compartments and which cat serve several

                   uses simultaneously. These various approaches are certainly not the only way

                   of dividing up the landscape, but serve as a reasonable and useful framework

                   for ecological land use planning.

                         The goals and objectives of the ecological approach to land use planning

                   are basically the same as those of the physiographic method. The ecological

                   approach accommodates economic development goals while maintaining valuable

                   ecological systems and processes. In both cases, however, the overall guiding

                   criteria is that man must learn to live with nature and conform to certain

                   immutable environmental laws.

                          Cooper, William and Vlasin, Raymond, "Ecological Concepts and Applications
                   to Planning", 1973, p. 200.
                         2Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, 1974, p. 91.

                                                       48

                                               CHAPTER FIVE

                      POWER PLANT SITE AND TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR SELECTION METHODOLOGY

                        Selection of a preferred power plant site or transmission corridor

                   from a wide array of alternative choices is a complex and difficult process.

                   Public and private utilities, consulting firms, and State agencies are all

                   involved in this site and corridor identification, inventory, and selection

                   process. This chapter will briefly analyze three methods for selecting

                   preferred sites that have a number of similarities and differences. However,

                   each is essentially a selective screening process.

                   The Utilities' Selection Process

                        Historically, utilities based site selection primarily on engineering and

                   economic factors. Subsequent to the passage of a National Environmental Policy

                   Act, the utilities were compelled to include environmental concerns in their

                   selection studies. Due to the long lead times required for major power plant

                   construction, many utilities had heavy financial commitments to sites selected

                   prior to the passage of NEPA. Many initial environmental reports were "backfit"

                   additions to the previous economic and engineering siting studies. Most utilities

                   realize today that the success or failure of the licensing process for a

                   proposed new facility is greatly influenced by the quality of the initial siting

                   study; and therefore, utilities are amenable to spending a great deal of money

                   for this work. Utilities may conduct "in-house" siting studies, or may rely

                   on private consulting forms for accomplishing this work.

                        Many of the larger utilities have extensive "in-house" capabilities

                   for environmental studies and siting analyses. Consumers Power Company,

                   one of two major utilities in the State of Michigan, has both an environmental

                   section and a power plant siting section. During the past two years

                   Consumers Power has completed an extensive analysis and inventory of potential

                   power plant sites, both inland and within the coastal zones.  Consumers Power

                                                    49

                   Company utilized the services of Commonwealth Associates, a consulting firm,

                   for an initial assessment of potential sites and then completed the siting

                   inventory with their own staff. This siting inventory involved 140 potential
                   sites which were eventually narrowed down to 14 which may be purchased.I   This

                   particular site inventory was a continuous screening process which took

                   place over a number of years and involved increasing levels of detailed

                   analysis. Potential sites were initially identified on a map on the basis

                   of water availability and projected load centers.  Many of these sites were

                   then either flown over or driven by to observe any obvious impediments to

                   site development. The most desirable of these sites were then field surveyed
                   to ascertain construction and environmental capabilities.2  This siting

                   inventory, as are most utility's siting studies, was carried out in con-

                   fidence. The utilities seek to avoid an escalation of land prices, possible

                   speculation, and full public expo-sure of sites before engineering and environ-

                   mental issues are fully evaluated.

                        Commonwealth Associates have recently completed a study for the Atomic

                   Industrial Forum which analyzes the general siting procedures frequently utilized
                   by utilities.3 This generalized process involves an iterative evaluation of

                   potential areas with each additional evaluation increasing in detail. The

                   initial area of evaluation is the region of interest which usually represents

                   the total service territory for the utility.  Candidate areas within the

                   region of interest are then investigated for potential sites.  Potential sites

                        lpersonal communication, Robert Gerzetich, Consumers Power Company,
                   December 18, 1974.

                        2
                         Ibid.
                        3Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Nuclear Power Plant Siting--a Generalized
                   Process, August 1974.

                                                     50

                   are then identified within the candidate areas for preliminary evaluation

                   leading to the designation of.candidate sites.    Candidate sites are suit-

                   able for evaluation as alternatives in the selection of the proposed site.

                   The proposed site is that site identified in the license application.

                   The factors involved in the increasingly detailed evaluation include:

                   systems. planning, safety, engineering, environmental, institutional, and

                   economic dimensions.   In the early stages of siting evaluation, an accept-

                   abilitylexclusion screening process may be utilized to eliminate undesirable

                   sites. Cooling 'Water availability, suitable accessability to transportation

                   routes, population density, or conflicting land uses are common screening

                   considerations. The remaining sites may be successively screened, compara-

                   tively evaluated, or classified and numerically rated. At this stage, the

                   comparative cost analysis and balancing of costs and environmental impacts

                   are extremely important and formalized numerical' rating systems may be
                   utilized to ascertain which sites is the most desirable.  2  The Commonwealth
                   Associates' study concludes: 3

                              "In the final analysis, there is no one method for site
                        selection and evaluation which can be considered superior to
                        the others or which can represent a single standard method for
                        nuclear power plant site selection. The considerations in-
                        volved in evaluating sites are diverse and complex. Each
                        siting regimen must evolve based upon the characteristics
                        of the area, characteristics of the utility, and stage of
                        the siting process. It must be recognized that the nuclear
                        power plant site selection and evaluation is an evolving pro-
                        cess involving a relatively new source of energy for power
                        production. Accordingly, the need for continued study and
                        updating of these techniques is considered desirable as
                        industry and government strive to achieve a common goal of
                        acceptable and timely sites for nuclear power plants."

                          1Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Nuclear Power Plant Siting--a Generalized
                   Process, August 1974.
                          2Ibid., p. 44.
                         31bid.9 p. 4.

                                                      51

                  A Consulting Firm Approach to Site Selection

                        Commonwealth Associates, located in Jackson, Michigan, has been involved

                  in power plant siting and transmission corridor studies for many years.

                  In addition to innovative environmental impact assessment methodologies,

                  Commonwealth's formalized numerical rating methods are a significant contribu-

                  tion to facility siting technology. These techniques are essentially a

                  structured-quantitative analysis of a number of highly diverse considerations.

                  Commonwealth has also developed what it calls its "ENVIRO" family of com-

                  puter programs which provide a sensitivity analysis of the most significant

                  impacts, as well as great flexibility in the ability to analyze a number of

                  sites and a variety of impacts. The numerical rating method and sensitivity

                  analysis are extremely useful in the final selection of a proposed site from

                  a number of candidate sites.

                        Sophisticated computer programming, in addition to numerical rating

                  techniques, are used to develop a composite rating of total..impact. It should

                  be recognized that all specific impacts are not equally important and, therefore,

                  the assignment of importance weights is a very crucial determination. It is

                  possible, by varying the importance weights on alternative impacts, to represent

                  different perspectives and develop an array of alternative decisions. This

                  alternative weighting system and sensitivity analysis is a valuable analytical
                  tool for decision making among groups with divergent opinions.1

                        In addition to its usefulness for power plant siting decision making,

                  sensitivity analysis and computer mapping are extremely valuable tools for

                  identifying alternative transmission corridors. In a study completed for

                        IPersonal communication, Halden Smith, Commonwealth Associates, Inc.,
                  December 18, 1974.

                                                    52

                   Consumers Power Company, Commonwealth Associates identified environmentally

                   suitable transmission routes to connect the Millington and Blackfoot sub-

                   tations in Michigan. The following five basic objectives were established

                   to guide the analysis of the proposed transmission route:  protection of

                   natural systems; compatibility with existing land uses; evaluation of pro-

                   posed land uses and population densities; impacts upon culturally significant

                   areas; and the opportunity for right-of-way sharing. A multi-disciplinary

                   team of investigators was utilized to collect relevant information. Computers

                   were then utilized to translate the information into computer maps which were

                   utilized to identify alternative transmission corridors. A reasonably objec-

                   tive analysis, including numerical rating and computer sensitivity analysis,

                   is then combined with information from those who live or work in the area   -

                   and State, regional, and local governmental officials to finalize the selection

                   of an acceptable corridor.

                        Sophisticated computer analysis is a tremendous tool for power plant

                   site selection and transmission corridor location. But this tool is extremely

                   expensive and accentuates the need for physical, ecological, and land use

                   data and information. Information such as high resolution aerial photographs,

                   topographic and existing land use maps, community comprehensive development

                   plans, soil surveys, and field surveys are required for site selection and

                   corridor location. Site selection and corridor location require, as in the

                   case of environmental impact assessment (discussed in Chapter Three) , a

                   combination of analytical tools and utilization of a variety of data and

                   information sources.

                   New York State Site Survey

                        This past summer, the Office of Environmental Planning of the New

                   York Department of Public Service completed a twelve county pilot site

                   survey. The main purpose of the study was to locate sites for thermal

                                                     53

                    power plants which can be developed with little apparent likelihood of environ-

                    mental damage, at an acceptable cost.     The first step in the survey is a land

                    use screen. The New York State Land Use and Natural Resources Inventory,

                    LUNR, which is a computerized land use inventory composed of one square

                    kilometer cells throughout the state, was used for the screening process.

                    A computer program was utilized to eliminate cells containing land uses

                    which were judged to be incompatible with power plant development or in which

                    75% or more of the area was covered by surface water. Cells that survived

                    the land use screen were then analyzed for slope.      All cells having slopes

                    of 10% or greater covering 70% or more of their total area were eliminated

                    from further consideration. The remaining cells were inspected in the field

                    for incompatible topographical features or land uses that had developed
                    since the collection of data for the LUNR Inventory.    I

                          The cells that survived the field check were given a terrestrial ecology

                    uniqueness rating. This rating considered the number and extent of different

                    habitats and the ecological value and scarcity of the habitats. These remaining

                    cells were also giv en an aquatic vulnerability rating. This vulnerability

                    rating included potential disruptions that could result from generating

                    facility construction and operation. Larger areas were evaluted for air

                    quality and meteorological conditions which reflected extrapolated levels of

                    NO, SO2 and particulates, as well as the topography and extrapolated inversion

                    potential.   The cells that survived the field check were also evaluated to

                    determine the incremental cost and environmental impacts of four cooling

                          lNew York State Public Service Commission, Draft Report on the Hudson
                    River Valley/Long Island Pilot Area Site Survey, July 1, 1974, p. 3.

                                                          54

                   alternatives. In the final analysis and rating, the terrestrial ecology,

                   aquatic ecology, and water quality and hydrology scores of the cells were

                   converted to a common scale and summed to produce a composite score. One-

                   hundred and twelve cells were identified as potential locations for power

                   generating facilities.

                        The New York State Power Plant Site Survey is intended to provide

                   assistance to electric utilities in their search for environmentally sound

                   plant sites. The survey, when completed, will encompass nearly the entire

                   area of the state and will have identified a large number of potential sites

                   throughout the state upon which steam electric generating facilities could

                   be located with minimal environmental damage.  In the future, many of the

                   potential sites will be further evaluated for specific environmental and
                   engineering compatibility. According to the survey report, 2

                              The site survey is not intended to be a substitute for
                        the en"vironmental impact studies required by Article VIII of
                        the Public Service Law. The purpose of the survey is to identify
                        a number of promising sites which deserve more intensive examina-
                        tion. The survey systematically applied a number of carefully
                        chosen criteria to a very large number of possible sites. There
                        is no guarantee that a detailed study-of a particular site may
                        not reveal characteristics not identified using this survey
                        methodology."

                        The New York State Site Survey represents an extensive effort to

                   identify potential power plant sites. This information, in combination

                   with sites identified by public utilities, consulting firms, and other state

                   agencies, represents a wealth of information pertaining to site selection.

                        lNew York State Public Service Co=tission, Draft Report on the Hudson.
                   River Valley/Long Island Pilot Area Site Survey, July 1, 1974, p. 6.
                        2Ibid., P. 9.

                                                      55

                  The need for cooperation and coordination among the various governmental

                  and private entities concerned with site selection and corridor location

                  cannot be sufficiently emphasized. Federal, State, and local governmental

                  agencies, the utilities, university researchers, and the general public are

                  all important resources that should be included in information collection

                  and site selection procedures.

                                                    56

                                           ENERGY FACILITIES SITING

                                             INFORMATION PACKAGE

                                                        #1

                                                 JUNE 30, 1975

                                                  prepared by

                                        Office of Coastal Zone Management
                                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                             3300 Whitehaven Street
                                             Washington D.C. 20235

                        Denotes items which have been sent to CZM State Contacts and are
                                     available for review in their offices.

                                NEWSCLIPPINGS

                                Nuclear Plants Don't Have to be on     Coast.   This World.
                                July 21, 1974.

                           2.   Ruestioning Nuclear Power. Douglas     Kirpatrick. Washington Post.
                                February 2, 1975.

                        * 3.    Foresight on Power Sites. Washington Post, March 10, 1975.

                        * 4.    Oil Rush Alters Fare of Alaska Town. Gail Miller. Washington Post.
                                January 13, 1975.
                        * 5.    The Wringing of the West. Helen Smith. Washington Post.
                                February 16, 1972.

                        * 6.    Major Battle Brewing on A-Plants. Peter Millius. Washington Post.
                                June 23, 1975.

                               JOURNAL ARTICLES

                          1.   Samp FroUnmic &Rect5 of Conflicts Over Land Use in the Coastal
                               Zone. Bruce Rettig.     Coastal Zone Management Journal. Vol. 1,
                               No. 3 pp. 291-303. 1974.
                          2.   Offshore 'Nuclear Power Plants, Larry I. B'ooda. Sea Technology
                                   , 1974 pp. 16-20.

                          3.   gompeting Energy-Sitin
                                                     _g Bills Introduced in Prelude to Strugg
                               Over States' Rights. Land Use Planning Reports, February 10,1975.

                         4.    Planning Control of Large Energy Projects. Dr. Roy Gregory New
                               Scientist., September 26, 1974.

                      * 5.     Electric Power, Pollution and Politics of Profits, John.R. Quarles,
                               Jr. Environmental News.    November 1974.

                      * 6.     State Commission's Energy  Element Stresses Energy Conservation and
                               Resource Protection, The   Coastline Letter. No. 30. June 1975.

                      * 7.     Scientific Aspects of the  Oil Spill Problem, May Blumer, Environmental
                         6     Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1972.

                      * 8.     U.S. Coastline is Scene of Many Enerp_v Conflicts, Conservation
                               Foundation Letter. January 1974.

                      * 9.     Offshore Oil Developmentand the New England Economy. Thomas A.
                                                                                 4
                                                                              TS
                               Grigalunas. Maritimes, University of Rhode       land. May 1975. Ep 1339-149

                         10.   The Assessment of Feasibility: An Overview       Pacific Northwest Sea,
                               Vol. 7, No's 3 & 4, 1974.

                              BOOKS & REPORTS

                      * 1.    Offshore Nuclear Power Plants   Spectacle or Spectre?. Charles A.
                              Bookman. (p. 73-80).

                      * 2.    Offshore Nuclear Power Siting. -Deliberations of the Workshop,
                              Rockville 'Md. October 15-17, 1972. Atomic Enery Commission, GPO
                              1973 (P. 17-28).

                        3.    Some Effects of Increased Temperature on the Settlement and
                              Devel02ment of a Maftne Community in the Laboratory. Arthur Alan
                              Woldson, University of California. UC-IMR Ref No. 74-13 Sea
                              Grant Publication No. 39. November 1974. (p, 14-18).

                      * 4.    Master Development Plan and Report:. Phase 1 - Suitability of
                              Selected Sites- Zetlant County'Council-. April 19, 1973.
                              (p. 2.4-2.5).
                      * 5.    Power Siting Issues an'd Policies for t@e Great Lakes Coastal Zone.
                              Chris A. Shafer. Great Lakes Basin Commission. Draft February
                              5, 1975. (p. 33-37, p. 49-56, p. 70-18).

                        6.    Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental Issues.
                              John Clark and Willard Brownell, American Littoral Society Special
                              Publication No. 7, October   1973. (Chapt. 4 & 5).

                      *.7.    Nuclear Power Plant Sitings: A Handbook for the Layman, Dennis
                              L. Meredith, Univer,sity of 1@%Lode Island, Marihe Bulletin, No. 6.
                             'January 1973. (p. 11-14, P. 21-22).

                        S.    Power Plant Site Considerations at Charlestown Rhode Island. G.A.
                              Brown, et al, University of Rhode Island. Marine Technical Report
                              Series No. 23. 1974. (p. 11-12).

                        9.    Toward a Rational Power Policy: Energy, Politics, & Pollution.
                              Neil Fabricant and Robert M. Hallman. A Report by the Environmental
                              Protection Administration of the City of New York, George Braziller,
                              New York. 1971. '(pp. 132-149).

                       10     General Environmental Siting Guides for Nuclear Power Plants.
                              Draft. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1973.

                        11.   The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries. David C. Swepr.."
                              Environmental Protection Agency.  1971.   (Appendices F,G,I).

                        12.   Energy. Vol. VI: Tanker Terminals,'Refinering LNG Facilities. Draft.
                              California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. July 1974.
                              (pp. 95-150).

                            BOOKS & REPORTS cont.

                      13.   Power Along the Hudson. Allan R. Talbot. E.F. Dutton & Co.,    Inc.
                            New York. 1972.

                      14.   Power Plants with Air-Cooled Condensing Systems. E.S. Milavas.
                            MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

                      15.   A Review of Energy Policy Activities of the 92nd Congress.  U.S.
                            Senate Committee on Interior and Ixisular Affairs, A lZational
                            Fuels and Energy Policy Study.  Serial No. 93-1. U.S. 93rd Congress,
                            ls't gession 1973,'Wasbington DC. GPO.  118 pp.

                      16,   Background Report on Power Plant Siting.  U.S. Senate Committee on
                            Comm4ce.   U.S. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session.  July 1972.  Vasbington
                            DC. GPO. 78 pp.

                      17.   Offsbore Power Plants and Marine Environment. H. Stewart.

                      18.   Cost of Protective Breakwaters for Offsbore Nuclear Power Stations.
                            Laverne L. Watkins.  Task Force Inforination. Draft.  July 1973.
                            16 pp.

                      19.  'Outer Continental Sbelf Lands Study.  Public Land Law Review Comminsion
                            Nossamen, et al. Los Angeles, California, October 1968.

                      20.   West Coast Deep;. a ter 'Port F@cilities Study. U.S. Ariny Corps of
                            Engineers. june 1973. Appendix A.

                      21. Land Use and Nuclear Power Plants - Case Studies of Sitina Problems.
                          William RaniGay and Phillip R. Reed. 'U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
                          Washington, D.C. 1974.

                      22. Potential Environmental Effects of an Oil Refinery in Connecticut.
                          Connecticu State Departmen of Environmental Protection, State of
                          Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut, 55v.. illus. and maps. November 1974.

                      23.   Barge Mounted Nuclear Plant:  Preliminary Concept and Site Description.
                            ConEdison. August, 1971.

                      24.   Offshori Nuclear Generating Station. Westinghouse Electric
                            Corporation for Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Vols. I & II.,

                      25.   Thermal Pollution Abatement Evaluation Model for Power Plant Siting.
                            P.F. Shiers and D.H. Marks.  National.Science Foundation, MIT Press,
                            MIT-EL 73-013. 1973.

                      26.   Energy, Ecology, Economy. Gerald Garvey, W.W. Norton and Company,
                            Inc., New York. 1972.

                              BOOKS   REPORTS cont.

                       27.    Scour and Deposition:  Changes in Sedimentation Around a Nuclear
                              Power Plant. Martha H. Kohler and J.R. Moore. University of Wisconsiu,
                              Sea Grant Publication 74-223. 1974.

                       28.    Sedimentation Off the Kewaunee 'Nuclear Power Plant. John M.
                              Pezzetta. University of Wisconson, Sea Grant Publication 74-221.
                              1974.

                       29.    Thermal Effects of-the Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the   James River, Va.
                              Part IV, G.C. Parker, E.A. Sheals and C.S. Fang. Virginia Institute
                              of Marine Science. Special Report No. 31. Glouster Point, Va. 1974.

                       30.    A Survey of Unique Technical Features of the Floating Nuctear
                              Power Plant Concept. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate
                              of Licensing. 1974.

                       31.    Artificial Islands and Initallations ir@ International Law.
                              Alfred H.A. Soons. Unviersity of Rhode Island. Occasional Paper
                              Series #22. July 1974.

                       32.    Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Salem Nuclear
                              Generating Station: Units 1 and 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
                              Public Service Gas and Electric Co.,   Docket No. 50-272: and 50-311.
                              -April 1973.
                       33,    West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. .1ppendix B Refinery
                              *Capacity, Location and Impact. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
                              June 1973.

                       34.    Onshore Planning for Offshore-Oil. Pamela L. Baldwin and M.F.
                              Baldwin. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. 1975.

                       35.    Factors Affecting U.S. Petroleum Refining. National Petrole@m
                              Council. May 1973.

                       36.    West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Appendix E. Environ-
                              mental Assessment. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. June 1973.
                       37.    U.S. Energy Policies: An Agen@a for Research. Resources @dr the
                              Future. Johns Hopkins Press, BAltimore, Md. 21218.

                       38.    The 1970 National Power Survey, Part I.    Federal Power Comm-ission.
                            ,.GPO. Washington DC. 1971.,.

                            BOOKS  REPORTS cont.

                      39.   Energy, Vol IV: Electrical Energy and Power Plants. Draft.
                            California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. July 1974.

                      40.   Energy, Vol. III: Alternative Energy Sources. Draft. California
                            Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. July 1974.

                      41,   Efiergy, Vol. V: Petroleum Development. Draft. California
                            Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. July 1974.

                      42.   Brown and Root - Impact Study. Urban Pathfinders, Inc. Prepared
                            For Northhampton County Planning Commission. Baltimore, 11d.
                            February 1975.

                      43-   Brown and Root- Background Study.  Urban Pathfinders, Inc.
                            Prepared for Northhampton Conty Planning Commission. Balatimore,
                            Md. January 1975.

                             RECULATIONS & LECISIATION

                          1. Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council. Washington
                             Administrative Code Chapter 463-12, supp. 76, State of Washington.
                             September 1970.
                          2. Preparation of Environmental Re2orts for Nuclear Power Stations.
                             Regulatory Cuide 4.2, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
                             Washington DC. January 1975.

                          3. The Accelerated Development of the Outer Continental Shelf:   Its
                             Problems and Cost. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Domestic
                             and International Monetary Effect of Energy and Other Natural Resource
                             Pricing. Committee of Banking and Currency. 'H.R. December 1974.
                          4. Licensing of Nuclear Power Reactors. Office of Information
                             Services, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. EDM-530 (8-74).

                          5. Deepwater Forts Facilities. Hearings before the Sub-Committee an
                             the Environment. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
                             House of Representatives. June 6, 29; August 3; October 1, 1973.
                             Serial No. 93-@22.

                          6. Background.. Report on Powerplant Siting. Prepared for use of Committee
                             on Commerce. Senate. July 1972.'

                          7. A Review of Energy Policv Activities of the 92nd Congress. Prepared
                             for use of the Committee on Inter'ior and Insular Affairs, pursuant
                             to S. Res. 45. Serial No. 93-1 (92-36).

                          8. DeepwaterPort Polic-y Issues. A Staff Analysis prepared at the
                             Request of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, pursuant to
                             S. Res. 45. Serial No. 92-42 (92-77).

                          9. Deepwater Port Act of 1974. Joint Reports of Committees on Commerce;
                             Interior and Insular Affairs; and Public Works. To accompany S.
                             4706 (Report 93-1217).

                          10. Power2lant Siting. Hearings before Committe, on Commerce, U.S.
                             Senate on S. 1684, S. 1915, and S. 3631. April 28; May 15; June 1,
                             1972. Serial No. 92-92.

                          11. Offshore Ports and Terminals. Hearings before the Committee on
                             Merchant Marine & Fisheries. House of Representatives on H.R.
                             5091 and H.R. 5898. June 12, 14, 25Z28; July 11, 12, 1973.
                             Serial No. 93-15.

                          12. Oil and Gas Development in CZM. Hearings before National Ocean
                             Policy Study of Committee on Commerce, Senate. April 23-25; May
                             2, 22, 1974. Serial No. 93-99.

                              MSCELLANOUS

                         1.   The Point Beach Thermal Plume. Reprinted from Proceedings of
                              Fifteenth Conference on Great Lakes Research, by T. Green, et :-11.
                              University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Publication No. 73-336.
                         2.   Accommodating National Energy Needs in Coastal Zone Man.@I@en@t
                              Planning. Stewart Holmes and Jack M. Heinemann. Proceedings,
                              10th Annual Conference of the Marine Technology Society, September
                              1974.

                         3.   Offshore --Power Plants and Marine Environment. David Wallace.
                              Address to the American Nuclear Society and Marine Technology
                              Society Meeting, April 25, 1973.

                         4.   Statement on Relation of Coastal Zone Management to Offshore Petroleum,
                              Unpublished. Edward T. LaRoe. April 1974, p. 6.

                              Preceedings of an International Conference on Artificial Reefs
                              Center for Marine Resources, Texas A&M-University: College Station
                              Texas 77843, TAMU-SG-74-103.

                         6.   Deepwater Ports Bibliography. James Rote.   Prepared for the Select
                              Assembly Committee on Deepwater Ports. California. August 1974.

                         7.   Geotechnical Consideration of Site Selection for an offshore Nuclear
                              Power Plant. Joseph A. Fisher, M. Kihnemuyi, and H. Singh. 1973
                              Offshore Technology Conference., Preprints Vol-.. 1. (D. 673-675).

                         8.   Prespectives on Oil Refineries and Offshore Unloading Facilities.
                              Proceedipgs of the Fourth New England Coastal Zone Management
                              Conference. May 13-14, 1974.

                         9.   Minutes and Summary of the First Meeting of the Advisory Committee
                              on Energy Facilities Siting, Office of the Science Advisor, National
                              Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1974.

                                                 CHAPTER SIX

                                      STATE POWER PLANT SITING POLICIES

                   State Siting Policies in General

                         In the past several years, power plant siting has become an increasingly

                   important issue for state legislation.   As of September 1974, 18 states had

                   passed power siting legislation and a significant number will consider such

                   policies during their 1975 legislative sessions.   According to Reitz, "regu-

                   lation by states of power plant siting or placement of transmission lines is

                   far from uniform, and is in a condition of flux, as states continually add
                   or amend regulation systems or initiate them." I  Many states have realized

                   that the location of energy facilities influences the location of industrial

                   complexes and urban expansion, and therefore, power plant siting policies

                   become a key element in land use planning. In general, state power siting

                   policies can be categorized into either reactive processes   or preview processes.

                   The New England River Basins Commission defines the reactive process as "a

                   process when a state council or board must act upon an application for con-

                   struction of a particular power plant without a formal process for advance
                   consideration of utility long range plans or suitable sites".  2  The preview

                   process requires advance analysis of public need for power and environmental

                   evaluation of proposed sites prior to property acquisition.

                         Several factors apparently enter into a state's decision to either

                   establish a separate power plant siting program, or include this as part of

                   a more encompassing management program. According to Bradley and Armstrong.
                   these factors include: "the immediacy of the threat of damage from unregulated

                   location of power plants, the likelihood of passing more comprehensive management

                         IReitz, Arnold, Environmental Planning: Law of Land and Resources,
                   1974, p. 15-4.
                         2New England River Basins Commission, Draft Report on Power Siting
                   Siting Legislation, August 1974, p. 11.

                                                      57

                     legislation, the desirability of focusing on power production as a particularly

                     high impact industry, and the type of regulatory program established by the
                     passage of the legislation at   the Federal level."' The factors to be included
                     in a power plant siting program, as defined by Bradley and Armstrong, include:        2

                         /"an intensive procedure for mandatory review of potential sites;
                         1 an adequate research program to investigate the environmental,
                           general land use, and social factors involved; a method of
                           siifficient funding; explicit guidelines safeguarding environ-
                           mental'and social interests upon which decisions for approval
                           are to be made; provision for review of these decisions when
                           necessary; sufficient staff to administrate the program; and
                           procedures for enforcement of the provisions of the program."

                     It has also been suggested that if siting control is vested in a state level

                     agency, that-agency, in general, should not be the existing state-public
                     utility commission. 3  The contention here is that an agency charged with

                     insuring reliability and a continuity of service has a built-in bias which

                     may tend to favor reliability over environmental protection.

                           A key feature of successful state power siting legislation is the

                     simplification of various permitting and licencing procedures. This so-

                     called "one-stop" licensing procedure requires coordination of agency review
                                                                                           0

                     and delegates the f inal decision authority to- one agency. According to a

                     public utility executive, "It is absolutely imperative that this agency

                     have the authority to overrule other state agencies and the state procedure
                     must be compatible with the Atomic Energy Commission licensing regulations.       4

                           1Bradley, 'Earl and Armstrong, John, A Description and Analysis of the.
                     Coastal Zone and Shereland 1-lanagement Programs in the United States, L"farch
                     1972, p. 49.
                           2Lbid., p. 49.
                           3Mitnick, Barry and Weiss, Charles, "The Siting Impasse and a Rational
                     Choice Model of Regulatory Behavior: An Agency for Power Plant Siting", 1974.
                           4Personal communication, Robert Gerzetich, Consumers Power Company,
                     December 18, 1974.

                                                          58

                   The licensing process would be greatly simplified if state licensing decisions

                   were final, or at least the process involved the relevant Federal agencies

                   so as to reduce or eliminate redundancy in the review process.

                   The Maryland Siting Process

                         While power plant siting legislation has been enacted in several

                   states,-the State of Maryland has perhaps the most aggressive power plant

                   siting program. The Maryland Power Plant Siting Act of 1971 directs the

                   Maryland Public Service Commission and the electric utilities to engage

                   in long-range power systems planning. The Act also directs the Department

                   of Natural Resources to prepare environmental statements on proposed power

                   plant sites and to maintain a reservoir of state-owned sites which are

                   environmentally suitable for power plant construction.   The Act also

                   directs the Maryland Public Service Commission to conduct extensive

                   environmental studies, as well as a comprehensive research and monitoring
                   program.1  The authority to conduct siting inventories and acquire desirable

                   sites presents the opportunity to assess potential environmental impacts

                   and to -direct the construction of power plants into areas which can best

                   tolerate the additional stress, and which can assimilate the development

                   and operational pressures with the least environmental damage.

                         The long-range plans and forecasts developed by the Public Service

                   Commission and electric utilities must include proposed power plant sites

                          Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, Power Plant Siting in the United
                   States, September 1974, p. 145.

                                                     59

                   for at least a ten year period. Following an environmental evaluation, the

                   state is empowered to acquire. and hold proposed sites until the utilities

                   either purchase or lease the site. The utilities have the option of choosing

                   one of their own sites, provided that it meets the state's criteria, or may

                   procure a site from the state.

                         In order to provide scientific and technical information relevant to

                   impact assessment and siting decisions, the state is commited to a compre-

                  'hensive research and monitoring program.   Studies conducted under this

                   program include the power plant air monitoring program, impact analysis of

                   brackish cooling water, thermal and entrainment impact assessments, environ-

                   mental and wetland mapping programs, plume dispersion studies and modeling,
                   and the detailed site investigations for proposed power plant sites.   1

                         The funds required to implement the various provisions of the law

                   are provided by the Environmental Trust Fund, a revolving fund which is

                   administered by the Secretary of Natural Resources. This money is obtained

                   from a surcharge on elecrr.icity generated within the State of Maryland.

                   At the beginning of January 1972, the rate was 0.1 mil per kilowatt hour

                   generated. The surcharge can be raised slightly but cannot exceed 0.3-mil.

                   In 1973, the 0.1 mil generated approximately $3--million.

                         The Power Plant Siting Law stipulates that a minimum of four and a

                   maximum of eight potential power plants sites should be in the land

                   bank inventory.  The state is currently in the process of purchasing two

                   sites and possibly a third for inclusion in their power plant site land
                   bank. 2 Under Maryland's Power Plant Siting Act, the state has the power

                          Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Record of the Maryland Power
                   Plant Siting Act, Volumes 1-4, 1972-1974.

                         2
       4P                 Personal-communication, Steven Long, Maryland Power Siting Commission,
                   December 18, 1974.

                                                      60

                    of eminent domain for site acquisition, and therefore, is required to pay

                    fair market value. The power of eminent domain is a critical aspect of an

                    overall power plant siting acquisition program. Frequently, once a site is

                    designated as a desirable one, the land values will skyrocket and without the

                    power of eminent domain, the state is forced to pay an exorbitant price.

                          After several years of experience, the Maryland power plant siting

                    program'is viewed as a success by many people. The utilities are very much

                    in favor of the program because of its simplified one-stop licensing process

                    and by utilizing state-owned sites, they avoid local zoning difficulties.
                    The licensing process is further coordinated by the involvement of Federal             i4
                                                                                                  .0  .,   *)
                    agencies. In the Douglas Point site proposal, the U.S. Atomic Energy

                    Commission is reviewing -sites simultaneoggly with the state and state      and

                    AEC officials have expressed support for   joint Douglas Point proceedings,

                    both to avoid duplication of effort and to provide a single forum for public

                             2
                    hearings.   The Maryland power plant siting program apparently is a successful
                                                                                                 J. e
                    one and may serve as a model for other states to follow. Under the Maryland,-,@---"`

                    program, the state has a wider choice of sites and has accurate information

                                                                                                       I-e v1 e 4j,
                    on sites early in  the planning procedures. The power companies also benefit

                    by acquiring sites which have been thoroughly evaluated for siting feasibility.

                    Great Lakes States Power Plant Siting Policies

                          Presently, three of the eight Great Lakes States have power plant siting

                    laws and several others have pending legislation. The main provisions of these

                    laws are depicted in Table Three. None of the Great Lakes States' power plant

                    siting laws are as comprehensive as Maryland's siting program. The Great Lakes

                          IPersonal communication, John Dorsey, Maryland Public Service Commission,
                    October 12, 1974.
                          2Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Record of the Maryland Power Plan-,
                    Siting Act, May 1974, p. 1.

                                                        61

                   States' siting programs and proposals will be briefly discussed in the following

                   paragraphs.

                             Illinois - While the State of Illinois does not have a formal power

                   plant siting law, utilities must obtain a certificate -of public convenience

                   and necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission prior to construction of

                   a new generating plant. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act of 1970

                   addresses the subject of power plants as'potential sources of pollution.

                   Although no specific state siting legislation has been introduced in recent

                   years, increasing state-wide interest in power plant siting problems may

                   lead to legislative proposals in the 1975 session. The Illinois State

                   Atomic Energy Commission held hearings in 1974 on the siting of energy con-

                   version facilities. Discussions centered around such factors as one stop

                   certification, long-range planning, environmental considerations, and lead
                   agency designation.1

                        A real issue in Illinois and especially along Lake Michigan, is not

                   where to locate power plants, but whether the heavily urbanized and indus-
                   trialized environment can tolerate the addifional stress of power generation.2

                   Considerations of ambient air and water quality and noise levels are paramount

                   in this region. Consequently, there is a very real need for consideration of

                   sharing power production between states. This situation highlights the need

                   for regional power planning and coordination among Great Lakes states.

                         1Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, Power Plant Siting in the United
                   States, September 1974, p. 98.
                         2Personal communication, Ralph Fisher, Illinois Dept. of Conservation,
                   December 15, 1974.

                                                    63

                              Indiana - The State of Indiana does not presently have a power

                   plant siting law.  In 1974, a.bill was introduced into the General Assembly

                   of Indiana which provided for one-stop siting approval for power facilities.

                   The proposed measure would also have required every utility to prepare and
                   file a ten-year plan with the Public Service Commission of Indiana.1     This

                   bill did not pass the legislature, but may be introduced during the 1975

                   session.

                              Michigan - Although the State of Michigan does not presently

                   have a power plant siting law, several siting bills have been introduced

                   in recent years. In 1971, a bill passed the Senate which would have required

                   electric utility companies to obtain certificates of public convenience and

                   necessity from the Public Service Commission, but this bill died in the House.

                   Several siting bills were introduced in the 1974 legislative session.    HB 5887

                   would have established a nine-member council within the Michigan Department of

                   Commerce to regulate the location of power facilities within the state. The

                   bill also would have required electric utilities to submit plans for proposed

                   power plant sites and obtain certification from the council prior to site

                   acquisition and development. Another bill, HB 6253, was proposed by the

                   Michigan Public Service Commission. This bill would have granted the Michigan

                   Public Service Conmission the power to review plans, forecasts, and expansion

                   of electric utilities and to regulate the location, construction, and operation

                   of electric generating plants.   Under this bill, the utilities would have to

                   obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity and environmental

                   compatibility for proposed electric facilities.    Neither bill passed during

                          Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, Power Plant Siting in the United
                   States, 1974, p. 101.

                                                      64

                     the 1974 legislative session, but prospects for passage during the 1975

                     session appear to be better. The Public Service Commission        has concluded

                     that control of power plant siting by-permit..systems simplydoes not work,

                     and therefore, they  will continue to press for siting legislation.

                                Minnesota     The Minnesota legislature created, in 1973, the

                     Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. This Council has the authority

                     to regulate siting  of power plants and the location of transmission cor-

                     ridors.   Utilizing long-range forecasts provided by the utilities, the

                     Council intends to  develop an inventory of power plant sites and transmission
                     line corridors. 2  The criteria for siting power plants and routing trans-

                     mission line corridors promulgated by the Council place a heavy emphasis

                     on environmental considerations. The Council's regulation include a rather

                     extensive exclusion criteria which prohibit power plants or transmission

                     corridors from many parks and historical sites, vild and scenic river cor-

                     idors, and state wilderness areas. Further, the site selection criteria

                     contain many of the aspects discussed in Chapter Four of this paper. Public

                     participation, including a number of advisory committees pertaining to siting

                     and corridor evaluation is also emphasized in the regulations.

                                New York - Power plant siting programs in the State of New York

                     began in 1968 when the Atomic and Space Development Authority was empowered

                     to acquire and develop sites for future nuclear power plants.         The

                     Authority was not completely autonomous end did consult extensively with

                     concerned state agencies.    The Authority's control was limited to studies

                     for nuclear power plants and thus excluded the question of sites for fossil

                            Personal communication, Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service
                     Commission, December 15, 1974.
                           2Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, Power Plant Siting in the United
                     States, September 1974, p. 187.

                                                          65

                    fuel plants.  Following a reorganization of environmental agencies in 1970,

                    the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Public Service Commission

                    were granted the major responsibility for power plant regulation. In 1972,

                    the New York legislature passed power plant siting legislation. The Power

                                         who's members include the Chairman of the Public Service
                    Plant Siting Board,

                    Commission and the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, are responsible

                    for review and approval of proposed sites. Detailed environmental site review

                    and facility description and long-range need justifications are part of the

                    site application.   The applicant is required to provide $25,000 to local

                    government for expert advice. Utilities are required to submit ten-year

                    plans for state review which include the number and types of facilities and
                    anticipated research expenditures.  I

                          The Department of Environmental Conservation is currently involved in

                    the environmental revieu, process for both siting of electric generation

                    facilities and transmission facilities. It has been suggested that DEC

                    develop a greater overall capability for environmental planning leadership in

                    power plant siting matters rather than merely reviewing the utilities I proposals.

                    This greater leadership role may evolve out of accelerated land and water

                                                                    2
                    resources planning and coastal zone planning.

                               Ohio - The State of Ohio has one of the most aggressive power

                    plant siting programs of the Great Lakes States. The Ohio Power Siting

                    Commission, created in 1972, was established to control the location

                    of major utility facilities.    The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director

                           1Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, Power Plant Siting in the United
                    States, September 1974, p. 187.
                           2Personal communication, Charles Morrison, Department of Environmental
                    Conservation, December 17, 1974.

                                                         66

                   serves as chairman of the Commission and several other directors of state

                   agencies are members. The Commission has jurisdiction over the siting of

                   both electric power plants and transmission lines. Utilities must obtain

                   a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need and must in-

                   clude a proposed site and an alternate site for evaluation in their appli-

                   cation.. The application must be filed two to five years in advance of

                   construction'of the electric generating facility. The Power Siting Com-

                   mission has the final decision in the approval or denial of the utilities

                   application.

                        At the present time, the Siting Commission does not have the-statutory

                   authority for pre-designation of potential sites. However, an on-going

                   task force is currently investigating the feasibility of pre-designation

                   of sites and a report should be forthcoming.  The task force is also evaluating
                   both fee simple and development rights acquisition of potential sites.I  The

                   Commission has a professional staff of approximately 20 people and also works

                   very closely with the Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio EPA. The

                   Commission is currently formulating their siting criteria which will include

                   both economic advantages and environmental considerations, and will emphasize
                   the imper ative need'for openness in 'the entire siting process.2

                             Pennsylvania - The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have a

                   comprehensive power plant siting law. The Pennsylvania Department of Environ-

                   mental Resources has recently completed a Draft Master Environmental Plan

                   for the Commonwealth which includes land capability planning. During the

                         IPersonal communication, William Blinn, Executive Secretary, Ohio
                   Power Siting Commission, December 15, 1974.
                         2Ibid.

                                                      67

                   1974 legislative session, a siting bill similar to that of Ohio was introduced

                   but was not passed. One impediment to state-wide regulation of the siting of

                   power plants is the prevalence of very strong "home rule" philosophy towards
                   land use planning.I

                         The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania currently has a number of environmental

                   protection and management programs. Under the Pennsylvania constitution, the

                   State is a trustee of all natural resour ces. The state is currently utilizing

                   a-permit system to control thermal discharges, air and water pollution, and

                   encroachment on floodplains. All construction projects must comply with the

                   provisions of the State Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Despite these various

                   permitting systems, the state feels it needs more control over development;

                   and land use legislation, including power plant siting legislation, will

                   probably be introduced in the next legislative session.

                             Wisconsin - A one-stop power plant siting bill sponsored by

                   Wisconsin Governor Lucey's office was introduced in 1972 but was not adopted

                   by the legislature. Three more siting bills were introduced in the 1973

                   legislative session but, again, none were adopted. One of these bills,

                   Assembly Bill 814, required public utilities to submit and get approval

                   from the Public Service Conmission. for comprehensive ten-year plans for

                   future sites and energy production. This same bill received a great deal of

                   attention during the 1974 legislative session, but the House and Senate

                   could not agree on certain provisions.

                         Presently, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission exerts a certain

                   amount of control over power plant siting.  Utilities must obtain a Certificate

                   of Authority from the Commission which includes a need, cost, and reliability

                   assessment. Further, under the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, the

                         1
                          Personal communication, William Frazier, Department of Environmental
                   Resources, December 15, 1974.

                                                      68

                    Public Service Commission prepares environmental impact statements for

                    power production facilities and evaluates alternative sites.    The Public

                    Service Commission works closely with the Department of Natural Resources

                    on these impact statements. The Public Service Commission's environmental

                    impact statement is a powerful decision-making tool.   These impact state-

                    ments include transmission line corridors and emphasize the impacts on the

                    environment and land use. Wisconsin does not presently have a one-stop

                    licensing process, but the Public Service Commission endeavors to coordinate

                    licensing between themselves and the Department of Natural Resources; and

                    the Commission does have the final determination in siting considerations.

                    The Public Service Commission staff utilizes existin- information and data

                    pertaining to environmental impacts, generation alternatives, and siting

                    considerations where possible. The utilities may be required to collect

                    additional information. The Public Service Commission is responsible for

                    formulating supply and demand projections. The Wisconsin Department of

                    Natural Resources is currently responsible for determining the need for

                    supplemental cooling.

                         Power plant siting legislation is expected to be introduced during

                    the 1975 legislative session. This legislation will probably include re-

                    quirements for ten-year plans and alternative sites, certain energy efficiency

                    standards, control measures over utilities' research funding, and coordination

                    of licencing between the Department of Natural Resources and the Public
                    Service Commission.2  This siting legislation is considered to be more of

                    a policy tool rather than a one-stop licensing and siting control mechanism.

                           1Personal communication, Richard Timm, Wisconsin Public Service Commissibn,
                    December 17, 1974.
                          2Ibid.

                                                       69

                                                  CHAPTER SEVEN

                                     FEDERAL LAWS AND LICENSING PROCEDURES

                                        RELEVANT TO POWER PLANT SITING

                    Federal Influence in Power Plant Siting

                         According to Stoel, "The Federal government has asserted only limited
                    general authority over energy production."' However, several Federal agencies,
                    including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (old'AEC), Federal Power Commission,

                    Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and Wild-

                    life Servicel are involved in various licensing and permitting programs

                    and may influence the location or design of nuclear or fossil fuel plants

                    and hydroelectric and pumped storage facilities. The following table

                    presents a summary of Federal statutory authority relevant to power plant

                    siting decisions. In addition to this, the Corps of Engineers and Bureau

                    of Reclamation construct and operate hydroelectric facilities.

                          The landmark piece of environmental legislation, the National Environ-

                    mental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) has exerted a tremendous influence

                    in energy related decision making. The Act'defines, in broad terms, what

                    the national environmental policy will be, requires certain action by

                    Federal agencies conducting the programs that significantly affect the

                    quality of the environment, specifies the mechanism for implementing this

                    requirement, and establishes the Council on Environmental Quality to pro-

                    vide guidance and supervision with the Act's implementation. The Act has

                    been in effect for nearly four complete years, with several sets of guide-

                    lines for preparing environmental impact statements promulgated, and the

                          IStoel, Thomas, "Energy", in Federal Environmcntal Law, 1974, p. 961.

                                                       70

                                                                       TABLE FOUR

                                                          FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
                                                  RELATED TO SITING OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FACILITIES

                      Nuclear Power Plants.

                      AGENCY            PERMIT OR REVIEW                   ACT               CITE                    REGS

                      1)NRC        Construction permit                 Atomic Energy Act 42 USC                   10 CYR
                                                                      1954, Sec. 103       2133/2134

                      2)NRC       Operating license                                        42 USC 2134

                      3)NRC       Impact statement (EIS)              Nat. Env. Policy     42 USC 4332           Appendix D to
                                                                      Act 1969                                   CFR part 50

                      4)NRC       Limited work authorization
                                  (LWA)

                      5) NRC      Licenses for source, special
                                  nuclear, by-product materials

                      6)Corps     Dredging permit-intake &            Rivers & Harbors 33 USC 403                33 CYR 209
                                  discharge facilities                Act-1899 Sec. 10

                      7)corps     Dredging permit-barge                                    33 USC 403            33 cFR 209
                                  landing facilities

                      8)Corps     Approval of construction                                 33 USC 403

                      9)Corps     Permission to install                                                          33 CFR 209
                                  structures possibly hazardous
                                  to navigation

                     10)Corps     Permission to    take soil                               33 USC 403            33 CFR 209
                                  samples below   mean high
                                  water level

                     ll)Corps     Permit for disposal of              FWPCA Amend.        33 USC 1344
                                  dredged material                    1972, Sec. 404

                     12)Corps     Permit for ransport of              Marine Protection    33 USC  1413
                                  dredged material                    Act '72, Sec. 103

                     13)EPA       Discharge permit                    FWPCA Amend.         33 USC   1342
                                                                      1972, Sec. 402                             40 CFR   124

                     14)Coast     Permit.for construction of
                         Guard    obstructions to navigation

                     15)Coast     Pemit for vessels to                                                           33 CFR
                         Guard    carry explosives                                                               126:19

                     16)FAA       Per-mission to light meteoro-
                                  logical towers & structures                                                    PAR 77

                     17)USFWS     Review & consent on AEC              Fish    Wildlife     16 USC 661
                                  & Corps permits actions             Coord. Act 1958

                     18)NOAA      Reviews actions by agencies
                                  which might affect marine life..           71

                                                 FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS - continued

                       Fossil Fuel Power Plants

                       Agency                             Permit or  Review / Act

                       1) Corps     Permits for activities in or affecting    navigable waters (dredging, structure
                                    installation, etc.)/ Rivers and Harbors Act 1899

                       2) Corps     Impact statement (EIS) / Xational Environmental Policy Act 1969

                       3) EPA       Water discharge permit, air emission control (where national standards
                                    apply) / FVPCA Amend. 1972, Clean Air Act 1970

                       4) USFWS     Reviews Corps permit granting actions and recommends stipulations to be
                                    included in permits/Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1958

                       Hydroelectric Power Plants

                       Agency                           Permit or Review / Act

                       1) FPC       Issues prelilminary certificates and licenses for co    nstruction and operation
                                    of non-federal hydro projects on waters or lands subject to federal
                                    jurisdiction / Federal Power Act of 1920, amended 1935

                       2) FPC       Impact statement (EIS) / National Environmental Policy Act 1969

                       3) USFWS     Provides advice and assistance with regard to proposed FPC certificate
                                    actions and recammends stipulations

                       4) Forest    Issues permits for use of Forest Service Lands
                          Service

                       Transmission Lines.

                       1) NRc: Considers power line routes in granting construction license

                       2) FPC: Considers power line routes in authorizing construction of primary lines from
                                licensed non-federal projects on lands subject to federal jurisdiction

                       3) Forest Service: Grants rights-of-way across land it administers

                       4) Bureau of Land Management: Grants rights-of-way across lands it administers

                       5) Corps: Grants permits for stringing of lines across navigable wat.ers

                       6) Fish & Wildlife Service,: Provides advice and assistance regarding proposed
                                                       right-of-way granting actions by BLM or Forest Service;
                                                       same for Corps permit granting actions

                       Source: Fcderal Environmental Law, Environmental Law Institute, 1974.

                                Draft Report on Power Plant Siting Legislati21-1, New England River Basins Ccmmission,
                                August 1974.

                                                                        72

                   Act has been litigated in hundreds of court cases which have yielded diverse

                   and often conflicting interpretations.

                         NEPA has had very far-reaching repercussions upon the manner in which

                   Federal agencies consider the environmental impact of planning and implement-

                   ing their programs. The policies stated in the Act are backed by specific

                   requirements for action, including the Section 102 statements (i.e., Environ-

                   mental Impact Statement s--EI S) which must analyze the environmental consequences

                   of specific actions. By requiring Federal agencies to use all available means

                   in protecting environmental values, NEPA has had the effect of reordering

                   priorities to include environmental considerations dnd traditional economic

                   benefit cost analysis.

                         The landmark NEPA case, Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee, Inc. v

                   Atomic Energy Ccmmission resolved several important issues and greatly
                   influenced Federal energy-Telated decision making. I  The court ordered the

                   Atomic Energy Commission to give more complete attention to the environment

                   in its internal review process. The court interpretated NEPA as a mandate

                   to achieve "a finely tuned and systematic balancing analysis" in each instance

                   of the EIS.- In very harsh words, the court said "The Commission's crabbed

                   interpretation of NIEPIA makes a mockery of the Act." Further, the court

                   said, "NEPA was meant to do more than regulate the f low of papers in the

                   Federal bureaucracy." The court also stated that "NEPA requires that an

                   agency must, to the fullest extent possible under its other statutory

                   obligations, consider alternatives to its actions which would reduce environ-

                   mental damage." Thus, in very strong language, the court defined the scope

                   of the NEPA mandates and ordered a powerful Federal agency to comply with

                          D. C. CIR. 449 F. 2d 1109, 1971.

                                                     73

                   them immediately. Other powerful Federal agencies, such as the Corps of
                   Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service, have subsequently revised

                   their environmental review process in accordance with this court decision,

                   and NEPA continues to exert an influence on Federal decision making.

                         Energy-related activities have and continue to be influenced by the

                   Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) which

                   defines a national plan for cleaning the country's waters by the early 1980s.

                   The impacts of thermal discharges from power plants are evaluated by the

                   Federal Environmental Protection Agency or by an appropriate state agency

                   where the powers under the Act have been delegated to the states. The primary

                   emphasis of the Act is the control and abatement of polluting discharges

                   through standards of technological control and of ambient water quality which

                   will, among other requirements, insure the protection and propogation of a

                   balanced population of fish and shellfish. Under Section 301 of the Act,

                   best practicable control technology is required by July 1, 1977 at point

                   source discharges, and best available technology is required by July 1, 1983.

                         The issue -of what control technology is appropriate for thermal

                   discharges has been a complex and controversial one.   Recently, the Environ-

                   mental Protection Agency promulgated' Effluent Guidelines and Standards which

                   stipulated that closed cycle evaporative cooling, either mechanical draft

                   towers, natural draft towers, or cooling ponds, is currently considered the
                   best practicable technology.2  The situation is further complicated, huwever,

                         133 U.S.C. 1151 et. seq.
                         2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards",
                   39 P.R. 196, October 8, 1974.

                                                     74

                           - - -----------
                    by Section 316 which makes an exception to this rule with respect to thermal

                    discharges.   Under Section  316, whenever the   operator of a power plant can

                    conclusively demonstrate that a balanced, indigenous population of fish,

                    shellfish, and wildlife will be maintained in the water body with a greater

                    thermal discharce than allowed by the general regulations, the Environmental

                    Protection Agency or the state, depending on which issues the permit, may

                    allow an appropriately greater thermal discharge.      Recent EPA guidelines
                    state that, 1

                          "Such a demonstration may be accomplished by showing that the
                          desired alternative effluent limitation (taking into account
                          the interaction of such thermal component with other pollutants)
                          will assure the protection and propogation of a balanced, indigenous
                          community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of
                          water into which the discharge is to be made."
                          According to Clark,  2

                          "In estimating the impact of the 1972 FWPCAA, it is important
                          to remember that the statute is extraordinarily complex and
                          very recent. Until a background of administrative precedents
                          are built up in such a law, it is difficult to predict how
                          particular parts are to be interpretated. The enforcement
                          and interpretation of the FWPCAA will be further complicated
                          by the delegation of authority to the states."

                    A fairly comprehensive analysis of the amendments is provided in the "Federal

                    Water Pollution Handbook: A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Water Pollution
                    Control Act Amendments of 1972."   3  According to an expert in thermal impact

                    research, a very difficult question raised by the Section 316 exemption will

                    be the effects of subtle changes which are occurring in aquatic environment
                    as a result of increased thermal dissipation.    4  This controversy is by no

                          1
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Thermal Discharges", 39 F.R.
                    196, October 8, 1974.
                          2Clark, John, Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone:        Environmental
                    Issues, p. VII-1.
                          3Natural Resources Defense Council, 1973.
                          4
                           Personal communication, Dr. Richard Cole, Michigan State University,
                    December 16, 1974
                                                          75

                   means resolved, and certainly will be the subject of continuing dispute

                   and litigation for years to come.

                        During 1974, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-438) was

                   adopted at the Federal level. This Act assigns most of the non-regulation

                   functions of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Energy Research and

                   Development Administration. The Act also establishes the Nuclear Regulatory

                   Commission which will have major responsibilities for insuring the safety

                   and reliability of nuclear reactors. The main purpose of the Act is to

                   reorganize and consolidate certain functions of the Federal government in

                   order to promote more efficient and objective management of energy research and

                   atomic power regulation. The effective date of this Act is February 11, 1975 and

                   it is not yet clear what impact this legislation will have on power plant

                   siting or energy development in the United States.

                        Under Section 207 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

                   directed to conduct a national survey to locate and idenfity possible

                   nuclear energy center sites, which are often called "power parks". This survey

                   is to include a regional evaluation of natural resources, possible environ-

                   mental impacts resulting from these nuclear energy centers, and consideration

                   of the use of certain Federally-owned properties for energy centers. This

                   report Is due to be published and transmitted to Congress not later than

                   one year from the date of enactment of this legislation.   The report is to include

                   the Commission's evaluation of the result3 of the survey and any conclusions

                   and recommendations for legislation the Commission deems desirable.

                   Proposed Federal Power Plant Siting Legislation

                         Since 1971, several pieces of power plant siting legislation have

                   been introduced at the Federal level.  The Nixon Administration introduced

                   HR 5277 as a proposed Power Plant Siting Act of 1971.  Provisions of this

                   bill included the establishment of a single state certifying agency which

                                                     76

                   would review ten-year plans and five-year site inventories prepared by

                   utility companiee. The Administration's bill did not provide for a one-

                   stop Federal certification process, and while the bill stipulated that the

                   states should have the primary responsibility for power plant siting decisions,

                   they must follow Federally imposed criteria.    Under this proposed bill, the

                   hypothetical Federal Department of Natural Resources would be given the

                   major responsibility for administration of the Actq and would also have

                   the final decision making authority with respect to siting of all types of

                   electric power plants.   Extensive hearings were held on this proposed bill,
                   as well as three similar Senate bills. I

                         Several power plant siting bills were introduced in the 1974 legislative

                   session. Congressman McCormick introduced HR 12283 which included the

                   following provisions:   state review and authority for certification of

                   nuclear power plant sites, simplification of the Atomic Energy Commission

                   licensing procedure, authorization of the   AEC to consider and designate

                   sites in advance of need, and requirement   for AEC to make a national survey

                   of nuclear power park sites. The Federal    Energy Administration's draft

                   "Eneray Facilities Siting and Development   Act of 1974" contained provisions

                   for facilitating Federal processing through single composite Federal applica-

                   tions. This bill also authorized state program development and administrative

                   grants for management programs oriented to the designation of energy facility

                   sites and eacourages states to take the initiative in designating sites

                   suitable for facilities. This bill set would have established a loan fund

                   for states to borrow money to identify and acquire acceptable power plant

                   sites.  This particular bill, postulated in M. 232, was never introduced to

                         1Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate Hearings on Power Plant Siting,
                   April 28, May 15, June 1, 1972.

                                                      77

                   Congress, but may receive further attention during the next legislative

                   session.

                         The future of Federal power plant siting legislation   is uncertain

                   at the present time. New Federal legislation will almost certainly be

                   introduced in the 1975 session in an effort to simplify the current

                   licensing morass and encourage states to become actively involved in

                   siting of power facilities. The current trend appears to be towards

                   legislation similar to the proposed National Land Use Planning Act and

                   the present Coastal Zone Management Act. This type of legislation would

                   provide funds to states to encourage them to develop power plant siting

                   planning and management programs. The administration portion of this

                   type of legislation could conceivably provide Federal funding for acquisition

                   of power plant sites.   In any case, the states will probably retain the

                   major responsibility for power plant site regulation.

                          1Coastal Zone Management, November 20, 1974, p. 4.

                                                      78

                                                  CHAPTER EIGHT

                                COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND POWER PLANT SITING

                    The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

                          Intelligent coastal zone management demands a comprehensive land and

                    water resources planning and policy perspective. The United States Coastal

                    Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) provides a medium for achieving

                    comprehensive management of the valuable coastal zones in the United States.

                    The Act provides Federal funding for coastal zone planning and management

                    program development. The Act strives to strike a balance between the

                    economic values of the coastal zone and the ecological importance of the

                    coastal zone. The states are instructed to prepare management programs

                    which minimize ecological damage in the coastal zone, while providing the

                    opportunities for reasonable economic development and utilization of the

                    coastal zone. The Act requires that the states include lands that have

                    a direct and significant impact on the coastal zone in the management pro-

                    grams. The waters and coastal bottom lands designated by the Act are those

                    that the state has jurisdiction over.

                          The Act contains several very specific procedural and substantive

                    provisions.  Section 305 of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Co=rerce

                    to make annual grants to any coastal state for the purpose of developing a

                    coastal zone management program. Section 306 authorizes the Secretary to

                    make annual grants for the administration of the state's coastal zone

                    management program.   Section 312 makes grants available t6 coastal states

                    for the cost of acquisition, development, and operation of estuarine

                    sanctuaries which are to be natural field laboratories oriented towards

                    ecological research. A state coastal zone managemcnt program, under the

                    provisions of Section 305 (b) must include:

                                                        79

                         1.  an identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone subject
                             to the management program;

                         2.  a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water
                             uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant
                             impact on coastal waters;

                         3.  an inventory of and designation of areas of particular concern
                             within the coastal zone;

                         4.  an identification of the means by which the state proposes to
                             exert control over the land and water uses, including a listing
                                                                                  0          C2
                             of relevant constitutional provisions, legislative enactments,
                             regulations, and judicial decisions;

                         5.  broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas including
                             specifically those of lowest priority;

                         6.  a description of the organizational structure proposed to implement
                             the management program.

                   Of particular importance to the issue of power plant siting, Section 306 (8)

                   requires that the management program "provide for adequate consideration of

                   the national interests involved in the sitina of facilities necessary to

                   meet requirements which are other than local  in nature." Further, Section 307

                   (c) (1) requires that "Federal agencie-7 conducting or supporting activities
                                                                     C2

                   directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those activities

                   in a manner which is to the maximum extent practicable consistent with

                   approved state management programs." The states are also required to incor-

                   porate in their management program the policies of the Federal Water Pollution

                   Control Act and the Clean Air Act.

                         Regulations recently promulgated by the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-

                   ment (N.O.A.A.) have served to further clarify the specific requirements of
                   the states' coastal zone management programs. 1 Several sections of these

                   regulations are directly relevant to the issue of power plant siting and

                           U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 40 F.R., no. 6, January 9, 1975, pp. 1683-
                   1695.

                                                       60

       0           its relationship to coastal zone management. Section 923.4 requires that
                   a comprehensive management program should have considered issues pertinent

                   to energy generation and transmission.  Section 923.12 contains the require..

                   ment that the state must develop a procedure for defining " permissible land

                   and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant

                   impact upon the coastal waters" which should include an analysis or estab.-

                   lishment of a method for analysis of the capability and suitability for

                   each type of resource and application to existing, projected or potential

                   uses, as well as an assessment of the environmental impact of these resource

                   uses. Section 923.15 includes the requirement that a state management pro-

                   gram must consider the siting of facilities which are greater than local

                   concern. This section specifically includes energy production and trans-

                   mission facilities, including nuclear, conventional, and hydroelectric power

                   plants. The regulations state, however,

                         "The requirement should not be construed as compelling the
                         states to propose a management program which accommodates
                         certain types of facilities, but to assure that such national
                         concerns are included at an early stage in the states' planning
                         activities.and that such facilities are not arbitrarily ex-
                         cluded or unreasonably restricted in the management program
                         without good and sufficient reasons."

                   The regulations also suggest that the states should consult with adjacent

                   and nearby states which share similar or common coastal resources to determine

                   how regional needs may be met in siting of facilities.

                         These regulations also include a discussion of the techniques fol

                   control of land and water uses which can be utilized by the states in

                   administration of the management programs. One method would be state

                   establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation subject

                   to administrative review and enforcement of compliance at the state level.

                                                      81

                   Another mechanism would be direct state land and water use planning and

                   regulation which preempts the.traditIonal role of local government in the

                   zoning process involving land or waters within the coastal zone. A third

                   technique would be state administrative review for consistency with the

                   management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water

                   regulations including exceptions and variances with state power of approval

                   or denial. Section 923.26 of the regulations specifies that the state may

                   choose to utilize only one of the techniques, or more than one, or a com-

                   bination of them in different locations at different times.

                         An additional section of the regulations pertaining to power plant

                   siting is Section 923.44--Applicability of Air and Water Pollution Control

                   Requirements. The state management program must be developed in close

                   coordination with the planning and regulatory systems being. implemented

                   under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the C  lean Air Act. The

                   regulations point out that there is a significant opportunity for develop-

                   ing working relationships between air and water quality agencies and coastal

                   zone management programs. Several of these opportunities include joint

                   development of Section 208 area waste treatment planning, consolidation     of

                   various regulatory programs, coordination of monitoring and evaluation

                   activities, and consultation regarding state water quality standards setting.
                   IThe states' management programs should provide for continuing coordination
                   and cooperation with air and water programs during program development and

                   management administration. According to-Reitz, the broad definition of the

                   terms point source and pollutant under Section   512 of.the F14PCAA indicates

                   that virtually every activity affecting water resources of the coastal zone

                   will be subject to a state or Federal permit program, and therefore, a

                                                                                                         77!

                    sig nificant regulatory mechanism is available to the states.
                    Great Lakes State's Coastal Z one Management Programs and Power Plant Siting
                    Issues

                           During the first year of the coastal zone planning activities, the

                    seven  Great Lakes States involved in coastal zone management are inventorying

                    their  coastal resources for opportunities and constraints to development.

                    Three  main types of inventory activities.are currently underway. All seven

                    of the Great Lakes States are presently analyzing their respective coastal
                    zones  for various land and water resource issues and pressures.      2  This

                    inventory will identify various recreational and development pressures on

                    the coastal zone and presents an excellent opportunity to assess the magni-

                    tude of power plant siting problems. A second type of inventory that all

                    seven states are currently involved with is a legal and statutory analysis
                    of state and local control over the coastal zone.     3  This inventory will

                    identify existing gaps and overlapping in statutory authority, and presents

                    the opporZunity to assess the need for additional power plant siting

                    legislation. All seven states are also currently involved in a physical
                    resources inventory of the coastal zone.    4  This coastal inventory will

                    include both physical and ecological processes and the evaluation of environ-

                    mentally critical areas, areas of particular      concern such as lands subject

                           Reitz, Arnold, Environmental.   Planning: Law of Land and Resources,
                    1974, pp. 2-5.

                           2
                           Illinois, Michigan, @finnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
                                           0
                    Coastal Zone Management Development Program Initial Grant !kpplicatio           1974.
                                      2
                           3Ibid.
                           4Ibid.

                                                         83

                   to erosion or flooding, coastal zone boundary determination, and historical

                   and cultural features of significant importance. This physical inventory

                   presents an excellent opportunity to assess the capability and suitability

                   of the various sections of the coastal zone for power plant siting considera-

                   tions.

                         The second and third years of the Great Lakes States coastal zone

                   management development programs will consist largely of formulating the

                   desired management plan, securing the necessary additional statutory authority

                   for exercising control over the coastal zone, involving the public in the

                   planning process and obtaining public support for the management plan,

                   and organizing and establishing the necessary institutional mechanism for

                   implementation of the management plan. The State of Michigan intends to

                   accomplish this management program development in two years and the other

                   Great Lakes States will utilize the full three years authorized in the statute.

                   Following approval of the management plan by the Secretary of Commerce, the

                   states may secure funding for administration of the coastal zone management

                   program for a period not to exceed five yeaVs. The intent is to insure the

                   development and implementation of a viable state coastal zone management

                   program, rather than the proverbial dust gathering plan which, sits on a

                   shelf.

                         There is obviously a very direct relationship between coastal zone

                   management and power plant siting issues. It is still somewhat early,

                   however, to determine exactly what the precise relationships will be. All

                   of the Great Lakes States are aware of the importance of the power plant

                   siting problem, and are.in various stages of resolving it. The states of

                   Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania intend to address

                                                     84

                     the specific   issues of power plant siting subsequent to the completion of

                     theit. physical and legal inventorying process. The State of. Indiana is

                     not presently involved in coastal zone management, but they are currently
                     considering submitting a first-year program development grant application.           I

                     The States of Ohio and Wisconsin are analyzing power plant siting issues

                     in the first year of their respective coastal zone management programs.

                     The Ohio Power Siting Commission intends to utilize the Ohio coastal zone
                     management inventory information to evaluate various utilities' proposals.           2

    L                The Siting Commission and the Ohio Shorelands Division will be working

                     closely to develop power plant     siting policies and criteria for the Ohio

                                   3
                     coastal zone.

                            In Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission is currently analyzing

                     various relationships of power plant siting and coastal zone management.

                     Under a contract from the Office of State Planning, lead agency for

                     coastal zone management in Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission            will

                     compare key impacts   of power plant siting in the coastal zone as opposed

                                        4
                     to Inland siting.     The Public Service Commission will also delineate

                     several alternative   power plant siting policies for Wisconsin's coastal

                     zone. The State of    Wisconsin considers transmission corridor location to

                     be an extremely important factor and this will also be evaluated in this

                     study.

                            1
                             Personal -communication, William Watt, Executive Assistant in the
                     Office of the Governor, December 31, 1974.
                            2Personal communication, William Blinn, Executive Secretary, Ohio
                     Power  Siting Commission, December 15, 1974.
                            3Personal communication, Gary Turner,      Administrator, Ohio Shorelands
                     Management Se  ction, October 9,   1974.
                            4Personal communication,    Richard Timm, Wisconsin Public Service
                     Commission, December 17, 1974.

                                                             85

                                  iting is an extremely important issue in coast al zone
                     power plant s                                         tal zone manage-
                                               The states involved in coa .s
                        t in the Great Lakes.
               managemen                    Iare of the importance of this problem  and
                                  akes are aw
               ment in the Great L                                        mulation.
                                   ress it in their management program for
                fully intend to add

                                                         86

                                               CHAPTER NINE

                                CURRENT POWER PLANT SITING RELATED RESEARCH

                                         IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION

                        A tremendous number of scientists throughout the Great Lakes Region

                   are conducting research programs pertinent to power plant siting issues.

                   The following sections present a brief overview of these state, Federal,

                   university, and private research activities.

                   State Research Activities

                        As discussed in Chapter Eight, seven Great Lakes States are currently

                   conducting extensive physical resources and legal authorities inventories

                   in conjunction with their coastal zone management programs. Much of this

                   information will be directly relevant to power plant siting issues. In

                   addition, many state water quality control agencies are currently conducting,

                   thermal impact assessment studies and may be in the process of establishing

                   thermal discharge standards under the FWPCAA. In conjunction with this

                   standard setting, many state fisheries divisions are conducting inventories

                   to determine the natural species diversity ind abundance conditions of the

                   fishery resources.

                        Several state public service commissions are presently engaged  in

                   various research projects and studies related to pom-er plant siting. The

                   Wisconsin Public Service Commission is currently studying the impacts of

                   both coastal and inland power plant siting, and subsequently, will formulate

                   several alternative policies for coastal zone power plant siting. The Ohio

                   Power Siting Commission is currently analyzing the feasibility of pre-

                   designation of power plant sites and is considering both fee simple acquisi-

                   tion and development rights acquisition. The New York Public Service Co=ission

                   has recently completed a pilot power plant site survey and tentatively plan to

                                                    87

                   survey the remaining portions of the state for potential power plant sites

                   within the next year.

                   Federal Research'Activities

                         Several Federal agencies are intimately involved in power plant siting

                   and related research. The Environmental Protection Agency--Region V, is

                   currently sponsoring a Lake Michigan Cooling Water Studies Panel which is

                   composed of a large number of eminent scientists, concerned with various

                   aspects of thermal discharges. The Panel is attempting to prepare a com-

                   prehensive and realistic program which analyzes the effects of cooling water

                   u.se on Lake Michigan and increases the fundamental ecological -knowledge of

                       region. *EPA has sponsored a five-year research project investigating

                @J
                   the utilization of thermal cooling water for agricultural usage, including

                   frost Protection, undersoil heating, greenhouse applications, double cropping,
                   plant co oling, and humidity control. 1  The Environmental Protection Agency

                   also sponsors a number of  research activities related to thermal dissipation

                   in the Great Lakes.

                         The Atomic., Energy Commission, through its Ar-onne National Laboratory,

                   has sponsored several research programs relevant to thermal discharge into

                   Lake Michigan. For several years, Argonne scientists have been analyzing

                   the radiological and environmental impacts of thermal discharges from

                                         2
                   nuclear power plants.    The Energy and Environmental Systems division of
                 /Aroonne National Laboratory has,    for several years, conducted a research

                   project which attempts to analyze the cumulative impacts of thermal discharges

                         '-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Demonstration of Thermal ',-later
                   Utilization in Agricultur     Environmental Protection Technology Series,
                   April 1974.
                         2Argonne National Laboratory, Radiological and Environmental Research
                   Division Annual Repor ' January-December 1973.

                                                        88

                   from power plants surrounding Lake Michigan.' The    project has been concentrating

                   on the environmental status of, the Lake Michigan region to establish a

                   baseline for the overall impact assessment. The soils, earthquake history

                   and measurement, and mammals of the Lake Michigan region have been compiled

                   and reports published during 1974. Various Argonne scientists have been

                   involved in thermal plume analysis and thermal effluent modeling studies

                                    1
                   in recent years.    Argonne National Laboratory is currently involved in

                   an Energy Regional Studies Program sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission.

                   This program will focus on 'an assessment of health and environmental impacts

                   associated with energy resource   development, ener-y facility siting, and

                   operation.  The program is just   now getting underway, but preliminary

                   indications are that this may be a very useful endeavor.

                         The Council on Environmental Quality has sponsored several investigations

                   of importance to energy issues in the Great Lakes. CEQ sponsored the develop-

                   ment of a data base which quantifies the environmental effects of each component

                   of a large number of energy systems, and the comparative energy systems

                   efficiency.  This data base is called MERES, which stands for Matrix of

                   Environmental Residuals for Energy Systems. The Council also has recently

                   formulated their Half and Half Plan, which attempts to establish a national

                   energy plan which emphasizes energy conservation,, improved efficiency,

                   elimination of waste, and environmental protection. The plan calls for

                   half the per capital rate of growth in energy consumption to be coupled
                   with the energy-conservation program   2

                          Tokr, J. V., Thermal Plumes   in Lakes: Com ilations of Field Experience,
                   Aroonne National Laboratories, August 1971, and Policastro, A. J., Heated
                     0
                   Effluent DisDersion in Large Lakes:_ State of the Art in Ana             Mod@_fing
                   Argonne National Laboratories, January 1972.
                         2Council on Environmental Quality, Fifth Annual Report, December 1974.
                   pp. 475-477.
                                                       89

                         The United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

                   is currently involved in several energy related research activities. The
                   Vish and Wildlife Grea t Lakes Fishery Laboratory, located in Ann Arbor,

                   Michigan, is investigating the impacts of temperature and food availability

                   on the growth of Coho salmon, respiratory and metabolic impacts of thermal

                   discharges, fishes attraction and avoidance of thermal discharges, impacts

                   of temperature increases on survival of eggs and fry of Lake Trout, and

                   several other general fisheries research studies. The   Great Lakes Environ-

                   mental Research Laboratory (N.O.A.A.) also located in Ann Arbor, is  responsible

                   for a tremendous amount of limnological research, modeling efforts, and Great

                   Lakes ecological studies, many of which are directly relevant to thermal

                   impact assessment. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory is

                   also the lead U.S. agency in the International Field Year on the Great Lakes

                   Study of Lake Ontario, in which a tremendous amount of limnological and

                   ecological information was collected and is currently being analyzed.

                         The Canadians are also involved in research activities relevent to

                   power plant siting issues. Scientists at the Canada Center for Inland Waters

                   in Burlington, Ontario, are conducting extensive research into various physical

                   and ecological impacts of thermal dissipation and power plant entrainment.

                   At the present time, however, the data is either incompletely analyzed, or
                   suffering from a lack of research during certain critical periods. 1  In the

                   near future, however, more definitive results of CCIW's waste heat research

                   should be available.

                         During March of 1975, the second Interagency Committee on Marine Science

                   and Engineering (ICMSE) Conference on the Gre at Lakes will be held. The

                         IPersonal communication, Dr. J. R. M. Kelso, Canada Center for Inland
                   Waters, December 4, 1974.

                                                     90

                    principal emphasis of this conference will be energy related research activities

                    in the Great Lakes. The topics to be considered at the conference are: sources

                    and emissions, atmospheric transport and removal processes, aquatic transport

                    and removal processes, ecological impacts, and effluent control technology.

                    This conference will include the participation of many scientists and ma-,,a,;zrs

                    concerned with environmental impacts of energy production and thermal dissipa-

                    tion and should provide a tremendous amount of valuable information.

                    University Research Activities

                          A number of universities, including three of the' four Great Lakes Sea

                    Grant institutions, are involved in powerplant siting research activities.
                  "The University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program has five electric power researc'l-

                    studies presently underway. These studies are principally concerned with the

                    physical characteristics and biological impacts of thermal plumes. The

                    sedimentatio n.and erosion caused by a nuclear power plant has also been the

                    subject of a research study in the Wisconsin Sea Grant Program.         Aerial

                    remote sensing of thermal pollution in Lake Michigan has been the subject

                    of a University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies research
                    project.2

                          Dr. John Ayers of the University of Michi    gan Great  Lakes Research

                  .Division has conducted extensive research investigations       into the impacts

                    of thermal discharges in the Great Lakes. Researchers at the University         of

                    Michigan Sea Grant Program are conducting various research projects in

                    Lake Michigan, Saginaw Bay, and Grand Traverse Bay, which include modeling

                           Pezzetta, John M.    "Sedimentation Off the Kewaunee Nuclear Power
                    Plant", University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program, Technical Report
                    No. 221, March 1974.

                          2
                           Green, Theodore, "Thermal 'Plumes in Lake Michigan", Great Lakes Basin
                    Commission Communicator, December 1973, p. 5.

                                                        91

                   efforts, ecological analysis, and limnological studies, which could prove to

                   be very valuable for thermal impact assessment. Researchers at the Univer   sity

                   of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory are presently analyzing a wide variety of

                   coastal processes.
                         Scientists. in the 9ew York Sea Grant Program are involved in several

                   studies relevant to power plant siting on Lake Ontario.   Studies currently

                   underway include an assessment of state policies pertaining  to power plant

                   siting, social-legal and organizational dilemmas in power plant siting,

                   environmental protection and regional economic growth regarding coastal   zone

                   power plants, and modeling and analysis of systems to utilize heated effluents.

                   Another very interesting research project, due to be completed in September

                   of 1975, is the multiple utilization of power plant buffer zones and trans-
                   mission corridors.1  Also scheduled for completion in September 1975 is a

                   study involving modeling of biological impacts of thermal discharges in

                   Lake Ontario. Many of these thermal impact studies conducted on Lake

                   Ontario should be applicable to the other Great Lakes.

                   Private Research Efforts

                         Many private'entities, are involved in studies relevant to power plant

                   siting issues. Many private utilities conduct extensive site inventories

                   and environmental impact assessments. In addition, utilities frequently

                   contract with universities for environmental impact assessments or thermal
                  ,research. As an example," Consumers Power Company is contracting with

                   Michigan State University in a three-year study to determine the feasibility

                         I
                          New York Sea Grant Program, Annual Report, 1973-1974, pp. 31-47.

                                                      92

                   of waste heat utilization in agriculture'. Detroit Edison is also contracting,

                   with Michigan State University in a five-year study to. determine the environ-

                   mental impacts of thermal discharges into the west end of Lake Erie.. General

                   Electric Company, under a National Science Foundation grant, is conducting

                   an electric generating plant siting study involving dispersed siting and

                   energy parks. The intent of this study is to compare the environmental

                   Impacts and economics of these two forms of power plant siting. This study

                   is due to be completed in March of 1975.

                         The Environmental Research  Institute of Michigan, a non-profit private

                   corporation, has conducted extensive research into   tbe' use of multi-spectoral

                   scanning and remote sensing of thermal discharges. In a study sponsored by

                   the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, ERIM monitored thermal plumes

                   at selected locations in the southern peninsula of Michigan during several
                                        1  ERIM                     emote sensin- technology in
                   seasons of the year.         has also utilized r

                   a number of coastal zone studies and limnological studies associated with

                   the IYYGL project.

                         Consulting firms represent another source of environmental research

                   and technological development relevant to power plant siting issues. Frequently,

                   consulting firms, as a result of contracts with utilities, develop

                   sophisticated environmental impact assessment and power plant siting selection
                   methodologies. In addition@ sev   .eral consulting firms are considered,to be leaders.
                   in the field of transmission corridor selection. The intense competition

                   among consulting firms frequently results in innovative technological and

                   methodological developments which   leads to an overall improvement of the

                   quality of environmental impact assessment and power plant siting decisioll'3.

                         1Environmental Research Institute of Michigan,    Power Plant DischarB,
                   and Thermal Anomalies in Southern Michigan--Project    Summary, March 1974.

                                                       93

                                                  CHAPTER TEN

                                        CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

                    Conclusions

                         Projections for future energy requirements necessitate increases in

                    energy production. Power plant siting issues, one facet of this increased

                    energy production, represent extremely complex natural resources and social

                    conflicts and problems. Increased energy production frequently causes

                    tremendous aquatic, terrestrial, meteorological.. social, and economic impacts.

                    However, rational solutions for these energy related problems exist in intelli-

                    gent siting and design of electric generation and transmission facilities to

                    minimize environmental impact. Further, once-through cooling systems should

                    not be arbitrarily eliminated in the Great 'Lakes. The thermal assimilative

                    capacity of the Great -Lakes is a resource and should be utilized provided

                    that no significant detrimental environmental degradation   occurs. It should

                    be recognized that once-through cooling may have the least environmental

                    impact, and certainly has the least economic and energy cost of the alternative
                    cooling. systems '@r'.esently available.

                          In order to accommodate reasonable increases in energy production and

                    yet assure the maintenance and enhancement of a hig
                                                                        ,h quality environment,

                    while minimizing conflicts in land and water resource utilization, we must

                    accelerate planning and policy implementation. A combination of intelligent

                    water and land resource planning and management, including power plant siting

                    and thermal impact analysis and monitoring, coupled with more efficient    energy

                    production and energy conservation methods, will facilitate the attainment of.

                    these goals.  State power plant siting legislation and coastal. zone management

                    programs represent viable mechanisms for conducting the required planning

                    and management actions.   It is of the utmost importance that these programs

                                                       94

                   and planning activities be initiated at the present time while the greatest

                   number of possible alternatives is still available.

                   Recommendations

                         1. A national,energy policy which includes energy conservation measures.,

                   comparative analysis of the relative environmental impacts and energ y systems

                   efficiency of alternative methods of energy production, and total benefit-

                   cost accounting is urgently needed at the present time to serve as a frame-

                   work for energy planning and policy formulation.

                         2. Investigation into the feasibility and economics of the so-called

                   11cleantr power sources such as solar energy should be accelerated. Further,

                   cities should be encouraged to engage in solid waste management and resource

                   recovery programs designed to utilize "garbage" as a supplemental source of

                   energy production. In addition, to research into alternative energy sources,

                   the beneficial use of waste heat should be further investigated. As in the

                   case with solid waste management programs, waste heat from power plants should

                   be viewed as a resource rather than an environmental liability.

                         3. Energy related planning and policy making in the Great Lakes requires

                   a regional planning and policy perspective and analysis. Therefore, a

                   regional energy planning and policy study should be initiated which would.

                   include regional energy supply-demand projections, cumulative-lakewide thermal

                   impact assessment, coordination of existing research programs and state and

                   Federal policies and licensing procedures, and regional reliability planning.

                   Representatives of the Great Lakes States, Federal agencies, universities,

                   and utilities should be involved in this study.

                         4. The Great Lakes States should consider the desirability and political

                   feasibility of enacting power plant siting legislation which is similar to the

                   comprehensive Maryland siting program.

                                                     95

                         5. Presently, the uncoordinated and time-consuming process of obtaining
                   licenses and perm'its, coupled with conflicting governmental authorities,

                   represents a formidable obstacle to power plant construction. There is an

                   urgent need to coordinate this power plant licensing at both the state and

                   Federal levels. This licensing coordination could be conducted as part of

                   the regional energy planning study and as a facet of state power plant siting

                   legislation.

                         6. The Great Lakes States should consider power plant siting issues

                   in the early stages of their coastal zone management program formulation.

                   The state coastal zone management divisions should also develop a close

                   working relationship with their state public service commissions to facilitate

                   cooperative and coordinated power plant siting policy formulation.

                         7. To enable accurate cumulative thermal impact assessment in the

                   Great Lakes, the thermal assimilative capacity of the Great Lakes must be

                   determined. It is conceivable that this information could be derived from

                   existing data and research studies, but additional research may be required.

                         8. Power plants should be prohibited from certain environmentally

                   critical areas such as wetlands, prime breeding habitats, and valuable

                   estuarine regions. Power plants should be sited in areas most capable  of

                   assimilating the additional environmental stresses with the least ecological

                   damage.

                         9. P:)wer plant design and engineering must be improved to minimize

                   environmental impacts. This should -include: intake and outlet structural des-'L,,Yn

                   and location to reduce organism entrainment and impingement; reduced volume and

                   flow rates of cooling water intake; utilization of mechanical devices,rather than

                   chlorinated compounds, to reduce organism fouling; and increased atmospheric

                   dispersion of thermal discharges.

                                                     96

                                           SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

                                        SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

                 1. Andrews, Richard N. L. , "A Philosophy of Environmental Impact Assess -
                       pent", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, September-October
                       1973,-p. 198.

                 2. Ann Arbor News, December 12, 1974.

                 3. Argonne National Laboratory, Radiological and Environmental Research
                       Division Annual Report,.January-December 1973.

                 4.  Atomic Energy Commission, Final EIS, Indiana Point No. 2, 1972.

                 5.. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. , Nuclear Power Plant Siting--a Generalized
                       Process, Commonwealth Associates, Inc., August 1974.

                 6.  Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., "General Environmental Guidelines for
                       Evaluating and Reporting.the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site
                       Preparation, Plant and Transmission Facilities Construction",
                       Rittman Associates,- Inc., February 1974.

                 7., Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories, General Envi.-.-onmental
                       Siting Guides for Nuclear Power Plants (draft), December 1973..

                 8.  Blinn, William A. , Secretary of Ohio Power Siting Commission, personal
                       communication, December 14, 1974.

                 9.  Bradley*, Earl and Armstrong, John, ADescription and Analysis of the
                       Coastal Zone and Shoreland Ma@agement Programs in the United States.,
                       University of Michigan Sea Grant Program, March 1972.

                10. Callen, Ronald, Michigan Public Service Commission, personal communication.,
                       December 15, 1975.

                11. Clark, John and Brownwell, Willard, Electric Power Plants in the Coastal
                       Zone: Environmental Issues5 American Littoral Society Special Publi-
                       cation No. 7, October 1973.

                12.  Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, The Conservation Foundation, 1974.

                13.  Coastal Zone Management, Nautilus Press, November 20, December 5, 1974.

                14.  Cole, Dr. Richard, Michigan State University, personal communication,
                       December 16, 1974.

                                                97

                  15. Cole, Dr. Richard, Environmental Chan es in Lake Erie and Their Future
                          Impact on Lake Resources,.Michig,an State University, 1973.

                  16. Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate Hearings on Power Plant Siting, U.S.
                          Government Printing Office, 1972.

                  17. Cooper, Dr. William, Professor, Michigan State University,   personal
                          communication, October 3 and 10, 1974.

                  18. Cooper, William and Vlasin, Raymond D, "Ecological Concepts and Applica-
                          tions to Planning", Environment: A New Focus for Land Use Planning.,
                          National Science Foundation, 1973.

                  19. Coutant, Charles, "Evaluating the Ecological   Impact of Steam Electric
                          Stations on Aquatic Systems", December 1972.

                  20. Croley, Thomas E. Il and Kennedy, John F.,   "Research Needs Related to
                          Beat Dissipation From'Large Power Plants", Proc!edings of the.
                          Workshop on Research Needs Related to Water for faeEyj, Water
                          Resources Center, University of Illinois, November 1974.

                  21. Davis, George H. and Wood, Leonard A., "Water Demands for Expanding
                          Energy.Development", U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological
                          Survey Circular 703, 1974.

                  22. Donaldson, William T., Mercury in the Environment, December    1973.

                  .23. Dorsey, John, Maryland Public Service Commis sion, personal communication,
                          October 12, 1974.

                  24. Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Power Plant Discharges
                          and Thermal Anomalies in'Southern Michigan-Project Summary,
                          March 1974.

                  25. Environmental   Science and Technology, Volume 8, No. 12, "Clean Solar
                          Energy and  How It May be Used in the Near and Long Terms", American
                          Chemical Society, November 1974.

                  26.  Federal Power  Commission,"Implementation of the National Environmental
                          Policy Act  of 1969',' Order No. 485, June 7, 1973.

                  27.  Fisher, Ralph, Illinois Department of Conservation,  personal communica-
                          tion,'December 15, 1974.

                  28.  Frazier, William, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
                          personal communication, December 15, 1974.

                  29.  Furlong, Don, "The Cooling Tower Business Today", Environmental Science
                          and Technology, Volume 8, No. 8, August 1974.

                                                      98

                 -30. Gartin R.    B., "Biological  Effects of Cooling  Water  Blow. Down",
                           National Environmental Research  Center, Oregon, 1973.

                   31. Gerzetich,  Robert, Consumers Power  Company, personal communication,
                           December 18, 1974.

                   32. Gofman, John W. and Tamplin, Arthur R. , Poisoned Power, Rodale Press,
                           Inc., 1971.

                   33. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Framework    Study, Appendix 10, Power,
                           Draft No. 3, November 1971.

                   34. Green, Theodore, "Thermal Plumes in Lake    Michigan",.Great Lakes Basin
                           Commission Communicator, December 1973.

                   35. Hanna, Steven R,  "Research Needs Related to Hydrometeorologic Aspects
                           of Future Energy Production", Proceedings of the Workshop on Researc%,
                           Needs Related to Water for Energy, Water Resources Center, University
                           of Illinois, November 1974.

                   36. Illinois, State of, Coastal Zone   Management Development Program Initial
                           Grant Application, 1974.

                   37. Kelso, J. R. M. , Canada Center for Inland Waters, personal communication.,
                           December 4, 1974.

                   38. Koenig, Dr. Herman, Professor of Systems Engineering at Michigan State
                           University, personal communication, October 14, 1974.

                   39. Kren!-.el, Peter A. and Parkerl Frank L, Biological Aspects of Thermal.
                           Pollution, Vanderbilt University  Press, 1969.

                   40. Larsen, Curtis E.   "The Cultural Variable In Shore Erosion Along the
                           Illinois Shore of Lake Michigan", University of Chicago, December     1972.

                   41. Lee, David G. , "Tapping the Sun's Energy", National Wildlif e"Magazine,
                           National Wildlife Federation, August-September 1974.

                   42. Long, Dr. Steven, Maryland Power Siting Commission, personal communica-
                           tion, December 18, 1974.

                   43. Marcey, Barton C., "Survival of Young Fish in the    Discharge Canal of a
                           Nuclear Power Plant"o Journal of Fisheries Resources, 1971.

                   44. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Record of the Maryland Power
                           Plant Siting Act, Volumes 1-4, 1972-1974.

                   45. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Student System Project, Ducsik,
                           Dennis W., Editor, Power, Pollution, and Public Policy, The M.I.T.
                           Press, 1971.

                                                       99

                  46.  McHarg, Ian, Design With Nature, Natural  His toty Press, 1970.

                  47.  Michigan, State of, Coastal ZoneManagement DevelopmentProgram Initial
                          Grant Application, 1974.

                  48.  Michigan Water Resources Commission Staff, Governor's Conference on
                          Thermal Pollution, July 18, 1969.

                  49.  Michigan Water Resources Commission,  "Calculated Residual Chlorine
                          Concentrations Safe for Fish", April 1973.

                  50.  Michigan Water Resources Commission, Thermal Discharges Ind Water  Quality
                          Control, June 1974.

                  51.  Minnesota, State of, Coastal Zone Management  Development Proaram Initial
                          Grant Application, 1974.

                  52.  Mitnick, Barry and Weiss., Charles, "The Siting Impasse and a Rational
                         .Choice Model of a Regulatory Behavior: An Agency for Power Plant
                          Siting", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management., September
                          1974.

                  $3.  Morrison, Charles, Department of Environmental  Conservation, personal
                          communication, December 17, 1974.

                  54.  National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Power Plant Siting, En@_ip e i@@rr &
                          for Resolution of the Energy-Environment Dilemma, National Academy of
                          Sciences, 1972.

                  55.  National Water Commission, Water Pnlicies for the  Future, U.S. Government
                          Printing Office, June.1973.

                  56.. New England River Basins Commission, Draft Report  on Power Siting Legisla.-
                          tion, August 1974.

                  57.  New@York Sea Grant Program, Annual Report, 1973-1974.

                  58.  New York, State of, Coastal Zone Management Development Program Initial
                          GrantApplication,  1974.

                  59. New York State Public  Service Commission, Draft Report on the Hudson
                          River Valley/Long Island Pilot Area Site Survey, July.1, 1974.,

                  60.  Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology, W. B. Saunders Company, 1971.

                  61.  Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Lake County  Land Capability Analysis
                          October 1974.

                  62.  Ohio, State of, Lake Erie Shore Zone Management, Annual Work Program, 1974.

                                                     100

                  63.  Pennsylvania,  Commonwealth  of, Coastal  Zone Management. Development   Progr
                          Initial Grant Application, 1974.

                  64.  Pezzetta, John M.,   "Sedimentation Off the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant",
                          University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program, Technical Paper
                          No. 221, March 1974.

                  65.1 Policastro, A. J. , Heated Ef fluent Dispersion in. Large Lakes: State-of -
                          the-Art in Analytical Modeling, Argonne National Laboratory, January
                          1972.

                  66. Polcyn, Fabian, Environmental Resear.ch Institute of Michigan, personal
                          communication, July 18, 1974.

                  67.  Reitz, Arnold, Environmental Planning: Law of Land and      Resources, North
                          American International, 1974.

                  68.  Rinder, Herbert, Federal -Power Commission, personal communication, December
                          13, 1974.

                  69.  Smith, Halden Commonwealth Associates,     Inc., personal communication,
                          December 18, 1974.

                  70.  Sollars, Scott C., "Nature's Dynamics:     An Elevated Perspective", Water
                          Spectrum, Volume 5, No. 4, 1973.

                  71.  Southern Interstate Nuclear   Board, Power Plant Siting in the United States,
                          September 1974.

                  72.  Stadclman, Joseph, "Floating Nuclear Plants--A Case in Point", in The
                          Coastal Imperative: Developing a Natio al Perspective for Coastal
                                                                    n
                          Decision Making, U..S. Goverment Printing Office, September 1974.

                  73.  Steward, Ronald., "Helping Power to be a   Good Nleighbor", N.O.A.A., Office
                          of Public Affairs, April 1974.

                  74.  Stoel, Thomas, "Energy", in Federal Environmental Law,     Environmental Law
                          Institute, West Publishing Company,    1974..

                  75.  Timm, Richard, Wisconsin Public Service Commission, personal communication,
                          December 17, 1974.

                  76.  Tokar, J. V., Thermal Plumes in Lakes: Compilations of Field Experienc
                          Argonne National Laboratory, August 1971..

                  77.  Turner, Gary, Administrator, Ohio Shorelands     Management  Section, personal
                          communication., October 9, 1974.

                  .78. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide, General Site Suitability
                          Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, 4.7    Draft, September 1974.

                                                       101

                    79. U.S. Atomic   Energy Commission, A  Survey of  Unique Technical  Features of,
                            the Floating Nuclear Power Plant Concept, March 1974.

                    80. U.S. Council on  Environmental Quality, Ener@y and the Environment--
                            Electric Power, August 1973.

                    81. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Fifth Annual      Re2ort., U.S. Govern-
                            ment Printing Office, December 1974.

                    82. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, "Guidelines for the Preparation
                            of Environmental Impact Statements", Volume 38,.Federal Register,
                            P1onday, December 10, 1973.

                    83. U.S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A., Coastal Zone Management. Program
                            Administrative Grants, Volume 40, F.R.,,No. 6, January 9, 1975.

                    84. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
                            Feasibility of Alternative Means of Coolina for Thermal Power       Plants
                            Near Lake Michigan, 1970..

                    85. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish    and Wild Life Service,,Physical
                            and Ecological Effects of Waste Heat on Lake Michiaan,     1970.

                    86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,    A Demonstration of Thermal Water
                            Utilization in A i                                                    eries,
                                             gr culture, Environmental Protection Technology S
                            April 1974.,

                    87. U.S. Environmental   Protection  Agency, "Effluent  Guidelines and Standards-.,
                            Volume 39, F.R.  196, October 8, 1974.

                  .88. U.S. Environmental    Protection  Agency, "Proceedings in the Matter of
                            Pollution of Mt. Hope,Bay and Its Tributaries", Volume 2, 19714.

                    89. Walker, William R..  and Cox, William E, "Legal Aspects of Water for'Coal
                            Gassification",  Proceedinas of the Workshop on Rsearch Needs Related
                            to Water for Energy., Water Resources Center, University of Illinois
                            at Urbana-Champaign, November 1974.

                    90.  Warner, et. al., "A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies",
                            April 1974.

                    91.  Watt, William,  Executive Assistant  in the Office of the Governor, State
                            of-Indiana,  personal communicatiou, December 31, 1974.

                    92.  Way, Douglas S., Terrain Analysis, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,       Inc.,
                            1974.

                    93.  Williams, J. S.. and Spigel, S., Socio-Economic    Impact of Estuarine
                            Thermal Pollution, 1974.

                    94.  Wisconsin, State of, Coastal Zone   Management Development Pro@ram Initial
                            Grant Application, 1974.

                                                         102

                                  COASTAL ZONE
                                   INFORMATION CENTER,

                                                   t4
                                                   X"

                                                                  36668 141025579