Power plant siting issues and policies for the Great Lakes coastal zone

[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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

pa
th

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

ENERGY FACILITIES SITING

INFORMATION PACKAGE

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- - -----------
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

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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