EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA-600/7-77-120
November 1977
ORBES PHASE I:
INTERIM FINDINGS
u.s. HIY:L.;-..,
T^n'y ~' •' ' v
Jti'J-' J-tJt-, i^ a -I i J a
L P^GILCIION AGENCY
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
EP 600/7
77-120
-------
EPA-600/7-77-120
November 1977
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
ORBES PHASE I: INTERIM FINDINGS
by
James J. Stukel and Boyd R. Keenan
University of Illinois
Grant Number R804848-01
Project Officer
Lowell Smith
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Development of our Nation's energy resources has, and will have,
massive effects on our economy, society and environment. These effects
must be identified and understood if energy development is to be under-
taken with proper concern for the interests of all parties affected. As
planner and coordinator of the 18-agency federal Interagency Energy/Environ-
ment Research and Development Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is responsible for programs that range from the analysis of health
and environmental effects of energy systems to the development of environ-
mental control technologies. A part of this interagency effort is the
Integrated Assessment Program. Its mission is two-fold: to identify and
analyze the environmental consequences of the entire range of industrial
activities connected with available and anticipated energy development
technologies, and to evaluate the environmental, socioeconomic, and
institutional effects associated with impending energy development activi-
ties. Several projects are underway to accomplish these objectives within
specific geographical regions where energy development is expected to
intensify.
Similar aims are held, in part, by a group of environmentally aware
citizens who, in the early 1970s, became concerned with plans for acceler-
ated power plant development along the Ohio River. They and other Ohio
River Basin residents sought information on the effects that energy develop-
ment could have on their environment. These effects include not only the
obvious physical ones on air, land, and water quality, as well as those on
public health, but also less easily measurable economic and social effects.
The availability of this kind of information to public and private policy-
makers and interested citizens will support knowledgeable and reasonable
decisions about the region's energy and environmental future.
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES), the first year of which
is reported here, originated from concerns of citizens within the basin.
In this spirit, the study attempts to carry out research with the maximum
degree of public input. Interaction between project researchers and
members of the public is sought as the study progresses. The objective of
this continuing feedback is to ensure that the researchers consider those
issues of greatest concern to the interested parties.
In one sense, ORBES is an experiment in communications, carried out
in various ways—a Project Advisory Committee drawn from groups expected
to be affected by regional energy development, a newsletter reaching
several thousand subscribers in the study region, a series of public
forums presenting preliminary research results, and written reports
which discuss specialized topics and broad areas of research findings—all
combined within an open study process. Written reports are one such
communication device. Communication efforts such as this one are essen-
tial to the citizen who wishes to gain a full comprehension of the conse-
quences of future energy development within the Ohio River Basin.
iii
-------
During the first year of ORBES (Phase I), relevant energy use and
environmental management alternatives were identified, and a range of
emerging policy issues was articulated. Potential solutions to some prob-
lems raised by regional energy development were put forward. During Phase II,
now in progress, in-depth analyses are being made of the issues identified
in Phase I, as well as of new issues identified as the study progresses. The
methods of communication used in Phase I are being employed as a continuing
activity to solicit perceptions of interested parties concerning the
relative importance of identifiable energy and environmental issues and of
policy options to deal with them. Comments on this report will be valuable
to the project's managers and researchers. In turn, the project's results
will provide parties-at-interest with information on the effects that
alternative energy decisions could have on the future of the Ohio River
Basin.
This report would not have been possible without the combined efforts
of the Phase I researchers. I wish to express my personal appreciation to
each of them, and especially to the authors of this report, Jim Stukel
and Boyd Keenan, as ably assisted by Stephanie Kaylin and Jenifer Robison.
They succeeded in their difficult task of integrating several thousand
pages of project reports and other materials into the short, comprehensible
document that you hold in your hand. I trust that this volume will serve
as a useful prologue to the full analysis of energy development effects with-
in the basin that will be published at the completion of the study.
Lowell Smith, Project Officer
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Office of Research and Development
IV
-------
PREFACE
This publication is an interim report that attempts to summarize the
first year of a multiuniversity activity known as the Ohio River Basin Energy
Study (ORBES). The overall study objective is to assess potential environmen-
tal, social, and economic impacts of proposed power plants and other energy
conversion facilities on a major portion of the Ohio River Basin. Funding for
the project is being provided through grants from the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) to the universities involved.
The institutions receiving grants during Phase I of ORBES were Indiana
University, the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville, the Ohio
State University, Purdue University, and the University of Illinois (both the
Chicago Circle and the Urbana-Champaign campuses). Details on the arrange-
ments through which these six universities cooperated during the initial year
of the study (1976-1977) are given in Appendix A of this volume.
Concerns of residents in the Ohio River Basin prompted Congress and EPA
to support the project. This document and the more detailed reports that
accompany it (listed in Appendix B) should be viewed as an interim progress
report to these citizens and the general public. Since the public has little
interest in specialized jargon, we have attempted to avoid technical language
except in cases where it is necessary to convey accurate meaning with respect
to possible impacts from energy developments. In the examination of techno-
logical problems, however, systematic approaches must be devised. These
approaches sometimes require use of a "shorthand" vocabulary familiar to
specialists who will judge the work.
EPA's Office of Research and Development, which administers the grants
for ORBES, contracted with the Program of Policy Studies in Science and Tech-
nology, George Washington University, to prepare a work plan for the project.
With minor modifications, this work plan determined the structure and assess-
ment approach for the first year of the study (Phase I). ORBES was cast in
the general form of a technology assessment as part of the EPA-administered
Interagency Energy/Environment Research and Development Program. A usual
practice in this mode of inquiry is to develop scenarios which assume certain
conditions and permit researchers to pursue such problems as energy develop-
ment in a "what if" context. Because so many uncertainties are always present
in assessing the future of such problem areas, a scenario should be viewed as
plausible, but yet hypothetical. This does not imply, however, that research-
ers are avoiding reality within the constraints of the selected hypothetical
future. In the first year of ORBES, the researchers selected basic high-
energy-growth and low-energy-growth scenarios previously developed at the
national level in other recent studies.
v
-------
Under the work plan, technology assessment personnel were organized into
three separate university teams for Phase I of the ORBES effort. Independent
preliminary assessments were made of possible impacts on the study region.
These assessments have been published as separate documents. Consistent with
a congressional mandate, the first-year assessments dealt with portions of
four states—Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio—in the lower Ohio River
Basin. (The ORBES study region for Phase II, which began on November 1, 1977,
and is expected to last two years, has been expanded to include virtually all
of West Virginia and the southwestern part of Pennsylvania.)
For the first year, EPA also commissioned certain university researchers
from the same six universities to produce 10 special studies. These research-
ers performed in-depth analyses in areas requiring more detailed exploration
than was possible by the preliminary assessment teams.
Thus, this interim summary report is an effort to integrate selected
findings of the ORBES Phase I report series into a relatively brief document.
It was necessary to use our own professional judgments when reconciling dif-
ferences in perspective or emphasis among the reports of the three indepen-
dent teams. In preparing the report, we have exercised prerogatives as co-
directors for the ORBES Experimental Management Plan under our own EPA grant.
When appropriate we have consulted non-ORBES findings available from other
EPA-sponsored research and from outside sources. It should be noted that
several major environmental laws were passed by Congress after most of the
Phase I analysis was completed. These pieces of legislation are the Surface
Mining Recovery and Control Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, and the
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. They will be taken into account during
ORBES Phase II.
We are indebted to all ORBES researchers for contributions which have
made it possible to complete Phase I. These researchers are listed in Appen-
dix C. In particular, the assistance of the three preliminary assessment team
leaders has been invaluable. They are Robert E. Bailey, formerly of Purdue
University and now at The Ohio State University; Hugh T. Spencer, University
of Louisville; and Ross J. Martin, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
They cannot be held responsible, however, for the contents of this summary
report, the selection of certain illustrative findings and the omission of
others, or the interpretations applied to the findings.
Not all impacts identified by ORBES researchers could be included in this
report. We encourage the reader to pursue particular interests in the reports
of the three preliminary assessments and the 10 special studies. Here we have
concentrated on a comparison between the basic low- and high-energy-growth
options as projected for the year 2000.
Early attention by the reader to the overall report format is desirable.
The first chapter summarizes Phase I findings. The ORBES study background and
the development of scenarios are then reviewed, followed by comparisons
between scenarios in four basic areas: impacts on natural resources; impacts
on developed resources; impacts on the biological and ecological environment;
and public health, economic, and social impacts.
VI
-------
It should be emphasized that this interim document is a progress report
of ORBES research to date. Even before the study was initiated, congressional
representatives indicated that one of its major purposes would be to stimulate
a new dialogue among all affected parties. They also expressed the hope that
the study would help begin a process through which the region's concerned cit-
izens would be provided information and concepts to aid them in communicating
with government agencies and public utilities. In an attempt to be responsive
to these expectations, illustrative public policy issues, framed as questions,
are included at the end of appropriate chapters in this report.
We recognize that we have not been entirely comprehensive in identifying
policy issues arising from the interim findings. We also appreciate the sin-
cerity and candor of several reviewers of this report in draft form, who have
questioned the value or propriety of including such policy issues. But for
the reasons cited, we must respectfully decline to follow their counsel to
delete the listings. In reviewing our report, the reader is encouraged to add
to these issues and to make the additions known to us. A major purpose in
cataloging such issues is to assure that they will be addressed more defini-
tively during the second phase of the project.
Another point of difference during ORBES Phase I had to do with the
assumptions implicit in the development of scenarios, particularly in areas of
health and safety as related to nuclear-fueled facilities. The continuing
debate on these facilities among respected and responsible scientific authori-
ties remains unresolved. As a consequence, some of the researchers on the
University of Kentucky-University of Louisville preliminary assessment team
expressed concern over tacit scenario assumptions in this area. A statement
of such concern by a philosophy of science professor is given below:
The most serious logical fallacy underlying the ORBES conclusions
is the "argument from ignorance." Team researchers have admitted
both that long-term health effects (for example, carcinogens from
low-level radiation) of certain energy scenarios are unknown and
that current government standards for various pollutants have not
been tested adequately, yet these very standards have been used to
evaluate various energy strategies. In thus arguing from ignorance,
researchers have inadvertently addressed what we are technologically
able to do, but neither what it is logically valid to do nor what
we ethically ought to do.
It is anticipated that in ORBES Phase II the nuclear issue will be addressed
more adequately than was possible in the Phase I assessment. The authors
recognize that there are many unresolved questions but are not in total agree-
ment with the statement quoted above. It is their intent, and one of the
purposes of the ORBES study, to be responsive to any and all viewpoints on
these subjects.
The cooperation of the EPA project officer for ORBES, Lowell Smith, is
gratefully acknowledged. He offered counsel freely, but his advice was
totally consistent with the conditions of our grant which assured indepen-
dence as university researchers. Neither he nor other EPA personnel made any
attempt to exert untoward influence in the preparation of this report.
vii
-------
Prominent among EPA staff who provided assistance were James H. Phillips of
Region V offices in Chicago, Illinois, and Walton W. Jones of Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia.
An ORBES Advisory Committee with representation from major public and
private sectors affected by energy developments was appointed early in Phase
I, and additions were made throughout the year. A list of Advisory Committee
members as of November 1, 1977, appears in Appendix D. Committee members were
invited to provide comments on the three preliminary assessments and the
special studies. A number of their responses were helpful in the development
of this integrated summary report. However, a listing of the committee ros-
ter should not be construed as endorsement of this summary or any publication
in the ORBES series by any member. Comments on the various reports were
varied, ranging from supportive to extremely critical. All committee members,
as well as university researchers, were given an opportunity to respond to a
draft of this summary. We are grateful for those comments received. Such
responses are being published separately as Volume IV of the ORBES Phase I
report series.
Research and editorial staff support for the preparation of this report
was provided most ably by Stephanie L. Kaylin, ORBES staff associate, and
A. Jenifer Robison, ORBES research associate. Ms. Kaylin was responsible for
overall coordination and worked specifically on chapters 1 through 4 and the
appendices, while Ms. Robison worked on chapters 5 and 6.
We alone are responsible for the contents of this integrated summary
report.
James J. Stukel
Boyd R. Keenan
Vlll
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface v
Figures x
Tables x
Appendices x
Appendix Figures xi
Appendix Tables xi
1. Summary 1
Natural Resources 1
Developed Resources 2
The Ecological and Biological Environment 3
Public Health, Economic, and Social Factors 5
2. ORBES Background 6
Origin of the Study 6
Project Structure 9
Phase I Boundaries 9
Scenario Development 10
3. Impacts on Natural Resources 13
Land Use 13
Hydrology and Water Use 18
Mineral Resources 20
Illustrative Policy Issues 24
4. Impacts on Developed Resources 26
Transportation 26
Industrial Production 27
Electric Utility Capital 31
Labor 32
Illustrative Policy Issues 37
5. Impacts on the Biological and Ecological Environment 39
Air Quality 39
Water Quality 54
Comparison of Air and Water Quality Impacts among Sectors. . . 64
Land Quality 65
Illustrative Policy Issues 67
6. Public Health, Economic, and Social Impacts 70
Public Health 70
Local Economy 78
Social and Institutional Factors 79
Illustrative Policy Issues 85
References 88
ix
-------
FIGURES
1 Ohio River Basic Energy Study Region, Phase 1 7
2 Direct Construction Manpower 35
3 High-density Corridors Resulting from Siting along Rivers 53
TABLES
1 Selected Estimates of Land Areas 15
2 Uranium Fuel Needs 23
3 United States Uranium Resources 23
4 Scenario Effects on National Industrial Outputs 28
5 Scenario Effects on Outputs of Major Industries, ORBES Region. ... 29
6 Scenario Effects on National Employment 33
7 Major Contributors to Air Pollution, ORBES Region 41
8 Major Contributors to Water Pollution, ORBES Region 55
9 Coal Mine Injuries and Injury Frequency Rates 72
10 Energy-related Premature Deaths 77
APPENDICES
A Study Organization 92
B ORBES Phase I Reports 96
C ORBES Phase I Personnel 98
D ORBES Phase I Advisory Committee 102
E Study Origins 1°4
F Scenario Assumptions, Siting Constraints, and
Siting Configurations
G Water Use Data 116
H Capital Investment Data 124
I Major Contributors to Air and Water Pollution 126
J Population Estimates and Projections I58
-------
APPENDIX FIGURES
A- 1 Ohio River Basin Energy Study Organization, Phase I 94
F- 1 Electrical Generating Units, ORBES Region, December 31, 1975. . Ill
F- 2 Electrical Generating Units, BOM 80/20 Scenario, 2000 112
F- 3 Electrical Generating Units, BOM 50/50 Scenario, 2000 113
F- 4 Electrical Generating Units, FTF 100 Percent Coal
Scenario, 2000. . . . „ .„....„ 114
F- 5 Electrical Generating Units, FTF 100 Percent Nuclear
Scenario, 2000. . . . „ . „ = = . . „ . 115
APPENDIX TABLES
G- 1 Water Supply in the ORBES Region 116
G- 2 Water Use in 1970, ORBES States and State Portions 117
G- 3 Projected Water Use, 1985 118
G- 4 Projected Water Use, BOM 80/20 Scenario, 2000 = . . 118
G- 5 Projected Water Use, BOM 50/50 Scenario, 2000 „ . . . 119
G- 6 Projected Water Use, FTF 100 Percent Coal Scenario, 2000. . . . 119
G- 7 Projected Water Use, FTF 100 Percent Nuclear Scenario, 2000 . . 120
G- 8 Water Consumption for Irrigation. „..„.... 0 121
G- 9 River Basin Consumption Ratios, BOM 50/50 Scenario 122
G-10 River Basin Consumption Ratios, FTF 100 Percent Coal Scenario . 123
H- 1 Financial Investment, ORBES-Region Electric Utilities 124
H- 2 Cumulative Capital Investment, Coal Mines 125
H- 3 Cumulative Capital Investment, Uranium Mines 125
I- 1 Major Contributors to Air Pollution, Illinois, ORBES Portion. . 127
I- 2 Major Contributors to Air Pollution, Indiana, ORBES Portion . . 130
I- 3 Major Contributors to Air Pollution, Kentucky 133
I- 4 Major Contributors to Air Pollution, Ohio, ORBES Portion. . . . 137
I- 5 Major Contributors to Water Pollution, Illinois, ORBES Portion. 141
I- 6 Major Contributors to Water Pollution,- Indiana, ORBES Portion . 146
I- 7 Major Contributors to Water Pollution, Kentucky 150
I- 8 Major Contributors to Water Pollution, Ohio, ORBES Portion. . . 154
J- 1 Population Estimates and Projections 158
XI
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
During Phase I of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) two basic
energy-growth options were analyzed. The objective was to make a tentative
identification of potential environmental, social, and economic impacts that
might result from varying levels of electrical energy facility development in
the study region; more definitive results are expected from the second phase
of the project. The Phase I ORBES region consisted of all of Kentucky and
substantial portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
The high-energy-growth option calls for an average annual electrical
energy growth rate of 5.4 percent between 1975 and 2000, the time span of the
study. Under the low-energy-growth option, the average annual rate is 2.8
percent. The major difference between the national forecasts from which these
two regional-level energy-growth options were adapted lies in the energy sec-
tor of the economy. The high-energy-growth option takes an essentially "busi-
ness as usual" approach, with present trends projected into the future. The
low-energy-growth option, on the other hand, assumes that energy conservation
measures will lessen demand for electrical energy, resulting in a decreased
growth rate in energy conversion facilities. This energy-growth option also
assumes, however, that there will be an increased growth rate in certain
industrial sectors sufficient to maintain gross national product at a level
comparable to that of the high-energy-growth option. Each energy-growth op-
tion was further broken down into two scenarios, each with a different "mix"
of coal-fired and nuclear-fueled energy conversion facilities.
Unless otherwise noted, the first-year findings listed below are regional
in scope and cover the study period 1975-2000.
NATURAL RESOURCES
--The amount of land expected to be converted to urban uses in the ORBES
region between 1975 and 2000 is comparable to the amount required under
the high-energy-growth option for energy extraction, processing, conver-
sion, and transmission. Under both the high- and the low-energy-growth
options, sufficient land would be available for the support of energy
conversion facilities.
—Potential land-use conflicts exist between coal mining and crop produc-
tion, particularly in Illinois, and between coal mining and forest and
recreational areas in the Appalachian portions of Kentucky and Ohio.
Other potential land-use conflicts exist between power plant sites, on
the one hand, and agricultural lands and bottomland flats and other
scenic and recreational areas along the Ohio River, on the other.
-------
—Regionwide, there would be a sufficient quantity of water to support the
energy conversion facilities associated with both the high- and the low-
energy-growth options. In some localities, however, there could be sig-
nificant water shortages under sustained low-flow conditions.
—If irrigation were to become widespread in the ORBES region in conjunc-
tion with the power plants sited under the high-energy-growth option,
water shortages could result.
--Under the high-energy-growth option and with widespread use of irriga-
tion, water use requirements could lead to navigational problems on the
Ohio and some of its tributaries under sustained low-flow conditions.
--Given the requirements of the high-energy-growth option, under low-flow
conditions the region would become extremely dependent on water flowing
into it.
—Assuming the use of wet cooling towers, in the year 2000 under the high-
energy-growth option consumptive losses of water for power could range
to more than twice the amount lost under the low-energy-growth option.
—In 1970 in the ORBES region, municipal and industrial uses of water com-
bined were approximately 13 times as great as the use of water for power-
related purposes. In 2000 under the high-energy-growth option, power-
related uses could be more than 3 times as great as municipal and indus-
trial uses combined.
--If annual coal requirements level off after the year 2000, there is a
sufficient amount of this fuel in the ORBES region to supply regional
energy conversion facilities for several hundred years.
--Sufficient limestone would be available to meet projected requirements
for new flue-gas desulfurization systems, but sufficient processed lime
might not be.
--Nationwide there likely exists sufficient uranium available at prices
higher than historic ones to supply nuclear reactors that could be built
in the ORBES region through the end of the century. Those plants that
could be built in the nation by the year 2000 also probably could be
supplied sufficient quantities of this higher cost uranium.
DEVELOPED RESOURCES
—The transport of coal and of industrial supplies and products within the
ORBES region would not overly stress the existing regional transportation
networks.
—Within the ORBES region under the high-energy-growth option in the year
2000, the industrial sectors that would experience the greatest increases
in output would be steel, structural metal products, coal mining, and
electric utilities. Nationwide under this option, the sectors that would
-------
experience the greatest increases would be industrial patterns, trans-
formers and switchgear, and electric utilities.
—Within the ORBES region under the low-energy-growth option in the year
2000, the industrial sectors that would experience the greatest increases
in output would be service industry machinery and household appliances.
Nationwide under this option, sectors that would experience the greatest
increases would be service industry machinery, household appliances,
other stone and clay products (see text), and natural gas.
—Capital investment requirements for electrical energy conversion facili-
ties would range from about $300 billion to $350 billion for the high-
energy-growth option to about $50 billion to $70 billion for the low-
energy-growth option.
--Nationwide there would be little difference in total employment between
the two energy-growth options.
--Employment by electric utilities nationwide in the year 2000 would be 29
percent greater under the high-energy-growth option than under the low-
energy-growth option.
--Nationwide under the high-energy-growth option, the industries experienc-
ing the greatest increases in employment relative to the low-energy-
growth option would be general industrial machinery, coal mining, and
electric utilities. Under the low-energy-growth option, the largest
relative increases would occur in service industry machinery; natural
gas, water, and sewer services; and household appliances.
—Under one of the high-energy-growth scenarios within the ORBES region,
the number of coal-mining workers would increase by approximately two-
thirds between 1975 and 2000.
—The high-energy-growth option would require a percentage increase in
regional labor supply considerably above national historic averages for
the construction and operation of energy-related facilities.
—Between 1986 and 2000, labor requirements for the high-energy-growth op-
tion would nearly equal or exceed projected increases in the total number
of new workers in the region.
THE ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
--Net regional primary particulate emissions in the year 2000 would
decrease approximately 58 percent relative to 1972 emissions under both
the low- and high-energy-growth options if all state implementation plans
(SIPs) and new source performance standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air
Act are met.
—Net regional sulfur oxide emissions in the year 2000 under the high-
energy-growth option would increase approximately 7 percent relative to
1972 emissions if all SIP and NSPS standards are met. Under the
-------
low-energy-growth option, a decrease of about 1 percent would be expected.
This relatively small difference between scenarios is explained by the
increased non-energy-conversion industrial activity under the low-energy-
growth option.
-Under the low-energy-growth option in the year 2000, regional emissions
of sulfur dioxide from the industrial sector would constitute about 35
percent of total emissions of this pollutant (about 50 percent more than
emissions from any other sector). To achieve a greater reduction in
regional ambient sulfur dioxide concentrations, new control strategies
for industrial sources would be required.
-Net regional nitrogen oxide emissions in the year 2000 would increase
approximately 90 percent relative to 1972 levels under the high-energy-
growth option. Under the low-energy-growth option, the increase would be
approximately 68 percent. The increase under both energy-growth options
would be accounted for primarily by increased emissions from new coal-
fired power plants. Under both options, increased emissions from commer-
cial truck traffic would be significant. Also of importance under the
low-energy-growth option would be increases from non-energy-conversion
industrial activity.
-Net regional hydrocarbon emissions in the year 2000 would decrease
approximately 40 percent and 60 percent relative to 1972 levels under the
high-and low-energy-growth options, respectively.
-Levels of secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere from sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide have not been quantified, but under both
energy-growth options would be expected to increase in concentration.
This would reduce visibility and increase haziness. Acid rainfall would
be increased in downwind locations.
-Regional and subregional wind corridors exist where, with a build-up of
high-emission sources along these corridors, ambient concentration levels
for particulate and sulfur oxide emissions might exceed current air
quality standards.
-Regional oxygen demand from wastes discharged into the water (BOD and
COD) in the year 2000 would be reduced approximately 50 percent relative
to 1972 levels under both the high- and low-energy-growth options.
-Under both energy-growth options in the year 2000, total suspended solids
discharged from point sources into the waterways of the region would be
reduced approximately 98 percent relative to 1972 levels.
-Under the high- and low-energy-growth options, respectively, total dis-
solved solids discharged from point sources into the waterways of the
region in the year 2000 would increase approximately 85 percent and 80
percent relative to 1972 levels. One reason for these rises would be the
increases in coal mining projected under the ORBES scenarios.
-------
—If nonpoint sources of water pollution were taken into account, concen-
trations of both total suspended and total dissolved solids could be
noticeably higher than projected under both energy-growth options.
PUBLIC HEALTH, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL FACTORS
—Large uncertainties exist as to the number of deaths attributable to the
coal fuel cycle versus the nuclear fuel cycle for a given amount of elec-
tricity produced. However, most experts agree that under normal condi-
tions, the coal fuel cycle is responsible for more premature deaths than
is the nuclear fuel cycle.
—Under the high-energy-growth option, the expected number of premature
deaths from the coal and nuclear fuel cycles would be more than double
the number expected under the low-energy-growth option.
--Current state- and county-level population projections made by various
agencies in the ORBES region are contradictory.
--Few locations in the ORBES region have the potential for "boomtown" con-
ditions because of the relatively uniform population density of the
region.
—During the development of energy-related facilities, communities with
insufficient infrastructures tend to experience social problems. Usually
these are small communities in isolated rural areas. Because of problems
arising during construction, such communities are slow to reap benefits
from the operations phase of facilities.
—Local acceptance of power plant construction varies with actual or antic-
ipated economic benefits to the community. Lack of actual or perceived
economic benefits leads to lowered acceptance or increased opposition.
—Regional problems exist in managing energy development and related envi-
ronmental concerns for which no institutional solutions are currently
available.
-------
CHAPTER 2
ORBES BACKGROUND
ORIGIN OF THE STUDY
The 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo and subsequent increases in fuel prices
were unprecedented events in the United States. Now, four years later, uncer-
tainty remains as Congress debates President Carter's proposals to handle our
energy problems. It is inevitable that some regions of the country will be
affected dramatically, regardless of the specifics of any national energy pol-
icy that might be adopted.
Such a region is that portion of the United States known generally as the
Ohio River Valley. The drainage basin of the Ohio River and its tributaries
is an area over 200,000 square miles in size, encompassing portions of 14
states. The river itself flows in a generally southwesterly direction for 981
miles from its beginning at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela
rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo, Illinois, where it empties into
the Mississippi.
Interest in the effects of energy development is growing throughout the
Ohio River Basin, but within a few months of oil embargo termination in 1974 a
variety of social forces focused attention on a section of the basin including
portions of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Concern in these four
states led a unit of the Congress to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to conduct a study of the potential environmental, social, and
economic impacts of the possible concentration of energy conversion facilities
in the area. That unit—the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate—
particularly requested EPA to consider the potential impacts of coal develop-
ments on what the committee called the "lower Ohio River Basin."
Committee intent was interpreted as a study of that portion of the Ohio
River main stem and tributaries depicted in Figure 1. This interpretation was
based on the committee's use of the term "lower Ohio River Basin" and on its
naming of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio in its request to EPA. Actu-
ally, in hydrological terms, the "lower" basin extends south into Tennessee,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. Other portions
of the middle and upper basin include parts of West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York.
In response to the congressional directive, in late summer 1976 EPA
awarded a number of one-year grants to researchers at six universities on
seven campuses to undertake specific tasks for a preliminary assessment of
-------
Aton-ORBES
Region
FIGURE 1. OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
-------
energy development impacts in the region cited. The overall project was enti-
tled the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES). This report, ORBES Phase I:
Interim Findings, summarizes major conclusions of these various first-year
studies.
When grc •s were made to the six universities, EPA announced that they
represented tii_ first step in a proposed three-year study of possible energy
impacts in the region. In Phase II, expected to last two years, the study
boundaries have been extended to include most of West Virginia and southwest-
ern Pennsylvania. See Figure 1 for the boundaries of ORBES Phase I, covering
about 152,000 square miles.
Critical to an understanding of both this summary report and the broader
study of ORBES Phase II are the social and political dynamics that initially
focused attention on a particular 100-mile reach of the river, stretching from
Louisville, Kentucky, northward and eastward to and beyond Cincinnati, Ohio.
By the fall of 1974, a few months after embargo termination, area citizens be-
gan expressing concern over public utility proposals to locate coal-fired
power plants on this stretch of the river bordering Indiana, Kentucky, and
Ohio. Announcement a few months later by an Indiana public utility that it
was planning a nuclear plant on the river between Louisville and Cincinnati
intensified citizens' concerns.
To the utility planners themselves and to related industries (for exam-
ple, coal interests) these plans seemed consistent with emerging national
energy policies and compatible with economic and environmental constraints.
These interests pointed to several conditions, among them the relatively low
natural gas and petroleum prices, coupled with the Clean Air Act of 1970 and
the accompanying environmental movement, that had forced utilities to shift in
many cases from coal to oil and natural gas in operating their boilers. How-
ever, the embargo and fuel price structures were impelling the nation to re-
consider the desirability of coal as a basic utility fuel. If coal were to be
heavily used once again, existing federal and state regulations to clean up
dirty air regions still would inhibit its use in plants in or near urban cen-
ters served by the utilities. Both coal-fired and nuclear-fueled plants re-
quire large amounts of land, and the 100-mile Ohio River reach described above
contains long rural stretches remote from major population centers. River
sites for the plants would be advantageous in that large amounts of water
would be required for both cooling and processing. In addition, river trans-
portation of both coal and plant equipment, in some cases in combination with
existing rail lines, could be economical for utilities and related industries.
Finally, the coalfields of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and West Vir-
ginia are within easy reach of this portion of the river.
Citizens who opposed the utility proposals, on the other hand, pointed
out that the proposed plants need not necessarily be sited near major bodies
of water. Among the other points they made was that much of the power ex-
pected to be produced by the plants would be transmitted far from the immedi-
ate area.
A brief history of the origins of the study against this backdrop is
given in Appendix E.
8
-------
In an effort to identify the implications of locating future energy con-
version facilities in the "lower" basin, in 1975 the Senate Appropriations
Committee directed EPA to perform a specific study:
The Committee is aware of plans in various stages of develop-
ment which could lead to a concentration of power plants along the
Ohio River in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Although the
environmental impact of such a concentration could be critical, the
decision-making authority regarding construction of these facilities
is dispersed throughout the Federal government and several state
governments.
The Committee directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
conduct. . . an assessment of the potential environmental, social,
and economic impacts of the proposed concentration of power plants
in the lower Ohio River Basin. This study should be comprehensive
in scope, investigating the impacts from air, water, and solid
residues on the natural environment and residents of the region.
The study should also take into account the availability of coal and
other energy sources in this region (1).
PROJECT STRUCTURE
To carry out the congressional mandate, EPA designed the first year of
the Ohio River Basin Energy Study in the framework of four research tasks.
Boundary determination and development of comprehensive scenarios for energy
development in the four-state ORBES region were the responsibility of the Task
1 team. These scenarios were analyzed by three preliminary assessment teams
(Task 2), composed of researchers from (1) Indiana University, The Ohio State
University, and Purdue University, (2) the University of Kentucky and the Uni-
versity of Louisville, and (3) the Chicago Circle and Urbana-Champaign cam-
puses of the University of Illinois. Task 2 findings were integrated and
summarized in the present report (Task 3). This report also draws upon find-
ings from ten special studies in areas requiring more detailed investigation
than possible under Task 2 (Task 4).
PHASE I BOUNDARIES
An initial challenge facing Phase I researchers was determination of the
precise boundaries of the "lower" Ohio River Basin consistent with the con-
gressional mandate. As already noted, energy conversion developments in the
four states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio were mentioned in the
directive from Congress, but no specific boundaries were included.
In cooperation with EPA officials, the Task 1 group interpreted the man-
date as requesting an assessment tied to the Eastern Interior Coal Province,
approximately located in western and southern Illinois, southern Indiana, and
western Kentucky. The relationship of this region to the concentrated pattern
of proposed power plant construction along some stretches of the lower Ohio
was viewed by EPA and the re'searchers as the principal focus of the initial
year of ORBES. Major factors behind the overall boundary determination deci-
sion were:
-------
—Congressional intent. Congress intended the study to focus on the lower
portions of the Ohio River Basin and specifically mentioned the states of
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.
—EPA counsel. EPA informed ORBES researchers that the entire state of
West Virginia and a large portion of Pennsylvania were to be included in a
separate regional energy development study soon to be funded by the agency.
Since that study would focus on the Appalachian region (particularly Appala-
chian coal resources), it was decided that ORBES Phase I exclude these areas.
—Relevance of Illinois coal production. Following the congressional di-
rective, the study format was designed to "take into account the availability
of coal and other energy sources in the region." Therefore, the boundaries
were extended beyond the Ohio River Basin to include most of the Eastern Inte-
rior Coal Province.
Thus, as already noted, the ORBES study region was defined to include
about 152,000 square miles, some of which is coal-laden land outside the
drainage basin. Also, for the reasons given, certain critical areas techni-
cally in the basin—notably most of the Tennessee River sub-basin—were
excluded.
SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
Technology assessments are conducted to delineate selected impacts asso-
ciated with future events. In the case of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study,
the impacts of interest are the possible environmental, economic, and social
changes that might result from future levels of energy consumption and energy
conversion facility development in the study region between the base year,
1975, and the year 2000. Such an assessment requires the projection of future
energy demand, supply, and associated conversion facilities in the region.
Because a single set of estimates like these may be quite different from the
actual future, several plausible alternative levels of energy demand and sup-
ply must be studied. In general, these alternative levels, referred to as
scenarios, are distinguished by possible future policies and the degree of
implementation of these policies.
One way in which regional-level scenarios can be constructed is by taking
already-developed national scenarios and adapting them to the particular
region under study. In ORBES Phase I, two existing national scenarios were
scaled down to the regional level. As described below, further adjustments
were made to the two basic scenarios so that the gross national products
(GNPs) projected under them were comparable. The scenarios also were adjusted
to investigate the implications of alternative "mixes" of types of energy con-
version facilities in the region.
One of the two basic scenarios employed depicts a relatively high rate of
energy growth; the other, a relatively low rate. The high-energy growth op-
tion was based on 1975 U.S. Bureau of Mines forecasts (2), which take an
essentially "business as usual" approach, with present trends projected into
the future. The low-energy-growth option was drawn from the Technical Fix
scenario in the Ford Foundation study entitled A Time to Choose: America's
10
-------
Energy Future (3).1 The major difference between these two basic options lies
in the energy sector of the economy. The Technical Fix scenario assumes the
widespread use of energy conservation measures and thus a decreased growth
rate in energy conversion facilities, but it also assumes an increased growth
rate in certain industrial sectors (such as service industries and household
appliances).
To allow comparison between the BOM and FTP scenarios in the ORBES analy-
sis, the methodology and logic of the much more complete Ford Foundation
report were applied to the initial conditions stated in the Bureau of Mines
report. The result was GNPs projected for the year 2000 that were comparable
between the two basic scenarios. In the ORBES adaptation of the BOM and FTF
scenarios, the gross national products projected for 2000 differ only to the
extent that differences in the demand for energy between the two basic scenar-
ios lead to differences in the mixture of goods and services necessary to sup-
ply this demand. It is of interest that the unadjusted GNP used in the
national FTF scenario was approximately 10 percent greater than that projected
in the national BOM scenario. For both scenarios in the ORBES analysis, only
parameters specified for the year 2000 were incorporated; by design, projec-
tions for intermediate years will not be in agreement with those of either
national study if they are scaled down to the ORBES region (4).
The two basic scenarios were each broken down for purposes of ORBES into
two mixes of types of energy conversion facilities. Thus actually four dis-
tinct scenarios were analyzed: two from the high-energy-growth Bureau of
Mines forecasts and two from the low-energy-growth Ford Technical Fix projec-
tions. Because the major difference between the two basic scenarios is in
electrical generation and supporting industries, electrical energy conversion
facilities were emphasized during the first year of ORBES.
Both high-energy-growth scenarios, adapted from the BOM projections,
assume a 5.4 percent annual electrical energy growth rate between 1975 and
2000. Although the BOM projections for the year 2000 were preserved, as noted
above, project researchers made some modifications in the rate at which power
plants would be brought on-line in the ORBES region to supply this energy.
The schedule for plant additions between 1975 and 1985 was assumed to be iden-
tical to the schedule announced by the utilities for the study region during
this time span; this schedule is the same for both high-energy-growth
scenarios.
From 1986 through 2000, plant additions and replacements would be suffi-
cient to meet the region's needs as projected by BOM, but with different fuel
mixes for the two high-energy-growth scenarios. In the first BOM scenario,
the mix was set at 80 percent coal and 20 percent nuclear for those facilities
It should be noted that the Historical Growth scenario, also examined
in the Ford Foundation study, differs in important respects from the Bureau
of Mines scenario adapted for ORBES. For example, while the Bureau of Mines
scenario assumes major reductions in the use of natural gas, the Historical
Growth scenario assumes continued reliance on this energy source through the
year 2000.
11
-------
assumed to be built in the region between 1986 and 2000—a total of 131 coal-
fired units and 28 nuclear-fueled units. In the second BOM scenario, the fuel
mix was 50 percent coal and 50 percent nuclear during this period; 80 coal-
fired units and 79 nuclear-fueled units were projected. All new facilities
were assumed to consist of 1000 megawatts electric (MWe) units.
The two low-energy-growth scenarios, based on FTF projections, call for a
3.3 percent and 2.43 percent annual growth in electrical energy for the peri-
ods 1975-1985 and 1986-2000, respectively. A comparison of the capacity of
the utility-announced additions for the year 1985 and the FTF projections for
the year 2000 reveals that 1985 announced capacities constitute 93 percent of
the FTF projections for 2000. Thus under the low-energy-growth scenarios only
6200 additional megawatts electric of installed capacity would be required to
meet demand in 2000 and to replace existing plants that are scheduled to be
retired.
In the ORBES scenarios, the plant schedule announced by the utilities was
altered to be compatible with the FTF projections. One FTF scenario assumes
that all additions or replacements necessary to meet projections for the year
2000 will be coal fired; 27 units of 600 MWe each were projected for the study
region. The second FTF scenario assumes that these additions or replacements
will be nuclear fueled—a total of 16 units of 1000 MWe each.2 See Appendix F
for a list of assumptions behind the ORBES scenarios, constraints on siting
the hypothetical energy conversion facilities, and maps showing siting config-
urations.
The differences among scenarios in the number of electrical generating
facilities projected are quite significant, ranging from a total of 159 units
in the BOM 80 percent coal/20 percent nuclear scenario to 16 units in the FTF
100 percent nuclear scenario. Local differences between the two high-energy-
growth scenarios also could be significant in considering relative impacts of
coal-fired and nuclear-fueled installations, but differences between the two
low-energy-growth scenarios would be slight. By analyzing the implications of
the very different, though plausible, futures portrayed by the BOM and FTF
scenarios, it is possible to contrast the variety of consequences and impacts
that a range of futures might have upon the ORBES region.
Subsequently the ORBES analysis found that in certain areas few differ-
ences emerged by contrasting impacts either between the two FTF scenarios or
between the two BOM scenarios. In this report, comparisons of the two basic
energy-growth options are really comparisons of the BOM 80 percent coal/20
percent nuclear scenario and the FTF 100 percent coal scenario (4). In such
cases, the high-energy-growth option is sometimes referred to as the high-
energy-growth scenarios or the BOM scenarios, even though only one BOM sce-
nario was actually analyzed. Similarly, the low-energy-growth option is
sometimes referred to as the low-energy-growth scenarios or the FTF scenarios,
12
-------
CHAPTER 3
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
The Ohio River Basin is rich in natural resources and is part of the
great midwestern land mass making up the heartland of America. Feeding upon
an abundance of coal and water, the upper basin is dominated by heavy and
medium industry, especially steel and chemicals. The lower basin contains
some of the richest and most productive agricultural land in the world. One-
third of the nation's corn and soybeans is grown in the ORBES region; about 30
percent of the nation's deposits of bituminous coal underlies some of that
same land. Binding this natural abundance together are the Ohio River and its
tributaries—a source of water for the many competing regional needs for this
resource as well as a national transportation route linking the eastern United
States to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and to the rest of the world.
The following discussion, dealing with land, water, and mineral use in
the ORBES region, attempts to assess the direct impacts on these resources to
the year 2000 under the differing assumptions of the scenarios. (Land and
water quality are considered in Chapter 4.) Policy issues raised by these
potential impacts are listed at the end of the chapter.
LAND USE
In any energy-growth scenario, the basic problem in land use is the con-
flict between commitments of land to energy and commitments to other present
or potential uses. In the ORBES region, this conflict is dramatic, since it
tends to be between food and energy. Recently food shortages have become rec-
ognized as a growing global problem, as has the finiteness of world energy
resources. The "rediscovery" of coal as a prime energy source also is recent.
Little precedent exists for resolving effectively, with deference to future
generations, these fundamental and conflicting problems. Although strict land
reclamation laws have begun to emerge in the ORBES-region states and at the
federal level, the amount of time and capital necessary for full reclamation
is not clear.1 Indeed, reclamation technology is neither well developed nor
well understood.
Coal extraction, conversion, and transmission are only one competitor for
land use. Agricultural land is taken out of production for a wide variety of
other reasons, including urban growth, suburbanization, industrialization, and
commercialization, as well as meeting public demand for open space and recre-
See Reference 5 for citations to land reclamation laws in Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.
13
-------
ational areas. The increase in these land-use functions would be greater and
more permanent than coal-related activities. The aggregate of these pres-
sures, plus suspected and known environmental impacts upon land productivity,
is cause for concern.
The methods used to obtain quantitative estimates of the land required
for each energy-related use vary considerably. However, when both quantita-
tive and qualitative aspects are evaluated, the impacts, in descending order
of severity, can be ranked as extraction, conversion, electrical transmission,
waste disposal, processing, and transportation (excluding electrical trans-
mission lines).
Extraction
Coal underlies approximately half of the ORBES region. This coal is of
two major types, that located in the Eastern Interior Coal Province and that
in the Appalachian portion of the region. The land area affected by coal
mining in the region under the scenarios will differ by many factors. The
estimates given below are for the region as a whole, not by production area.
Estimates of the land area affected by surface extraction of coal can
vary widely depending on the assumptions used in making calculations. Land
involved in surface mining is heavily impacted, but in most cases it can be
returned to some productive use. Under the scenarios, the amount of ORBES-
region land affected between 1976 and 2000 is estimated to range from 258
square miles for the Bureau of Mines 80 percent coal/20 percent nuclear
scenario to 140 square miles for the Ford Technical Fix 100 percent nuclear
scenario (6) (see Table 1).
Because of the greater amount of electrical power generated under them,
the high-energy-growth (Bureau of Mines) scenarios would have more severe
land-use impacts than the low-energy-growth (Ford Technical Fix) scenarios in
the 152,000 square miles making up the ORBES region. Between 1976 and 2000
under the high-coal BOM scenario, about 2700 square miles would have been
devoted permanently or temporarily to energy activities. Because of the lower
extraction efficiency for deep mines, much greater land areas would be sub-
jected to underground than to surface mining, ranging from about 1400 square
miles under the BOM 80/20 scenario to about 800 square miles under the FTF 100
percent nuclear scenario.
Subsidence (settling of the surface due to the collapse of abandoned
mines) is a potential major problem. Historic experience indicates that only
a small portion (perhaps 5 to 10 percent) of the area potentially subject to
subsidence will actually subside within 100 years after mining activity.
Thus, most of the land surface potentially affected by underground mining
under the scenarios would show little disturbance in the time span covered.
In most instances, the surface damage from subsidence (for example, damage to
agricultural tile drainage) can be repaired readily, and the land returned to
its previous use, at some expense to the landowner. Assuming enforcement of
current reclamation regulations, only a very small portion of the land
affected by coal extraction would be unavailable for productive use at any
given time.
14
-------
TABLE 1. SELECTED ESTIMATES OF LAND AREAS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO
IMPACTS, ORBES REGION, BY SCENARIO, 1976-2000
(in square miles)
Function BOM 80/20 BOM 50/50 FTP 100%
coal
FTF 100%
nuclear
Coal extraction
and processing 1668 1466 1034 968
surface 258 188 145 140
deep 1410* 1278* 889* 828*
Conversion 339 368 70 80
coal 261 178 55 32
nuclear 78 190 15 48
Electrical
transmission 717 . 717 177 177
Total 2724 2551 1281 1225
*
Includes all surface area involved in underground and aboveground
operation.
NOTE: Assumptions behind the figures in this table are found in
Reference 6.
The use of reclaimed land might be the same as that before the land was
mined. However, it would take many years for farmland, for example, to be
returned to a reasonable level of productivity, which probably would not
approach previous levels. The amount of time and money required for reclama-
tion is a function both of the quality to be achieved and of the particular
land characteristics. There can be a vast difference, of course, between the
simple reclaiming of land (which may involve only leveling) and restoration
(a return to former use and productivity).
Conversion
Substantial amounts of land also would be affected by energy conversion
facilities. Such land is acquired by utility companies either by negotia-
tions with individual landowners or by the use of eminent domain. In addi-
tion to direct electrical generation, the conversion function includes land
required for cooling, fuel storage, and on-site waste disposal. Almost all
the land area on a fossil-fueled power plant site is utilized by the various
steps in the operation of the plant, while only about 25 percent of the land
15
-------
or. a nuclear-fueled power plant site is so used. The remaining 75 percent
constitutes a safety zone to protect the public from exposure to radiation.
Estimates of the land area required through the year 2000 for conversion
facilities under the BOM scenarios are about 340 square miles for the BOM
80/20 and about 370 square miles for the BOM 50/50, respectively. Under the
FTP scenarios, estimates are 70 square miles (FTF 100 percent coal) and 80
square miles (FTF 100 percent nuclear).
Electrical Transmission
New transmission lines and storage would require about half the area (717
square miles) of that required for mining under either BOM scenario. About
one-fifth the land area (177 square miles) of that required by mining would be
needed for transmission under either FTF scenario. Where these lines cross
prime agricultural land, however, approximately 80 to 95 percent of the land
initially affected can be returned to productive use within a year. Approxi-
mately 5 to 20 percent of the initially impacted land would be dedicated for
the foreseeable future to substations, access roads, and support towers. In
forested areas, permanent land-use change would result from the presence of
all transmission rights-of-way.
Waste Disposal
Coal-conversion facilities, particularly plants using lime or limestone
scrubbers, generate large volumes of waste that generally are stored on site.
This land requirement (about 2400 acre-feet to store the fly-ash and scrubber
sludge produced by a 1000 MWe plant over a 30-year life (7)) was included in
calculating land devoted to the conversion function under the four scenarios.
Coal mining and processing also generate large amounts of waste that are dis-
posed of on site or, in mountainous terrain, on adjacent slopes. These im-
pacts are reversible to the extent that the land can be reclaimed and returned
to its previous use or diverted to some other use.
The nuclear fuel cycle produces hazardous wastes that probably would be
concentrated on site and at regional waste-disposal sites. The ORBES region
contains two low-level waste-disposal sites and is a possible location for a
high-level waste repository. Although estimates vary as to the amount of land
required for nuclear waste disposal, such disposal requires more land than the
amount of waste would seem to indicate. This can be traced to the need for
buffer zones and the fact that a suitable universal waste-disposal method has
not been developed. Land devoted to nuclear waste disposal would be lost
irreversibly to other productive uses.
Processing
A high proportion of coal is cleaned near the mine, or at least in the
state where it is mined. The refuse accumulating from the cleaning stations
creates some of the most toxic areas produced by the coal industry. Under the
BOM high-coal scenario about twice as much land would be affected as under
either FTF scenario. Under any scenario, however, land requirements for pro-
cessing would be only about one-seventieth of those for mining.
16
-------
Transportation
Additional land required for transportation support of energy-related
functions under the scenarios would be negligible. Existing transportation
rights-of-way could accommodate road widening, or double tracking in the case
of railroads, without significantly disturbing additional land. Coal slurry
pipelines, natural gas and oil pipelines, and barge terminals for the trans-
shipment of coal would require small amounts of additional land.
Utilization
The scenarios would require extensive amounts of land to accommodate the
energy-consuming activities such as industry that would be associated with
economic growth. The land required to support such activities probably would
be as great or greater than that dedicated to energy production.
An approximation of the amount of land potentially involved can be
obtained by apportioning the national historic urban-conversion rate to the
OKBES region by population ratio and linearly extrapolating to the year 2000.
The amount of land converted to urban uses in the region between 1976 and 2000
would be about 2000 square miles. This is comparable to the total of approxi-
mately 2800 square miles that would be utilized under the BOM high-coal sce-
nario for energy-related activities (6). This figure, however, does not take
into account either regional differences in population and economic growth or
changes and differences in standard of living.
Land-Use Conflicts
Much of the OKBES region lies within zones of unique climate and soils
particularly suitable to the production of corn, soybeans, and tobacco. The
major impact of land-use changes probably would be on land currently used for
these and other agricultural purposes, including privately owned forest land.
Comparison of the location of coal reserves, crop land, and forest clearly
demonstrates the potential conflict between coal development and agriculture
in the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and western Kentucky portion of the OKBES
region and between coal development and forestry in the Appalachian portion.
In addition to this possible food-energy conflict, another potentially
serious conflict is energy development and its concomitant economic activity,
on the one hand, and preservation of historical and archaeological sites, on
the other. This conflict has already been illustrated in the OKBES region,
where remnants of both American Indian culture and of nineteenth-century
industrial development are found. Under the National Historic Preservation
Act, the plant-siting process must take these factors into account. It should
be recognized, however, that in most cases under this law, historic and ar-
chaeological sites only must be studied, not necessarily preserved.
An additional potentially serious land-use conflict is that between ener-
gy development and the many scenic, natural, and recreational areas in the
OKBES region, especially along the Ohio River and its tributaries. For exam-
ple, the river bottomlands of western Kentucky and southern Illinois are hab-
itats for plant and animal species today found nowhere else in the region (8).
17
-------
HYDROLOGY AND WATER USE
There are two major hydrological and water use impacts of energy produc-
tion: changes in the distribution and rate of flow due to mining and reduc-
tions of flow due to consumption.
Hydrology
Surface mining has a major impact on local water flow, especially during
storms. Water diversion structures often intercept overland flow and speed
its deliverance to surface water courses. Detention ponds for sediment con-
trol have the opposite effect: overland flows and small-stream flows are
collected and retained, while sediment falls from suspension. Underground
drains for ground-water interception do not modify the hydrological system as
much as do diversion structures and sediment ponds.
Deep mining and associated reclamation efforts to prevent acid mine
drainage may affect local surface flows to a varying extent, depending on the
local ground-surface-water relationships. Water-removal operations during
mining frequently increase the base flows of streams; large volumes discharged
into small streams may change their character and storm-carrying capacity.
Water Use
A major conclusion of the ORBES research on water use, described in
detail below, is that under the high-energy-growth scenarios, consumptive
losses of water would be extremely high for many Ohio River tributaries and
moderately high for the Ohio itself. Consumptive losses are of primary impor-
tance because they are not returned to streams and thus are lost for other
off-stream uses or for maintaining stream flows and water quality. During
low-flow conditions, some stream flows would be decreased significantly under
both high-energy-growth scenarios. Under the low-energy-growth scenarios this
impact would be much less severe. Extensive development of irrigation, how-
ever, would compound impacts under both energy-growth options.
Water Use Estimates. Based on the projected growth in energy facilities
between 1970 and 1985 (essentially the same for all four ORBES scenarios) ,
water consumption estimates would increase sharply, from 1000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in 1970 to 3000 cfs in 1985 for the region as a whole. The major
reason for this tripling of water consumption is the assumption that evapora-
tive ("wet") cooling towers would be employed by all plants—even existing
ones, which would be retrofitted or ultimately replaced. In 1970, municipal-
ities and industries accounted for approximately 90 percent of total consump-
tion, but in 1985, they are estimated to account for only 37 percent. The
remaining 63 percent would be for power-related consumption. This does not
take the role of irrigation into consideration. Total water withdrawal in the
region is estimated to decrease' from 60,000 cfs in 1970 to 14,000 cfs in 1985,
due to the assumed elimination of once-through methods of cooling by power
plants (9). See Appendix G for tabular summaries of these and other data on
water use.
18
-------
In the year 2000 under the BOM scenarios, power-related water consumption
could be as much as 75 percent of total projected consumption. Either high-
energy-growth scenario would require more than 6000 cfs; either low-energy-
growth scenario, more than 3500 cfs. The difference between the BOM 80/20 and
the BOM 50/50 scenarios is relatively small: the total water consumption
estimate for the latter is approximately 7 percent greater because nuclear
plants require more water for cooling. The estimate for the FTP 100 percent
nuclear scenario is only 3 percent greater than for the FTF 100 percent coal
scenario (9) .
Under the scenario calling for the most water use, the BOM 50/50, incre-
mental water consumption would be about 14 percent of the 7-day 10-year low
flow of the Ohio River; it is significant in regard to both water quality and
navigation of the waterways. At the other extreme, under the FTF 100 percent
coal scenario, incremental consumption would be about 6 percent of the Ohio's
7-day 10-year low flow.
When the total consumption estimates for the BOM 50/50 scenario are
compared to the estimated low-flow runoff from within the ORBES region, how-
ever, the figures become much larger. (Low-flow runoff represents the water
flow added to river basins by rainfall on the basin by the watershed of the
region, but it does not include the flow brought into the region by streams.)
Under the BOM 50/50, the overall comparison of consumption to runoff for the
ORBES region would be 87 percent. Of the four ORBES-region states, the max-
imum figure, 115 percent, would occur in Ohio. These figures highlight the
extent to which flow in the Ohio River and its tributaries depends on inflows
from outside ORBES-region boundaries. Estimates for Illinois, for example,
indicate that incremental consumption would be only 3 percent of the total
flow but 87 percent of the runoff from within the state. This striking dif-
ference would result from the very large flow in the Mississippi River.
Future development in adjacent regions, however, could lead to competition for
water resources. In particular, there is a large potential for irrigation in
the Missouri Basin, which drains into the Mississippi River. Similar condi-
tions hold for Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. If this competition becomes
severe, navigational problems could arise under low-flow conditions, espe-
cially on the tributaries. (Effects in such areas as fishery resources and
recreation also might be felt, but these effects could not be analyzed during
ORBES Phase I.) The dependence on inflow would be much less under the FTF 100
percent coal scenario; total consumption estimates would be 40 percent of run-
off, with correspondingly lower estimates for the individual states (9).
Potential Role of Irrigation. At present, there is little irrigation in the
ORBES region, and thus it was not considered in the discussion of water con-
sumption above. Many questions surround its development in the region.
Recently, however, the possibility of supplemental irrigation during drought
periods has been receiving increasing attention.
Incremental consumption is the difference between consumptive water
losses and available surface-water supplies during low-flow conditions.
19
-------
Water consumption estimates for irrigation in the year 2000 were calcu-
lated for low, moderate, and high levels of irrigation in the region. The low
estimate is based on data for irrigated acreage in recent periods and assumes
no additional development; 500 cfs would be required for 93,000 irrigated
acres. The moderate and high estimates correspond to significant expansions
of irrigated acreage: 2100 cfs would be required for 390,000 irrigated acres;
3800 cfs, for 710,000 irrigated acres (9).
These consumptions estimates indicate that irrigation development could
entail significant levels of water consumption relative to the total consump-
tion estimates for municipal, industrial, and power-related uses under the
two extreme ORBES scenarios. Under severe drought conditions, irrigation
demands could become equal to the water requirements of BOM and greater than
the requirements of FTP. These irrigation demands would be met from some com-
bination of ground- and surface-water sources. Depending on the extent to
which surface water is used, the impact (in conjunction with that of the other
uses) on the 7-day 10-year low flow could be significant.
Effects of Water Consumption on the Major River Basins. A convenient way to
quantify the impact of water consumption on a river is to use the consumption
ratio. This ratio is defined as the ratio of cumulative water consumption to
the 7-day 10-year low flow.3 The impact of consumption is defined arbitrarily
as light, moderate, or heavy if the average consumption ratio is 5 percent or
less, between 5 and 25 percent, or over 25 percent, respectively. Due to
incoming tributaries and changing use, the ratio changes along different
reaches of a river. The ratio also can be useful in determining the effect on
depth of navigational channels.
Consumption ratios for different reaches of ORBES-region rivers were
calculated for each scenario. Existing plants were not considered in this
analysis, but rather only those plants projected under the scenarios. Under
the high-consumption BOM scenario, heavy impacts would result for the Scioto,
Great Miami, Kentucky, Salt, Saline, Kaskaskia, Big Muddy, and Illinois
rivers. For the Ohio River itself, a moderate impact would result—an average
consumption ratio of 10 percent for all reaches. In contrast, under the
extreme FTF scenario the impact on the Ohio River would be light—a consump-
tion ratio of only 2 percent. Most of the other impacts calculated under this
scenario also would be light or moderate (9).
MINERAL RESOURCES
Under both the high- and low-energy-growth options, the use of coal, lime
and limestone, and uranium to supply electrical generating plants would have
major effects on mineral resources. The scenarios assume that flue-gas desul-
furization systems are installed and work efficiently; this could also mean
3In 1930, the flow was well below the 7-day 10-year low flows of recent
history. For example, for 143 consecutive days during that year near Louis-
ville, Kentucky, at the McAlpine Dam, the flow was well below the usual flow
of about 15,000 cfs.
20
-------
major impacts on the lime industry and moderate impacts on the limestone
industry. The greatest effects would occur under the BOM scenarios, since
they call for the greatest increase in installed electrical capacity. At the
local level, shortages of construction materials would be expected under all
four scenarios. These potential impacts are discussed in the following
subsections.
Coal
The ORBES region, which includes the large Eastern Interior Coal Prov-
ince, has abundant coal reserves, estimated at about 30 percent of total
national reserves. This coal represents a major energy source, but the major-
ity of it has a high sulfur content. The bulk of the low-sulfur coal in the
region is found in eastern Kentucky in the central Appalachian Coal Province.
In 1975, the electric utility industry consumed about two-thirds of total
U.S. coal production; almost half of this total was supplied by the ORBES
region. Of the total national production, about 14 percent was used for coke,
with most of the remainder exported or used by industry for process steam,
space heating, and other industrial uses.
Environmental restrictions as well as cost and technological factors
dictate the coal mix used by a utility. Thus although regional coal produced
in 1975 would have been sufficient to supply all the electric utilities within
the region, its high sulfur content posed a problem. Rather than burning this
coal with the use of flue-gas desulfurization systems, most utilities chose to
import low-sulfur coal when required to meet sulfur dioxide emission
standards.
Assuming an overall mining extraction efficiency of 70 percent and a mix
of eastern and western coal used by ORBES-region electric utilities, coal
consumption by these utilities under the BOM 80/20 scenario would mean a 1.8
percent reduction in regional coal reserves between 1975 and 2000. If, on the
other hand, it is assumed that the four ORBES states use only coal from within
the regional boundaries throughout the study period, under this high-coal
scenario the region would consume 2.4 percent of its reserves during this
time. This scenario would require about four times as much coal in the year
2000 as in 1975. Coal production would have to be increased significantly to
meet this demand, but if the utilities did not use flue-gas desulfurization
systems to meet air quality emission standards, then the trend toward import-
ing increasing amounts would accelerate greatly.4
Lime and Limestone
The ORBES scenarios assume that after 1985 flue-gas scrubbers with lime
or limestone as the scrubbing medium will be used to remove sulfur in all
plants burning high-sulfur coal. Thus the demand for these resources would
increase. Limestone is generally a plentiful material in the ORBES region;
^Recent amendments to the Clean Air Act will require future plants to
use flue-gas desulfurization systems.
21
-------
most of it is obtained from open-pit mining operations. The quantity of lime
or limestone required for flue-gas desulfurization for a particular plant
would depend on the sulfur content of the coal burned and, more important, on
EPA emission standards.
The amount of limestone required to meet the potential new demand could
reach 50 million tons per year by 2000 for the high-coal BOM scenario. This
would require a moderate increase in the amount of limestone produced in the
region. On the other hand, if lime is the preferred reactant for use in wet
scrubbers, impacts on the lime industry would be very significant. To meet
this new demand, the national (and ORBES-regional) supply of lime would have
to be increased greatly from the approximately 22 million tons produced
nationwide in 1974. In the year 2000, the BOM 80/20 scenario would require
more than twice this amount of lime.
Uranium
Most U.S. uranium comes from sandstone and mudstone deposits located
outside the ORBES region. Some low-grade uranium deposits are located in the
region, but because they are not competitive economically, at present they are
not mined.
To determine uranium ore depletion, it was assumed that if an ore deposit
required underground mining, only 50 percent or less of the ore in the deposit
would be recoverable. With surface mining, 80 percent or more of the ore was
assumed to be recoverable.
Assuming that one-third of the fuel used in a nuclear plant is replaced
each year and that no recycling of uranium and plutonium occurs, the yearly
mining requirement for each 1000 MWe power plant is about 110,000 tons of ore.
Each reactor requires an initial fuel load of about 430 tons of t^Og, commonly
called yellowcake, which is converted to enriched fuel. Total cumulative
yellowcake requirements for the four scenarios, including initial fuel loads
and requirements through the year 2000, range from 23,000 tons for the FTP 100
percent coal scenario to 165,000 tons for the BOM 50/50 scenario.
It is clear that the BOM 50/50 scenario would require a decided increase
in exploratory and development drilling by the uranium industry. The costs of
such drilling and of the subsequent extraction of lower grade ore than used at
present would drive up prices. The reserve base from which development would
take place would be expanded greatly. In terms of reserves, the BOM 50/50
would require that approximately 40 percent of known U.S. uranium reserves
available for sale at $15 per pound be committed to ORBES-region utilities
through the year 2000. As shown in Table 2, substantial uranium reserves
would be required to fuel these plants for their expected useful economic
lives beyond the year 2000. (More exploration would increase the known
reserve base greatly.) The BOM 80/20 scenario would require less uranium ore,
approximately 20 percent of known U.S. reserves, but much more than either FTF
scenario (about 9 percent for the 100 percent nuclear scenario and about 6
percent for the 100 percent coal scenario). In contrast, of the known U.S.
reserves available for sale at $50 per pound, the BOM 50/50 scenario would
require approximately 20 percent; the BOM 80/20, approximately 10 percent; the
22
-------
FTP 100 percent nuclear, approximately 4 percent; and the FTP 100 percent
coal, approximately 3 percent (see Tables 2 and 3).
TABLE 2. URANIUM FUEL NEEDS, PLANT LIVES OF 30 YEARS
(in tons of
Scenario First load and through 2000
BOM
BOM
FTF
FTP
50/50 165,000
80/20 82,000
100% nuclear 35,000
100% coal 23,000
Beyond 2000
623,000
232,000
154,000
45,000
SOURCE: Reference 6.
TABLE 3. UNITED STATES URANIUM RESOURCES, JANUARY 1, 1977
(in tons of
Cost category
per pound of
Potential resources*
Reserves Probable Possible Speculative
$10
$10-$15 increment
$15
$15-$30 increment
$30
$30-$50 increment
$50
250,000 275,000 115,000 100,000
160,000 310,000 375,000 90,000
410,000 585,000 490,000 190,000
270,000 505,000 630,000 290,000
680,000 1,090,000 1,120,000 480,000
160,000 280,000 300,000 60,000
840,000 1,370,000 1,420,000 540,000
*The reliability of potential resource estimates decreases from the
probable to the speculative categories.
SOURCE: Reference 10.
23
-------
If they were to become economically and technologically feasible, several
undemonstrated technologies could alleviate the problem posed by the BOM
requirements. Reprocessing spent fuel would ease the demand for uranium ore
supplies, since it would provide reusable uranium and plutonium. Using plu-
tonium in a self-generated mixed-oxide form could extend the available energy
a few more years. However, use of plutonium in breeder reactors (such as the
liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor) could extend uranium as a resource for
several centuries, if such reactors were to become commercially available.
Another form of fission fuel, thorium, also is available. Used in the high-
temperature gas-cooled breeder reactor or the light-water breeder reactor,
thorium can breed U233 (a uranium isotope); this could approximately double
the potential energy available from uranium. However, the commercial via-
bility of all these technologies is open to serious question; in any case,
none could be in widespread use before the year 2000. Further, unresolved
questions exist regarding effects of these technologies on the environment and
on human health.
Construction Materials
Construction of the projected power plants might lead to short-term
shortages of materials (crushed rock, gravel, cement, lumber, and road mate-
rial) and of large dirt-removing equipment in the local construction site
area, especially during the three- to four-year period when plant construction
is at its peak. Because nuclear units are designed to withstand greater
seismic loads as well as to contain the release of radioactive materials from
small operating accidents, they use more material than do coal units. Accu-
rate estimates of construction material requirements are difficult to make,
however, because each is site specific.
ILLUSTRATIVE POLICY ISSUES
Land Use
--What level or levels of government should be responsible for land-use
controls that promote energy development in or restrict it to selected
areas?
--Should government at various levels become involved in encouraging the
the development of industrial and urban use of strip-mined land, thereby
concentrating development in areas already impacted and avoiding both the
disturbance of additional land and the high cost of returning strip-mined
land to productive agricultural use?
—In view of the nation's energy dilemma, what relative emphases should
government place on the use of land for energy development, on the one
hand, and for such other uses as agriculture, recreation, and open space,
on the other?
—What should the roles of state and/or local governments be in reviewing
and determining the final acceptability of sites for the long-term stor-
age of radioactive wastes? What should be their roles in monitoring
these sites? (also listed in Chapter 5)
24
-------
—How can individual rights best be balanced against the u. e of eminent
domain for energy-related facilities to promote the public good?
--Land values on the private market can be affected adversely by effects of
energy-related facilities (for example, the downwind effects of power
plant emissions). What institutional mechanisms, if any, should be
developed to compensate owners of this land?
Hydrology and Water Use
—What policies should be developed to deal with the effects of upstream
water use on water availability for power plants and other uses in the
ORBES region?
—Are future water losses through the use of current power plant cooling
technologies of sufficient concern in the ORBES region to justify govern-
ment leadership in considering alternative cooling technologies?
—If consumptive withdrawals of ground water increase significantly, what
changes in water allocation, if any, should be instituted to protect both
holders of traditional riparian rights and users of ground water? For
example, should riparian rights be replaced by a different water alloca-
tion mechanism, such as permitting?
—To what extent is the reuse of water a feasible solution to potential
water shortages? If such reuse is feasible, how can it be encouraged
through government initiative?
Mineral Resources
—Should the ORBES-region states cooperate in developing more environmen-
tally benign technologies for the utilization of high-sulfur regional
coal than exist at present?
—Should the federal government or the ORBES-region states encourage utili-
ties and other coal consumers to utilize as much low-sulfur coal as
possible from within the region or from neighboring states (as opposed to
western coal) to fuel existing plants?
—What role, if any, should the ORBES-region states play in protecting the
public interest with respect to uranium availability, reprocessing spent
fuel, and the breeder reactor?
25
-------
CHAPTER 4
IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES
There are well-developed institutional relationships within the ORBES
region to support the industrial and agricultural economic base. Institutions
for capital generation exist, diverse materials transportation systems are in
place, and a labor force possessing a wide spectrum of skills is present.
These characteristics of the region are the result of its industrialization as
early as the 1850s. The region also contributes to and draws upon national
markets that produce the manufacturing systems needed for large-scale energy
extraction, conversion, and distribution.
The following sections describe the impacts that the ORBES scenarios
would have on materials transportation systems, industrial production, capital
for electric utilities, and labor needs. Policy issues suggested by these
potential impacts appear at the end of the chapter.
TRANSFORTATION
Increased materials transportation needs under the various scenarios
would occur primarily under the high-energy-growth Bureau of Mines scenarios,
which would require greatly increased coal and limestone transport, particu-
larly by barge and rail. The low-energy-growth Ford Technical Fix scenarios
would mean only a modest increase in transportation needs.
There are many ways to improve the transportation systems' efficiency
and/or reduce costs so that the most efficient modes are utilized (11).
Improved technologies such as regional coal-loading facilities with unit
trains and rapid loading and unloading facilities for hoppers and barges would
achieve both of these objectives. Upgrading railroad tracks and roadbeds,
eliminating bottlenecks and other delays, and increasing the capacity of the
various systems all would lead to greater efficiency. Transportation effi-
ciency also would be improved by allocating costs of the various modes fully
to the user, for example, by tolls or taxes. Historically, some forms of
transportation, such as railroads, come closer to paying their full share of
costs than do others, such as barges and trucks.
Although one ORBES assumption is that after 1985 extensive use will be
made of flue gas desulfurization systems (scrubbers), transportation needs
associated with the resulting sludge and fly ash would be minimal under all of
the scenarios. Under current practice, these materials are deposited on site,
and large-scale transportation of fly ash and scrubber sludge would occur only
if it became uneconomical (or physically or legally impossible) to continue
this practice.
26
-------
Because the bulk of uranium ore is first processed and reduced near the
mine mouth (at present no uranium is mined in the ORBES region), increased
numbers of nuclear reactors, even under the BOM 50 percent coal/50 percent
nuclear scenario, would not strain the transportation systems severely.
The major issue in the transportation of nuclear material is security,
with respect to both accidents and sabotage. The BOM 50/50 scenario, with 79
nuclear units by the year 2000, obviously would pose the greatest problems for
safety and safeguards because of the large amount of fissionable material that
would be transported. If many local communities decide to restrict nuclear
shipments within their boundaries, trucks might come into greater use because
they can be rerouted around cities. The transportation projections then might
have to be changed.
At individual plants, the effects of automobile traffic congestion are
not expected to be a major problem under any of the scenarios. However, con-
centrated growth in one part of the region could cause locally severe effects.
In some localities, barges and trains could lead to increases in noise and
particulate levels. These impacts would be greatest under the high-energy-
growth option and probably would be negligible under the low-energy-growth
option.
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
National Production
Although the focus of ORBES is on regional impacts, certain national
trends are likely to be experienced within the region. This is the case with
the impacts on industrial outputs associated with the high- and low-energy-
growth options. Under both options there would be significant national
impacts, both positive and negative, on the total production of industries
supplying goods either to energy-related activities or for energy conserva-
tion. Approximately the same level of gross national product is maintained
in both the BOM and the FTP scenarios (see Chapter 2). Therefore, although
there would be differences in the distribution of production among industrial
sectors, the total production in dollar amounts would be virtually identical
for both energy-growth options. The GNPs projected under both options for
the year 2000 as adapted for ORBES would differ by less than 1 percent (4).
The industries with projected major differences in output between the
two energy-growth options in the year 2000 appear in Table 4, which shows
projected percentage changes in the dollar value of industrial outputs under
each option. A positive difference shows greater dollar output for a given
industrial sector under the low-energy-growth (FTP) scenarios relative to the
high-energy-growth (BOM) scenarios; a negative difference, greater dollar
output under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTP.
The greatest differential of the low-energy-growth option over the high-
energy-growth option in the year 2000 would be in the natural gas utility sec-
tor, where the FTP scenarios would be expected to have 25 percent greater
production than the BOM. The reason for this difference lies in several
assumptions made in constructing the national Ford Technical Fix scenario:
27
-------
TABLE 4. SCENARIO EFFECTS ON NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL OUTPUTS, 2000
(18 of 185 sectors)
Rank
Sector
FTF - BOM
FTF + BOM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
natural gas
other stone and clay products
household appliances
service industry machinery
paving and asphalt
motors and generators
plumbing and heating equipment
millwork and wood products
pottery
new construction
mechanical measuring devices
structural metal products
nonferrous wire drawing
pumps, blowers, compressers
transformers and switchgear
industrial patterns
coal mining
electric utilities
25
8
7
3
2
2
1
1
-9
-9
-11
-12
-13
-14
-16
-18
-30
-62
all industries
-2
SOURCE: Reference 4.
A positive difference means greater dollar output under the low-energy-
growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth (BOM) option;
a negative difference means greater dollar output under the BOM scenar-
ios relative to the FTF scenarios. Sectors are ranked in terms of the
differential dollar output between the two basic options.
unfavorable domestic petroleum supply conditions and restrictions on petro-
leum imports (leading to sharp increases in petroleum product prices) and a
relatively slow productivity advance in electrical generation (leading to
higher electricity prices). These price increases also would mean higher
prices for natural gas, but in the FTF scenario the natural gas sector main-
tains a stronger relative position than does either electricity or petroleum
(3). The national Bureau of Mines scenario, on the other hand, assumes major
reductions in the use of^domestic natural gas--a 20 percent decline between
1974 and 2000—although reliance on synthetic and imported gas is assumed to
increase, as is reliance on petroleum (2).
As shown in Table 4, the industrial sector with the largest relative
differential of the high- over the low-energy-growth option in the year 2000
would be electric utilities (62 percent). The remaining nine industries
28
-------
showing negative differential outputs (and therefore greater output of the
BOM relative to the FTF scenarios) are major suppliers to the electric utili-
ties. Of the ten sectors, two—electric utilities and coal mining—plus
natural gas, would be affected directly by the energy-demand assumptions of
the two basic options, especially the higher unit prices for energy assumed
under the FTF scenarios as the result of government intervention.
The greater relative outputs under the FTF scenarios of the remaining
sectors (other stone and clay products, household appliances, service industry
machinery, plumbing and heating equipment, and millwork and wood products)
would be attributable to expenditures for energy conservation. (Other stone
and clay products include materials for insulation such as asbestos; service
industry machinery includes commercial and industrial air conditioning, warm
air heating, and refrigeration equipment.) Similarly, production of motors
and generators would increase as the result of increased activity in the
household appliance and service industry machinery sectors.
ORBES-Regional Production
Projected differences in production by the major ORBES-region industries
in the year 2000 under the two basic scenarios are presented in Table 5.
Again, a positive difference shows greater dollar output under the FTF
scenario; a negative difference, greater dollar output under the BOM scenario.
In addition to wholesale and retail trade, the largest industries in the ORBES
TABLE 5. SCENARIO EFFECTS ON OUTPUTS OF MAJOR
INDUSTRIES, ORBES REGION, 2000
(9 of 185 sectors)
Industry
FTF - BOM
FTF + BOM
household appliances 7
service industry machinery 3
retail trade <1
motor vehicles and parts 1
petroleum refining -2
steel -5
structural metal products -12
coal mining -30
electric utilities -65
SOURCE: Reference 4.
A positive difference means greater dollar output under the low-energy-
growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth (BOM) option;
a negative difference means greater dollar output under the BOM sce-
narios relative to the FTF scenarios. Sectors are ranked in terms of
the differential dollar output between the two basic options.
29
-------
region include motor vehicles and parts, electric utilities, household appli-
ances, steel, and petroleum refining. Of these, household appliances and
electric utilities are affected directly by the assumptions of the two sce-
narios. Consequently they would display relatively large differences in out-
puts between the two energy-growth options--? percent in the case of household
appliances and 65 percent in the case of electric utilities. The latter is
the greatest differential between the two energy-growth options.
Otner important industries of the region would be affected indirectly by
the ORBES scenarios, for example, steel and structural metal products. The
lower production by these industries under the FTP scenarios relative to the
BOM scenarios would be attributable primarily to lower investment expenditures
by electric utilities. Similarly, although not included in Table 5, the out-
put of the construction and mining equipment industry would be relatively
lower under the FTP scenarios as a result of lower demands for coal. Impacts
on the important nondurable goods industries of the region—grains, meat
products, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco products—would not be significant.
As shown in Table 5, there would be a substantial differential in region-
al coal-mining production, 30 percent, between the high- and low-energy-growth
options. The relatively low increases under the FTF scenarios would be pri-
marily the result of slower growth in coal-fired electricity generation and
lower projected outputs by the industrial chemicals, paper and paperboard
mills, and steel industries, which are major consumers of coal. Similarly,
the lower energy-demand projections of the FTF scenarios would be reflected in
decreased relative outputs of petroleum refineries, a 2 percent differential
between the two energy-growth options.
The 5 percent greater relative output of the steel industry under the
high-energy-growth scenario would be primarily the result of increased invest-
ment purchases by the electric utilities. In addition, other major steel pur-
chasers would show higher outputs and consequent increases in steel consump-
tion. The structural metal products industry would experience similar impacts
under the BOM scenarios, with a 12 percent differential in outputs expected.
On the other hand, under the low-energy-growth option, both the service
industry machinery sector and the household appliance sector would show rela-
tive gains over the high-energy-growth option in the year 2000. Relative
increases by the service industry machinery sector, approximately 3 percent,
would be largely the result of sales for energy-conservation purposes. In
addition, energy-conservation investments in goods from other sectors that
purchase service industry machinery, such as household appliances and plumbing
and heating equipment, would create increased demand for this equipment.
The household appliance sector would have the largest production increase
of all industries under the low-energy-growth option, approximately 7 percent.
The greater output levels for this industry would reflect expenditures on
appliances with higher energy efficiencies, with both higher costs per unit
and higher replacement rates increasing these expenditures. Regional differ-
ences in outputs for retail trade and motor vehicles and parts would appear to
be negligible. Some major local differences within the various states, how-
ever, could exist.
30
-------
ELECTRIC UTILITY CAPITAL
In recent years, many forces have affected the costs of generating elec-
tricity. For example, environmental controls affect the cost of coal-fired
plants, and requirements for safety systems affect investments in nuclear-
fueled installations. Future directions are not clear-cut, but specific
estimates of outlays were attempted, using historic costs in conjunction with
recent trends. Investment costs for the power plants projected in the ORBES
scenarios were extended from another study spanning the same time period as
the scenarios, 1975-2000, in which the fuel mix projected was close to that of
the BOM 50/50 scenario. Results were confirmed by adapting construction costs
for fossil- and nuclear-fueled power plants estimated by a firm specializing
in utility construction. Although the calculations in this section cannot be
entirely precise, they do indicate relative scenario impacts on regional and
national money markets (6).
Striking differences are evident among the scenarios. Either BOM sce-
nario would require the utilities to be even more active participants than
they are today in the very competitive national debt and equity money markets;
they would need to seek an even greater share of available capital. Taking
into account power plant construction, pollution control, general expenses,
and transmission and distribution—all costs borne by the utilities—between
1975 and 2000 the BOM 50/50 scenario would require nearly $350 billion of
capital investment in current dollars; the BOM 80/20, more than $300 billion.
In contrast, the low-energy-growth scenarios would require approximately $70
billion (FTF 100 percent nuclear) and more than $50 billion (FTF 100 percent
coal) (see Appendix H).
Coal and uranium mining capitalization required to meet ORBES scenario
needs also was estimated. About 60 percent of the cost of producing coal can
be translated to capital investment. Capital investment for uranium mining is
more variable, depending on such factors as the type of mining (open pit or
underground), the depth-to-vein thickness of the ore, its percentage of
yellowcake (0303), production rate, exploratory and developmental drilling,
hauling distance, milling operation, and, above all, current or expected
yellowcake prices.
To estimate coal-mining capital requirements under the scenarios, an
average mine size producing 3 million tons per year and requiring about $20
per ton of annual production for investment capital was assumed. The cumula-
tive estimated capital for coal mines to the year 2000, proportional to pro-
duction needs, would be approximately $10 billion in current dollars for the
BOM 80/20 scenario; $7 billion for the BOM 50/50; $2 billion for the FTF 100
percent coal; and $1.5 billion for the FTF 100 percent nuclear (6).
Because of the concentration of energy in uranium ore, capital require-
ments for uranium mining are lower than for coal mining, although these
requirements are expected to increase. The investment capital needed for
uranium mining under the scenarios was determined by averaging underground and
open-pit mining costs for a moderate-size mine producing 3000 tons of 0.1 per-
cent U3O8 ore per day. The cumulative estimated capital requirements to
the year 2000 would be about $7.5 billion in current dollars for the BOM
31
-------
50/50 scenario; $3.5 billion for the BOM 80/20; $1.5 billion for the FTP 100
percent nuclear; and $1 billion for the FTP 100 percent coal (5) (see Appen-
dix H). Capital required for coal and uranium mining combined would be about
10 percent of that required for power-plant construction.
Not included in these estimates are the investment and operating costs
of enrichment facilities to make uranium a usable fuel.
LABOR
National Employment
As discussed below, on a national basis little difference in total
employment between the high- and low-energy-growth scenarios would be ex-
pected. Within industrial sectors, however, there would be large variations
in employment figures that would be reflected in the ORBES region. Of partic-
ular interest is the potential for regional labor shortages in the electric
utility and mining sectors under the high-energy-growth option.
Most of the differential in jobs in the year 2000 between the low- and
the high-energy-growth options would lie within the industries supplying
investment goods to electric utilities and within the utilities themselves.
As shown in Table 6, there would be a relative differential of 64 percent of
the BOM over the FTP scenarios in persons employed in electric utilities.
In the year 2000, the 30 percent differential in national coal-mining
production of the high-energy-growth option over the low-energy-growth option
(see Table 4) would result in a 15 percent differential in the number of
mining jobs; for railroad employment, the differential would be 5 percent.
Sectors in which an employment differential of the FTP over the BOM scenarios
would be expected are natural gas, water, and sewer services (a relative gain
of 5 percent) and industries supplying goods for energy conservation: the
household appliances, service industry machinery, plywood and millwork, plumb-
ing and heating, and stone and clay products sectors.
These national employment differentials of the low- over the high-energy-
growth option would be more than offset by differentials of the high- over the
low-energy-growth option in the electric utility sector (64 percent) and the
mining sector (15 percent). Relative differentials in other industries would
be the result of lower demands for coal and electricity under the low-energy-
growth option. These industries include railroads, railroad equipment, and
structural metal products (4).
ORBES-Regional Employment
Under the scenarios most of the projected changes in labor needs would
fall into three employment categories: coal mining, direct power plant con-
struction, and plant operations and maintenance. Projections in these three
categories were made to assess scenario impacts on the regional labor market.
32
-------
TABLE 6. SCENARIO EFFECTS ON NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT, 2000
(20 of 96 sectors)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FTF - BOM ,,*
Sector FTF + BOM '°
L 2
household appliances 7
natural gas, water, and sewer 5
service industry machinery 3
electric apparatus, motors 3
plywood, millwork, structures 3
plumbing and heating 2
stone and clay products 2
construction 2
construction, mining, material
handling machinery <1
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
office, computing machinery
structural metal products
other transport
petroleum refining
petroleum and gas
mechanical measuring devices
locomotives, railroad and street
cars
railroads
general industrial machinery
mining
electric utilities
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-5
-5
-5
-6
-15
-64
all industries
<1
SOURCE: Reference 4.
A positive difference means greater employment under the low-energy-
growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth (BOM option; a
negative difference means greater employment under the BOM scenarios
relative to the FTF scenarios. Sectors are ranked in terms of the
differential in employment between the two options.
In regard to labor demand, the high-energy-growth scenarios imply a large
growth in the proportion of construction activity devoted to power plant
construction. Approximately 2.7 percent of contract construction employment
in the United States is devoted to power plant construction. In 1974 total
construction employment in the four ORBES states (not just the study region)
was 493,000. Applying the national ratio to the ORBES states, more than
13,000 people in the construction industry (not all of whom were construction
workers) were employed in power plant construction in these states in 1974.
33
-------
Even assuming in-state mobility and no energy construction activity in the
non-ORBES portions of the four states, the BOM scenarios would call for at
least a 150 percent increase in direct construction labor requirements. To
fire the coal plants under the BOM 80/20 scenario, about a two-thirds increase
in coal-mining manpower would be required. Needs for operations-and-
maintenance personnel also would increase substantially under both BOM sce-
narios. On the other hand, few major problems would be anticipated under the
low-energy-growth scenarios. These potential effects are described in greater
detail below.
Labor supply also was analyzed; it was found that the construction
workers required under the scenarios might not be available. As shown below,
this problem would be more severe under the BOM than the FTF scenarios in
regard to both numbers of workers required and the scheduling of plant con-
struction and consequent labor demand.
Coal-Mining Manpower. To estimate the additional number of coal miners
required under the two BOM scenarios and the FTF 100 percent coal scenario,
several assumptions were made, some of them modified from overall ORBES
assumptions. Under all three of these scenarios, requirements for coal-mining
manpower would increase. The increase would be greatest under the BOM 80/20
scenario—approximately 58,000 additional workers would be needed in the year
2000, about a two-thirds increase from the approximately 87,000 workers who
were employed in coal mining in the ORBES region in 1975. Under the FTF 100
percent coal scenario, labor requirements would be considerably lower, with
about 15,000 new workers needed (12).
Direct Construction Manpower. Under each BOM scenario, approximately 160 new
electrical generating facilities would be constructed and on-line between 1986
and 2000. The major impact would occur in the construction occupations,
which, in the short run, tend to be unresponsive to changes in manpower
demand. Under such conditions, increased wage levels would be expected.
Of primary concern in assessing construction labor demands under the
scenarios are both the level of demand for this labor and the timing of plant
construction. When the level of demand is low and the timing of construction
requiring additional labor does not indicate abrupt changes in demand for this
labor, the overall impact is low. Under such conditions, the labor market
would be capable of supplying requirements without driving up relative wages
and consequently the cost of facility construction.
Two independent studies were conducted by ORBES researchers to assess the
impact of the scenarios on the labor market (12, 13). These studies used
similar methodologies to estimate construction labor requirements, as well as
the same on-line dates for new plants, but each assumed somewhat different
construction schedules. This led to different projections of annual direct
construction requirements for each scenario (see Figure 2, depicting the range
of requirements projected for the most and least labor-intensive scenarios,
the BOM 50/50 and the FTF 100 percent coal). However, both sets of projec-
tions show similar long-term trends and differences among scenarios. Peak
requirements, of course, would be higher for the BOM scenarios. Both studies
found that the increased construction activity under the scenarios would lead
34
-------
FIGURE 2,
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION MANPOWER, TWO PROJECTIONS,
BOM 50/50 AND FTP 100 PERCENT COAL SCENARIOS
60 -
CO
i
1
O
Q_
20 -
10 7
'80
'85
'90
YEAR
'95
35
-------
to sharp initial increases in labor requirements; BOM requirements nearly
would double between 1982 and 1983 and would rise by 300 percent between 1983
and 1984. It is difficult for the labor market to adjust to substantial
shocks such as these. In reality, however, abrupt short-term changes in labor
demand, such as those shown in Figure 2, probably would be smoothed over sev-
eral years.
Both studies concluded that sufficient manpower would be available in
most construction occupations to meet demand for all four scenarios. Under
the high-energy-growth scenarios, however, drastic increases in demand would
produce critical shortages in some occupations, such as boilermaking and pipe-
fitting. These scenarios would require a large percentage of the increases in
labor supply, a percentage considerably higher than historic averages. Con-
struction of energy facilities uses only a fraction of overall construction
labor. When viewed in this context of competition, the demands for skilled
labor under the high-energy-growth option may be untenably high.
The FTP 100 percent coal scenario shows relatively slow adjustment to
reasonably low requirements. In addition, requirements would be almost con-
stant between 1986 and 1997. The FTP 100 percent nuclear scenario would reach
a maximum construction labor requirement of 11,000, a level not substantially
higher than estimated energy construction employment levels in the ORBES
region in recent years. Indeed, under the FTP scenarios, direct construction
employment would drop to approximately half its present level before it would
begin to increase. Once the increase began, year-to-year change would be
reasonably small.
Operations-and-Maintenance Manpower. The operations-and-maintenance personnel
required under the various scenarios also were calculated by both of the
studies discussed above. Both project approximately the same requirements.
By 2000, operations-and-maintenance requirements for each of the BOM scenarios
would rise to about 25,000 workers, slightly more than double the number under
each of the FTP scenarios. Unlike the rate of change for construction labor,
the employment increase for operations-and-maintenance manpower is generally
smooth, and thus requirements would be satisfied more easily.
Labor Supply. The most difficult problems are found when examining the labor
supply needed to meet the demand projected under the scenarios. Without
doubt, the work force is aging. Large numbers of new workers would not be
forthcoming to meet the needs of the scenarios. Much of the required future
labor force has already been born; many of these potential workers are in
school today. Declining school enrollments and apprenticeships in construc-
tion occupations, along with current fertility levels (see Chapter 6) , are
evidence that labor supply for the scenarios may be inadequate. Indeed, an
analysis restricted to that portion of the labor force under 40 years old
shows rapidly declining stocks of these workers after 1990. Between 1985 and
2000, labor requirements under the BOM scenarios would nearly equal or exceed
the projected increase in the total number of new workers in the ORBES region.
Even the FTP scenarios would require almost one-third the projected number of
new workers (12).
36
-------
The low-energy-growth scenarios are more feasible than the high-energy-
growth scenarios in several respects. Of course, manpower requirements would
be considerably lower—from about one-half to two-thirds lower for nearly all
labor needs than under the high-energy-growth scenarios. In addition, pro-
jected manpower requirements for the FTF scenarios increase fairly smoothly.
They lack the quick starts and extreme oscillations expected under the high-
energy-growth option. Thus, despite the problems noted above, timing of labor
demands under the low-energy-growth option would help ameliorate potential
shortages.
ILLUSTRATIVE POLICY ISSUES
Transportation
—Does coal transportation in the ORBES region present enough of a problem
that government at some level should promote the use of more efficient
technologies such as regional coal-loading facilities?
--Should explicit or implied subsidies granted to private users of trans-
portation facilities be modified or revoked so that these users pay
the full costs of building and operating the facilities they use?
--In the development of new or expanding materials transportation systems,
what balance should be struck between the free market, on the one hand,
and government planning and regulation, on the other?
—Should taxes or materials transportation rate structures be adjusted to
improve the efficiency of transportation systems?
—What should be the respective roles of federal, state, and local govern-
ments in regulating the transportation of high-level radioactive wastes
within their respective jurisdictions?
—If it is demonstrated that some kinds of materials transportation systems
have fewer adverse effects on the public than do others, what role should
government have in encouraging the use or adoption of such systems?
Industrial Production
—Should the states or public intrastate bodies concern themselves with the
availability and/or cost of coal for power plants?
—Should the states or public interstate bodies concern themselves with the
availability and/or cost of uranium fuel for power plants?
—What steps can government take to encourage the coal industry to be more
self-regulating in providing sufficient safeguards for workers' health
and safety and in protecting the environment?
—What role should government play in the capital formation process by
electric utilities?
37
-------
-Electrical energy growth rates are difficult to forecast, and the result-
ant uncertainty has an adverse impact on the public sector. Given this
situation, should it be the responsibility of government to forecast that
rate, thereby assisting in the planning of energy-related facilities?
-Should rate structures for electricity recognize that increased future
energy demand will require the construction of significantly more costly
power plants than those currently in use, thereby raising the average per
unit cost even when an individual consumer's demand remains constant?
Labor
-How might potential labor shortages for coal mining and power plant
construction be averted through government action?
-What level or levels of government, if any, should assume responsibility
for training coal-mining personnel and power plant construction workers
to enter the work force?
-What role, if any, should government have in scheduling power plant
construction to minimize labor shortages?
-What special programs, if any, should government develop for unemployed
workers from energy-related occupations who might be affected by widely
varying labor demands?
38
-------
CHAPTER 5
IMPACTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The ORBES region has many unique climatological, biological, and ecolog-
ical features and an abundance of resources, including land, water, limestone,
and fossil fuels. These characteristics make the region attractive to a wide
variety of interests, including industry and agriculture, and thus cause con-
flicts among such goals as preservation of the unique ecology, achievement of
improved environmental quality, and maintenance of economic productivity. One
of the principal inquiries of the ORBES project is the anticipated environmen-
tal consequences of the various scenarios and the policy issues raised by
these consequences. This chapter examines the various air and water pollu-
tants and their potential impacts on the nonhuman biological and ecological
environment. Land quality also is examined in this chapter. Policy issues
suggested by the various impacts appear at the end of the chapter. Public
and occupational health impacts are considered in Chapter 6.
A major finding of ORBES Phase I is that all four air pollutants examined
in detail would show significantly different rates of emission between the two
basic energy-growth options in the year 2000. If nonpoint sources of water
pollution are taken into account, significant differences also might be found
in the concentrations of two of the four water pollutants examined. Another
major finding was that if power plants continue to be built at preferred sites
in the region, a dense pattern of these emission sources along river corridors
would result. Because the directions of these corridors tend to be similar to
persistent wind directions, pollutant concentrations would build up as the air
mass moves downwind. It should be noted that a number of questions exist re-
garding the interactive effects among a number of power plants in an area of
complex meteorological conditions such as the Ohio River Valley. Technologi-
cal uncertainties are compounded by the presence of many political jurisdic-
tions in a relatively small geographical area. Many of these questions and
issues proved to be too complex to be dealt with adequately in ORBES Phase I,
but they will be explored in detail during Phase II of the project.
AIR QUALITY
Over the past few decades, Congress has been paying increasing attention
to the use of federal powers to protect and enhance air quality throughout the
nation. The most recent and most important amendments to the Clean Air Act
were made in 1970 and 1977. The fundamental concept behind these amendments
is federal responsibility (assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency) to set national standards for ambient air quality and for the control
of emissions from new sources of pollution. In partnership with the federal
39
-------
government, each state is responsible for developing specific plans to ensure
that federal standards will be achieved in all areas of the state. Also, the
air quality of current clean air areas may not be degraded by more than rela-
tively small increments from current conditions, and special protection is
given to selected federal lands (such as national parks). Through the use of
national emission standards for new industrial sources of pollution, Congress
intended that, as old sources are replaced by more strictly controlled new
sources, air quality in industrialized areas would be improved beyond the re-
quirements of the ambient standards.
The six air pollutants for which ambient standards have been set (crite-
ria pollutants) are total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, and carbon monoxide (14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19). In addition, other potentially harmful compounds (such as
sulfates) for which no standards have been set are formed through chemical
transformations of criteria pollutants. In this section, the six criteria
pollutants listed above are examined in the context of the ORBES scenarios,
and their potential impacts on the nonhuman biological and ecological envi-
ronment are discussed.
The EPA standards for short-term concentrations of criteria pollutants
in the ambient air may not legally be exceeded more than once a year. (One
of the assumptions made for the ORBES scenarios was that all standards promul-
gated as of 1976 will be met on schedule.) Two types of standards have been
set for each of the six pollutants. Primary standards are intended to pro-
tect human health, while secondary standards are intended to protect the
public welfare, defined as including property, soil, visibility, plants, ani-
mals, and other effects not related to human health. Each state has been
required to develop a strategy to control emissions (called a state implemen-
tation plan) to meet the primary standards set by EPA. Currently states are
not required to meet secondary standards within any specified period, although
the Clean Air Act calls for these standards to be attained within "a reason-
able time." In addition, new industrial sources are required to meet emission
standards set for individual industrial source categories (new source perfor-
mance standards). The emission forecasts presented in this section are based
on new source performance standards for electrical generating facilities in
existence in mid-1977. (These standards are now under review.) Finally,
other continuous emission requirements, such as the prevention of significant
deterioration, are utilized to control emissions on a local scale.
Table 7 presents a summary of the residual outputs of the major contrib-
utors to air quality degradation in the ORBES region in 1972 and as projected
to 2000 under the scenarios; see Appendix I for breakdowns by state. Appendix
I also contains an explanation of the methodology used in constructing the
tables, data for which were taken from Reference 4.
The four pollutants examined in these tables are particulates, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. Photochemical oxidants (a princi-
pal component of smog) and carbon monoxide are not included in this aspect of
the Phase I analysis because they are predominantly by-products of transporta-
tion. Some effects of these two pollutants, however, are discussed later in
this section.
40
-------
TABLE 7. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR POLLUTION, ORBES REGION
Pollutant Sector
Particulates crushed stone
sintering
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial
fossil fuels
automobile travel
Net 1972
emissions Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000
tons) 1972 total* total*
786 20 29
727 19
769 20 6
7
440 11 9
12
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM "
Percent of
Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
change total change |_ 2
-35 30 -38 -4
-88 6 -87 3
5 -37
-66 13 -51 36
10 -31
coal transporation-
unit train
coal transportation-
conventional train
Total net
Sulfur oxides
petroleum refining
electric- coal-old
3927
468
3202
9
62
-57
3 -66
25 -57
3
22
-59
-63
-56
-6
10
3
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Pollutant
Total net
Nitrogen
oxides
Total net
Hydrocarbons
Sector
electric-coal-new
industrial-
fossil fuels
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial-
fossil fuels
automobile travel
commercial truck
solvent-based paints
service stations
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand Percent of^
tons) 1972 total
909 18
5150
736 34
340 16
622 29
298 14
2141
157 6
216 8
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM
BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
total change total change |_ 2
39 25 -53
23 37 36 103 39
7 -1 -8
12 -31 15 -29 3
29 23
8 3 14 74 51
11 -30 9 -46 -31
22 210 19 123 -36
93 68 -14
6 -39 9 -25 20
14 5 13 -24 -32
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000 Percent
total
change
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
automobile S
personal truck use
commercial truck
Total net
1278
521
2768
46
19
24
35
-69
12
-40
25
31
-74
-22
-58
-20
-36
-36
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
As shown in Table 7 and as discussed in the following subsections, dif-
ferences in emissions between the high-energy-growth (Bureau of Mines) sce-
narios and the low-energy-growth (Ford Technical Fix) scenarios in the year
2000 would be significant for all four of the air pollutants examined. The
primary source of these differences is an assumed electrical energy conserva-
tion effort under the FTF scenarios, resulting in fewer power plants being
built and thus fewer plant emissions under these scenarios. In order to both
maintain gross national product and decrease consumption of electrical energy
under the low-energy-growth option, however, industries are assumed to have
developed their own local power sources. Thus, in the case of sulfur oxides,
for example, the decrease in power plant emissions is offset in part by the
resultant increase in the industrial combustion of fossil fuels.
Particulates
Particulates are defined in the EPA regulations as "any dispersed matter,
solid or liquid, in which the individual aggregates are larger than single
molecules (about 0.0002 microns in diameter), but smaller than about 500 mi-
crons" (14). Fine particulates (generally considered to be those less than
about three microns in diameter) are of two types: primary (those emitted
directly from industrial sources) and secondary (those formed by gas-to-
particle conversion after the precursor gases are emitted into the atmo-
sphere) . (One micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter, or one millionth of
a meter.) The major point sources of directly emitted, primary particulates
in the ORBES region in 1972 were electric utilities, industrial combustion,
steel, and the crushed stone industry, with quarrying and processing of
crushed stone producing approximately 20 percent of the region's net particu-
lates; coal-fired electric generating plants another 20 percent; sintering
(application of heat without melting) plants about 19 percent; and the indus-
trial combustion of fossil fuels approximately 11 percent (4). Uncontrolled
(fugitive) emissions were not considered in this analysis.
Under both the low-energy-growth and the high-energy-growth options, net
primary particulate emissions in the region for the year 2000 would decrease
approximately 58 percent relative to 1972 emissions. These reductions are
a result of the use of more efficient devices for the control of directly
emitted particulates by industrial sources. Under the high-energy-growth BOM
scenarios, however, there would be about 6 percent greater particulate emis-
sions in the year 2000 than under the low-energy-growth FTF scenarios. Rela-
tive to 1972, primary particulates from the crushed stone industry would be
reduced approximately 38 percent under the low-energy-growth option and 35
percent under the high-energy-growth option. This sector would produce a
relative differential of about 4 percent greater particulates of the BOM sce-
narios over the FTF. Sintering no longer would contribute a significant por-
tion of net primary particulate emissions under either the BOM or the FTF
scenarios, about a 98 percent reduction from 1972 levels.
In the year 2000, direct emissions of net primary particulates from the
industrial combustion of fossil fuels would decrease about 66 percent under
the high-energy-growth option and about 51 percent under the low-energy-
growth option relative to 1972, with about 36 percent greater emissions under
the low-energy-growth option due to its increased emphasis on industrial coal
44
-------
use. Finally, net emissions from existing coal-fired electric plants would
be reduced about 88 percent relative to 1972 levels under both the BOM and the
FTF scenarios, due to plant retirement schedules and increased use of pollu-
tion control devices. However, new coal-fired plants would contribute an
additional 7 percent of total particulate emissions under the BOM scenarios
and an additional 5 percent under the FTF scenarios. The result would be an
overall reduction in net primary particulates from electric generating plants
relative to 1972 of about 70 percent for the high-energy-growth and 75 percent
for the low-energy-growth scenarios, with the high-energy-growth option having
18 percent greater emissions in the year 2000 than the low-energy-growth
option.
In addition to directly emitted primary particulates, secondary particu-
lates also are important. They are formed by many atmospheric processes from
gaseous compounds of sulfur, nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxi-
dants. The secondary particulates of most concern are sulfates, which are
primarily formed from sulfur dioxide.
Secondary particulates constitute from one-tenth to one-third of the mass
of total suspended particulates normally found in the ORBES region. Except in
the immediate vicinity of sources, they can be more important than the direct-
ly emitted, or primary, particulates. Regardless of their source, fine par-
ticulates have greater impacts on visibility, are more easily trapped in the
human lung, and contribute more to acid rain than do coarse particulates. In
addition, current pollution control devices are not as effective in control-
ling directly emitted fine particulates as they are for coarse particulates.
However, unless equal attention is given to controlling the precursors of
secondary particulates, there may not be significant overall improvements in
air quality. In ORBES Phase I air quality modeling was limited to directly
emitted, primary particulates; in Phase II the analysis will be expanded to
include secondary particulates.
The chemical transformation of particulates in the atmosphere and their
effects on receptors are not well understood. It is believed, however, that
some particles may play an important role in the chemical transformation of
gaseous pollutants into fine particulates, which can reduce visibility
greatly. For example, a total suspended particulate concentration of 150
micrograms per cubic meter, with the dominant particles having diameters be-
tween 0.2 and 1 microns and with the relative humidity below 70 percent, will
reduce visibility to five miles (8). Since current pollution control tech-
nology is effective against only primary particulates, the fraction of total
suspended particulates contributed by fine particles is expected to increase,
and visibility will continue to be a problem.
In addition to reducing visibility, directly emitted particulates cause
plant damage in the immediate vicinity of their source by settling on leaf
surfaces and forming undesirable deposits which could result in chlorosis,
or the death of leaf tissues. In the case of alfalfa, even when there is no
direct damage to leaves, the mere presence of particulate deposits on the
leaves tends to reduce the market value of the product (20).
45
-------
Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, and sulfates are the principal sulfur
oxides emitted from stationary sources. In the ORBES region most of these
oxides are produced by the burning of fuels with a high sulfur content. In
general, 95 percent of the sulfur in high-sulfur eastern coal and in high-
sulfur oil is converted to sulfur dioxide; for low-sulfur western coal this
figure may be as low as 85 percent (21). Other sulfur oxide sources are the
industrial and residential combustion of oil, petroleum refining, coke
processing, sulfuric acid manufacturing, burning coal-refuse banks, and ore
smelting. In 1972, petroleum refining contributed approximately 9 percent of
the ORBES region's net sulfur oxide emissions, the industrial combustion of
fossil fuels about 18 percent, and coal-fired power plants about 62 percent
(4).
Sulfur oxide emissions under the high-energy-growth scenarios in the year
2000 would increase about 7 percent relative to 1972 levels. Under the low-
energy-growth scenarios, levels would decrease by a small amount (about 1 per-
cent) . These increases would be primarily attributable to energy demand pro-
jections and the increased use of fossil fuels (as opposed to electricity) in
industry. Overall, there would be a differential of about 8 percent in sulfur
oxide emissions between scenarios in the year 2000.
Under the high-energy-growth option, emissions from existing coal-fired
plants would decrease about 57 percent from 1972 levels due to plant retire-
ment schedules and more efficient control measures. However, new plants
would contribute another 39 percent of total net sulfur oxide emissions, for
an overall increase over 1972 utility emissions of 11 percent. Under the low-
energy-growth option, coal-fired electric utility emissions from existing
plants would decrease approximately 56 percent from 1972 levels, while new
plants would contribute 25 percent of total net sulfur oxide emissions in
2000—a regional decrease of 16 percent relative to 1972 levels. Overall,
electric generating plants under the BOM scenarios would contribute approxi-
mately 28 percent more sulfur oxide emissions than under the FTF scenarios,
due to the higher energy demand in the BOM. However, under the FTF scenarios,
sulfur oxide emissions from the industrial combustion of fossil fuels would
increase approximately 103 percent over 1972 levels, contributing about 36
percent of total regional emissions in 2000. Under the BOM scenarios, sulfur
oxide levels from this sector would increase only about 37 percent relative
to 1972, resulting in 39 percent greater industrial emissions under the FTF
scenario.
Therefore, although through conservation the low-energy-growth scenarios
would achieve a significant decrease in sulfur oxide emissions from electric
generating plants, this decrease would be almost offset by the increase in
emissions from the industrial combustion of fossil fuels under these scenar-
ios. The result would be only a slight decrease (about 1 percent relative to
1972) in net regional sulfur oxide emissions in the year 2000, only 8 percent
less than that projected under the high-energy-growth scenarios.
The mechanisms by which sulfur dioxide is oxidized to sulfates are not
well understood but are important because they determine the formation rate
and, to some extent, the final form of sulfates. Atmospheric sulfur dioxide
46
-------
may be oxidized to sulfur trioxide and converted to sulfuric acid aerosol,
or it may form sulfite ions that are then oxidized to sulfate. After these
oxidations, sulfuric acid or sulfate may interact with other substances to
form other sulfate compounds. The rates of oxidation associated with these
mechanisms can vary with humidity, temperature, sunlight, and concentrations
of the reactants, such as ozone (22).
Atmospheric sulfur oxides have negative impacts on vegetation, animals,
buildings, and visibility. When sulfur dioxide is absorbed by a plant, a sul-
fite is formed within the plant tissues which then is transformed slowly to
sulfate. The intermediate sulfite is approximately 30 times more toxic to
plant tissue than the resultant sulfate. Vegetation in the immediate vicinity
of a sulfur dioxide source will be exposed to greater concentrations and is
more likely to suffer acute injury (cell or tissue death) from toxic sulfite
than is vegetation at a greater distance from the source that would be exposed
to lower concentrations over a longer period of time. In the latter case, the
absorbed sulfites can be transformed to less toxic sulfates (20).
Ambient sulfate particles reduce the penetration of sunlight necessary
for photosynthesis and, at higher concentrations, may cause a reduction in
primary plant productivity. Acid rains may cause acidification of surface
waters, decreases in forest growth rates, and deterioration of building
materials, as well as changes in predator-prey relationships, the leaching
rates of soils and leaves, and the metabolic rate of organisms. The leaching
of terrestrial systems increases eutrophication of surface waters and can
cause a reduction in soil fertility and thus productivity. If the buffering
capacity of the terrestrial systems is inadequate, this leaching can increase
the acidity of surface waters, causing a marked decline in sport fisheries.
Adverse impacts on plant populations will also affect animal populations that
rely on the plants as a food source (5).
Nitrogen Oxides
Mobile sources, the industrial combustion of fossil fuels, and fuel
combustion by electric utilities account for about 93 percent of the total
emissions of nitrogen oxides. The major nitrogen oxide associated with com-
bustion is nitric oxide, most of which is subsequently oxidized in the atmo-
sphere to form the more toxic nitrogen dioxide. Under clean air conditions
this conversion occurs at a relatively slow rate. In atmospheres containing
reactive hydrocarbons or oxidants, however, the reaction accelerates greatly.
In addition, nitrogen oxides may combine with amines to form nitrosamine com-
pounds and with other organic materials in the atmosphere to form numerous
photochemical oxidants such as ozone and peroxyacyl nitrates (PANs).
Within the ORBES region in 1972, coal-fired power plants emitted about
34 percent of the total net nitrogen oxide emissions, while the industrial
combustion of fossil fuels emitted about 16 percent, automobile travel 29
percent, and commercial truck use 14 percent (4). In the year 2000 under
the high-energy-growth option, net regional nitrogen oxide emissions would
increase about 93 percent relative to 1972 levels. Under the low-energy-
growth option, the increase would be about 68 percent. These increases are
attributable to higher levels of nitrogen oxide emissions from industry, from
47
-------
electrical generation, and from commercial truck use. The latter two sectors
would grow more quickly under the BOM scenarios than under the FTF, leading to
about 14 percent greater nitrogen oxide emissions in the year 2000 under the
high-energy-growth option.
Under the BOM scenarios, nitrogen oxide emissions from existing coal-
fired electrical generation plants in the year 2000 would decrease about 31
percent relative to 1972 levels. New coal-fired plants would contribute 29
percent of total nitrogen oxide emissions, with the increase over 1972 levels
about 130 percent. Under the FTF scenarios in the year 2000, emissions from
existing plants would decrease about 29 percent relative to 1972, while new
plants would account for 23 percent of total nitrogen oxide emissions—an
overall increase in power plant emissions of about 85 percent over 1972
levels. The high-energy-growth option would have 21 percent greater emissions
from electrical generating plants than would the low-energy-growth option.
Nitrogen oxide emissions from the industrial combustion of fossil fuels would
increase about 3 percent relative to 1972 under the BOM scenarios, but would
increase 74 percent under the FTF scenarios. Overall, the low-energy-growth
option would have 51 percent greater emissions from industrial combustion than
would the high-energy-growth option, due to the assumed industrial shift from
electricity to fossil fuels under the FTF.
For mobile sources in the year 2000, automobile travel under the BOM
scenarios would contribute about 11 percent of total nitrogen oxide emissions,
a 30 percent decrease from 1972 levels, while FTF emissions from automobile
travel would decrease 46 percent, 9 percent of total nitrogen oxide emissions
in 2000. Commercial truck emissions under the high-energy-growth option would
increase 210 percent, for 22 percent of the total, while under the low-energy-
growth option these emissions would increase 123 percent, 19 percent of the
total. Overall, mobile sources under the BOM scenarios would generate 31 per-
cent more nitrogen oxide emissions than ander the FTF scenarios, due to an
assumed increase in vehicle miles traveled under the BOM.
As with sulfur oxides, the lower nitrogen oxide emissions from power
plants under the low-energy-growth scenarios than under the high-energy-growth
scenarios would be offset to some extent by increases in industrial emissions.
Because of contributions to emissions by the transportation sectors, the off-
set would not be as great as with sulfur oxides: under the high-energy-growth
option there would be about 14 percent greater total nitrogen oxide emissions
in the year 2000 than under the low-energy-growth option.
Nitrogen oxides cause objectionable atmospheric discolorations which may
become severe at concentrations as low as several tenths of one part per mil-
lion (ppm). They cause overt plant damage (cell or tissue death or chlorosis)
at a few ppm and may result in a reduction in growth of as much as 35 percent
at concentrations of 0.5 ppm or less over several weeks (23). In addition,
nitrates are playing an increasingly important role in acid rainfall; the
ratio of nitric acid to sulfuric acid in acid rainfall has been rising over
the last 15 years.
48
-------
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon emissions in general, and polycyclic hydrocarbons in partic-
ular, originate primarily from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (as
in coking ovens and the production of synthetic fuels) and from the use of
hydrocarbons in such processed products as solvents. Reactions of hydrocar-
bons in urban atmospheres give rise to secondary contaminants and reaction
intermediates that cause nearly all the detrimental effects of hydrocarbon
air pollution. The polycyclic organic compounds (such as benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenzo(a,i)pyrene) are believed to be the most toxic form of hydrocarbon
emissions.
Sixty-five percent of all hydrocarbon emissions in the ORBES region in
1972 came from mobile sources, with 46 percent from automobile and personal
truck use and 19 percent from commercial truck use. Another 8 percent orig-
inated at service stations; 6 percent can be traced to solvent-based paints.
Fuel combustion from stationary sources contributed less than 2 percent of
total 1972 hydrocarbon emissions (4).
Under the BOM and the FTF scenarios, in the year 2000 regional net hydro-
carbon emissions relative to 1972 would decrease 40 percent and 58 percent,
respectively, due in part to reductions in the use of solvent-based paints
and controls on service station emissions, but more importantly due to more
effective controls on automobiles and trucks. Overall, the BOM scenarios
would have approximately 36 percent greater hydrocarbon emission levels in
the year 2000 than the FTF scenarios, primarily due to the assumed increase
in vehicle miles traveled under the BOM.
Under the high-energy-growth option, total transportation hydrocarbon
emissions would decrease 45 percent from 1972 levels, to contribute 59 percent
of the total emissions in the year 2000, 24 percent from automobile and per-
sonal truck travel and 35 percent from commercial truck use. Under the low-
energy-growth option, total transportation emissions would decrease 58 percent
relative to 1972, contributing 56 percent of the total regional emissions in
2000. Of this, automobile and personal truck emissions would make up 25 per-
cent of the total; commercial truck use, 31 percent. Overall, the high-
energy-growth scenarios would have about 26 percent greater hydrocarbon emis-
sions in the year 2000 from transportation than would the low-energy-growth
scenarios.
In the year 2000, service station hydrocarbon emissions would increase
about 5 percent over 1972 levels under the BOM scenarios, while under the FTF
scenarios they would decrease 24 percent. Finally, emissions traceable to
solvent-based paints would decrease 39 percent from 1972 levels under the BOM
scenarios and 25 percent under the FTF scenarios.
Thus the low-energy-growth option would result in significant decreases
in hydrocarbon emissions relative to 1972 for all sectors, while under the
high-energy-growth option only two sectors would show significant decreases.
Overall, the BOM scenarios would result in 36 percent greater emissions from
hydrocarbons in the year 2000 than would the FTF scenarios.
49
-------
The principal direct effects of hydrocarbons and polycyclic organic com-
pounds are on human health; these are discussed in Chapter 6. Their effects
on animals and vegetation primarily are a result of the role played by hydro-
carbons in the formation of photochemical oxidants, which is discussed in the
following section.
Photochemical Oxidants
Photochemical oxidants (a principal constituent of smog) result from a
complex series of atmospheric reactions initiated by the ultraviolet compo-
nent of sunlight. These reactions convert nitrogen oxides and reactive
organic substances (hydrocarbons) to new compounds such as ozone and peroxy-
acyl nitrates (PANs). Therefore, in order to control the more harmful photo-
chemical oxidants, one must control their precursors—hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen.
During a 24-hour period of heavy smog in urban areas, ozone concentra-
tions average about 0.15 to 0.2 parts per million and may peak at around
1 ppm. The ambient standard for ozone is 0.08 ppm for one hour. Extremely
sensitive plant species, such as tobacco, show leaf damage at concentrations
as low as 0.02 ppm. Toxicity experiments on animals have produced bronchitic
pneumonia, edema, and death at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm.
The effects of ozone are mitigated to some extent by an antagonism or cross-
resistance between ozone and other toxic pollutants. For example, the pres-
ence of sulfur compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide, which
are themselves toxic, has protected laboratory mice at ozone concentrations
that otherwise would have been lethal (23).
Recent evidence strongly suggests that the precursors for oxidants that
are emitted into the atmosphere of an urban area can be transported for many
tens of miles into surrounding rural areas, where they can continue to react,
thereby producing oxidant concentrations that exceed standards over a wide
geographical area. These high oxidant concentrations are capable of accel-
erating the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate particulates.
PANs, another critical element of photochemical smog, have been found to
kill leaf tissues, to reduce the rate of water uptake by plants, to interfere
with plant enzyme systems and cell wall metabolism, and to reduce blooming,
fruit set, and overall growth rate in some species (23).
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide emissions result primarily from mobile sources. Thus
they are primarily an urban problem that might be alleviated through trans-
portation-control plans. Such considerations are not within the scope of
ORBES.
Comparison of Regional and National Air Pollution Levels
Air pollution levels in the ORBES region are higher than would be ex-
pected if emissions were proportional to population. For example, while the
region contains about 14 percent of the nation's population, particulate
emissions are about 95 percent greater than what would be expected based on
50
-------
population. The major reason is the concentration of steel-processing plants
and coal-fired electrical generating units in the region. While the steel
sector (sintering) contributes only about 6 percent of national particulate
emissions, it represents about 19 percent of the regional total.
In projections for the year 2000, regional net particulate emissions for
both the high- and low-energy-growth options would be in line with national
emissions of this pollutant. Regional sulfur oxide emissions, however, would
be about 50 percent greater than expected under the FTP scenarios. These pro-
jected high levels are traceable to increased coal use: under the low-energy-
growth option, coal-fired power plants are projected to contribute about 40
percent of national sulfur oxide emissions but almost 50 percent of regional
emissions in the year 2000. Similarly, under that option, the industrial
combustion of fossil fuels would contribute about 36 percent of regional
sulfur oxide emissions but only about 20 percent of national emissions.
Under the BOM scenarios in the year 2000, higher emission levels than
expected if emissions were proportional to population would be projected in
the ORBES region for both nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons—about 16 percent
higher for each of these pollutants. Under the FTP scenarios, lower emission
levels than expected would be projected for hydrocarbons (about 20 percent
lower), while nitrogen oxide emission levels would be in line with projected
levels nationwide. Combustion of coal by electric utilities and industries is
the major source of nitrogen oxides (about 45 percent of regional emissions
and 25 percent of national), while mobile sources, service stations, and
petroleum refining account for most hydrocarbon emissions.
Current air pollution levels in the ORBES region also are higher than
would be expected if emissions were proportional to land area. The region
occupies about 4 percent of the nation's continental land area, but current
emission levels exceed this 4 percent share by over 200 percent for all four
pollutants examined. Similar trends hold when comparisons are made between
projected national emissions in the year 2000 and those projected under the
BOM and FTP scenarios.
Cascading Effect of Siting Corridors: Subregional Effects
In addition to the effects of the ORBES scenarios on regional and state-
wide air quality, potential local effects also were analyzed. Examination of
the siting patterns for all four scenarios reveals heavy concentrations of
new power plants along major rivers, particularly the Illinois and the Ohio.
In order to examine the air quality impacts of these siting configurations, a
theoretical model (the Air Quality Display Model) was implemented to determine
the level of atmospheric pollutant concentrations if a persistent wind blew
along any of these siting corridors (6).1 In nearly all cases, the assump-
tions and approximations utilized in the application of this model resulted in
figures that tend to underestimate these predicted concentrations. The model
considered a corridor approximately 50 kilometers wide extending from Evans-
ville, Indiana, to Cincinnati, Ohio. Fifty-eight power plants were assumed to
a description of other ORBES research on pollutant transport model-
ing, see Reference 24.
51
-------
be located within the corridor, following the siting configuration of the BOM
80/20 scenario. Calculations were made for a south wind (that is, a wind that
originates from the south) blowing across the Ohio River siting corridor and
for a west-southwest wind (that is, one coming from the west-southwest)
blowing along the Ohio River siting corridor.
Calculations made for a wind blowing along the Ohio River Valley (a
west-southwest wind) showed that the maximum predicted 12-hour sulfur dioxide
concentration in the corridor would be 598 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)
for new plants built after 1985. This high concentration would be the result
of a "cascading" effect. That is, as an air mass moves along the valley under
persistent wind conditions, the emissions from each source would be retained
in the air mass. Consequently, the pollutant concentrations would build up as
the air mass passes each source in the siting corridor. This wind condition
would be expected to occur once every two years. For the south wind blowing
across the valley, the maximum anticipated 12-hour sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions from new sources alone would be 554 pg/m3. A persistent 12-hour south-
erly wind could occur between three and six times a year. See Figure 3 for a
depiction of the siting corridors and the cascading effect.
It should be noted that no attempt was made to ascertain the contribu-
tions of present or anticipated sources to ground-level concentrations. Thus,
as noted above, these predictions represent only the incremental contributions
attributable to the siting of coal-fired plants after 1985 for the BOM 80
percent coal/20 percent nuclear scenario. These conversion units would rep-
resent approximately two-thirds of the total electric generating capacity of
the Ohio River Valley siting corridor in the year 2000. Since the new elec-
tric generating facilities would contribute only about 40 percent of the total
sulfur dioxide emissions in the region in 2000 under the BOM 80/20, it is
expected that the 12-hour sulfur dioxide concentration resulting from all
sources (industrial and utility) would exceed 1000 pg/m3 for either persistent
wind. This would result in a 24-hour concentration in excess of 500 pg/m .
Under current EPA regulations, the allowable 24-hour sulfur dioxide con-
centration of 365 pg/m may not legally be exceeded more than once in a year.
As shown above, however, under the cascading effect of a south wind these
allowable ambient concentrations could be exceeded three to six times a year.
Another recent study has reported similar results (25, 26). It should be
noted that ultimately the cascading effect would affect areas outside the
ORBES region. For example, other recent research shows that the greatest im-
pacts of acid rains will occur downwind—probably in the northeastern Appala-
chian Mountains (6).
A similar calculation for nitrogen oxide levels in the corridor for the
south wind condition shows a maximum possible 12-hour incremental concentra-
tion of approximately 440 pg/m3. Under the authority of the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air Act, currently EPA is drafting short-term nitrogen oxide
standards.
52
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY
In addition to using federal powers to protect and enhance air quality,
in recent years Congress also has been directing its attention to water
quality throughout the United States. In 1972, amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) were enacted. These amendments continued
the existing requirement that states establish water quality standards for
their interstate waters and broadened this requirement to include intrastate
waters. Each state is responsible for classifying the desirable uses of its
waters and for setting forth the pollutant concentrations that may not be
exceeded in order for the standards to be met. The 1972 amendments also
require that "effluent limitations" for point sources of discharge, set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, be achieved. Set by industrial category
(for 42 industries as of June 1977), the effluent limitations represent mini-
mums that all dischargers in those categories must meet. The limitations
generally require use of the best practicable control technology, to be
achieved by 1977, and the best available control technology, to be achieved by
1983. If stricter limitations are necessary to achieve the water quality
required by the state in its standards, they can be imposed.
The mechanism for ensuring that individual dischargers comply with the
effluent limitations is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System,
also established by the 1972 amendments. Every facility that discharges
effluents into navigable waters must receive a permit which includes, among
other requirements, the effluent limitations that must be met. EPA has the
authority to issue these permits but may delegate it to the states, retaining
the authority to review permits. As of June 1977 in the ORBES-region states,
Indiana and Ohio were responsible for administering their programs, while
permits still were issued by EPA in Illinois and Kentucky.
The major effects of energy development on water quality stem from four
pollutants: biological oxygen demand wastes (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
wastes (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (TDS).
Also of importance are thermal discharges into streams, water consumption by
electrical generating facilities, and the secondary effects of growth induced
by energy facilities. See Table 8 for a summary of outputs of the major
contributors to the four water pollutants named above in the ORBES region in
1972 and as projected to 2000 under the scenarios. Breakdowns by state appear
in Appendix I.
As shown in Table 8, and as described in detail below, in the year 2000
there would be slightly more water pollution overall under the high-energy-
growth BOM scenarios than under the low-energy-growth FTF scenarios, with some
differences in concentrations found for all four of the pollutants examined.
The major factors affecting these differences are the electrical energy con-
servation effort under the FTF scenarios and the greater emphasis on the use
of coal under the BOM scenarios. It should be noted, however, that only point
sources of water pollution (such as sewage plants) are taken into account. If
nonpoint sources (such as agriculture) had been considered, significant dif-
ferences between scenarios would be expected for two of the four pollutants
examined: total dissolved solids and total suspended solids.
54
-------
TABLE 8. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO WATER POLLUTION, ORBES REGION
U1
Pollutant Sector
BOD wastes municipal sewage
plastic materials
and resins
citric acid
high-processing
pack inghouse
sulfite pulp
Percept
difference
" FTP-BOM "
Net 1972 f
effluents Percent of Percent of %
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change |_ 2
103 36 52 -44 52 -44
19 7 6 -63 6 -63 -.5
18 6
11 4
10 4
forest products S
fisheries
canned & frozen fruits
S vegetables
13
Total net
284
95
-61
13
93
-61
-1
-.4
COD wastes
forest produces &
fisheries
plastic materials S
resins
43
38
15
14
37
18
44
-22
38
18
42
-22
-1
-.5
t
Only sectors contributing more than 3**percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Ul
Pollutant
Total net
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
Sector
citric acid
meat animals S
other livestock
industrial chemicals
dyes and dye
intermediates
synthetic rubber
maleic anhydride
coal-other processing
coal-metallurgical
cleaning
municipal sewage
electric- coal-old
Percent
difference
Net 1972 f FTF-BOM 1
e*ffi ii*ant-<= Por^e>nt Qf Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change [_ 2
35 13 6 -73 6 -74 -.1
22 8
19 7 6 -49 6 -50 -1
15 5 4 -60 4 -61 -.3
13 5 3 -63 3 -63 -.7
93 4 -25 4 -26 -.5
277 -40 -42 -3
4557 70
1135 17
47 48
7 8 15
t
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTP 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
Ui
electric-coal-new
coal-strip mined
plastic materials &
resins
forest products &
fisheries
Total net
6485
-98
-98
-31
-8
-.5
-1
-3
Total dissolved
solids (TDS) citric acid
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
coal-underground
coal-strip mined
1154
239
83
321
51
11
4
14
62
2
6
4
15
129
-61
95
93
60
2
5
4
13
129
-59
76
78
-.1
3
-34
-11
-8
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
03
Pollutant
Total net
Percent
difference
Net 1972 f FTF-BOM 1
effluents porr-ont of Percent of "'
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTP 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change [_ ~~2
coal-other processing 68 3
2242 84 78 -3
*
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTP scenarios.
-------
Water Consumption
Although water resources in the ORBES region are relatively abundant,
anticipated growth in population, industry, and energy development will lead
to increased demands for these finite resources. Much of this demand will be
for "consumption" of water, that is, for water which is not returned to the
stream and is not available directly for other off-stream uses or for main-
taining water quality. (Impacts of water consumption on water quantity are
discussed in Chapter 3.)
Excessive water consumption can exacerbate existing water quality
problems—or cause new ones—when decreased flow rates provide less water for
the dilution of discharges, leading to higher concentrations of pollutants.
For example, estimates of water consumption for the BOM scenarios are almost
twice as high as those for the FTF scenarios. Consequently, it is anticipated
that under the BOM scenarios the region would be more dependent on inflow from
outside it and that there would be a greater risk of water quality problems
than under the FTF scenarios (9).
Thermal Effluents
In general, the greatest thermal impact of energy development occurs
during electrical generation. The amount of waste heat is dependent on fuel
source and plant size. The environmental effects produced are dependent on
the amount of waste heat, the type of cooling system, and the nature of
receiving waters. A typical nuclear-fueled plant operates at 32 percent
thermal efficiency and releases about 40 percent more waste heat to cooling
water than does a comparably sized coal-fired plant, which operates at approx-
imately 38 percent efficiency, but releases part of its waste heat with the
flue gas up the stack. Once-through cooling increases thermal efficiency
slightly, but it greatly increases the thermal energy discharged to a body of
water. Consequently, cooling towers or specially constructed cooling ponds
are required technology for most new power plants. Thus, thermal discharges
should level off or decrease as plants with once-through cooling systems are
9
retired.
20hio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) pollution con-
trol standards (1-70 and 2-70, November 1970) recommend that the aggregate
heat-discharge rate, figured on the basis of discharge volume and temperature
differential (temperature of discharge minus upstream river temperature), not
exceed a calculated amount. These standards also recommend that in no case
should the aggregate heat-discharge rate be of such magnitude as would result
in more than a 5 degree Fahrenheit increase in river temperature. State
thermal discharge standards generally agree with the ORSANCO standards.
Federal standards for new generating units require the use of the best prac-
ticable technology that will greatly reduce the discharge of heat, except in
those situations where it can be shown that the discharge would have no
adverse effect on the biological balance of indigenous species.
59
-------
Thermal discharges may directly affect fish populations and their migra-
tion and spawning habits, as well as other aquatic organisms. What may be of
even greater concern is the entrainment and impingement in once-through cool-
ing systems of phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs, and larvae, a large
proportion of which may be killed by thermal or mechanical stress. Reducing
the biological stock of these organisms can at times have a significant effect
upon biological oxygen demand downstream from the discharge point. In the
impacted areas, species diversity would decrease while hardy species popu-
lations would increase. Algal bloom, especially the blue-green variety, and
spareotilus blooms (sewage fungus) would increase, causing potential problems
for municipal water-intake systems.
In addition, thermal discharges may affect water quality directly by
increasing consumptive evaporation levels, which would result in decreased
flow rates and therefore higher concentrations of pollutants. Heated efflu-
ents accelerate the consumption of dissolved oxygen by high biological oxygen
demand (BOD) wastes, and, near sources, critical dissolved oxygen levels may
be reached before the waste can be assimilated in a more diluted stream.
Higher temperatures also would decrease the solubility of oxygen and would
slow re-aeration rates. Also, many undesirable compounds increase in solu-
bility with temperature, resulting in increased levels of total dissolved
solids (8).
The thermal impacts described above would not be expected to occur under
either the BOM or FTP scenarios, due to the assumption that the cooling tech-
nology for all new power plants would be evaporative cooling towers. See
Chapter 3 for a discussion of the consumptive water losses that could result
from the widespread use of this technology.
Organic and Chemical Effluents
The principal chemical pollutants for which EPA has set effluent limita-
tions are total suspended solids, oil and grease, copper, iron, zinc, chro-
mate, phosphorus, and chlorine, all of which are additives of treated water
used in generating plant boilers or as cooling water. Also of importance are
levels of total dissolved solids and of high biological and chemical oxygen
demand wastes.
Biological Oxygen Demand. As shown in Table 8, 36 percent of the net levels
of high-BOD wastes in the ORBES region in 1972 came from municipal sewage
treatment plants, 7 percent from the plastic materials and resins sector, and
3 percent from forest products and fisheries. Other significant sources of
residuals were citric acid production (6 percent),3 high-processing packing-
houses (4 percent), and sulfite pulp production (4 percent) (4). Under sce-
nario projections for the year 2000, however, effluents from the last three
sectors either would be controlled or would no longer contribute significant
portions of net discharges.
3Almost one-third of the national output of citric acid is produced by
two plants located within the ORBES region.
60
-------
Under both the high- and the low-energy-growth options, total regional
net BOD wastes could decrease by about 61 percent from 1972 levels. Overall,
there is less than 1 percent difference between the BOM and FTF scenarios in
projected levels of BOD wastes. Both options show a decrease of 44 percent
from 1972 levels in municipal sewage discharges of high-BOD wastes, a result
of new secondary sewage-treatment plants being built by municipalities. BOD
wastes from plastic materials and resins would decrease 63 percent relative to
1972 levels, making up 6 percent of the total under both scenarios. On the
other hand, BOD effluents from the forest products and fisheries sector would
increase by about 94 percent relative to 1972 under both the BOM and FTF
scenarios.
Chemical Oxygen Demand. Major contributors to total regional net COD wastes
in 1972 were forest products and fisheries (15 percent), plastic materials and
resins (14 percent), citric acid production (13 percent), meat animals and
other livestock (8 percent), and the combined industrial chemicals sector,
consisting of the industrial chemicals, dye and dye intermediates, synthetic
rubber, and maleic anhydride sectors (20 percent) (4).
Under both the high- and low-energy-growth options, in the year 2000
total regional COD wastes would be reduced approximately 41 percent from 1972
levels. Overall, the high-energy-growth option would produce about 3 percent
higher COD waste levels than would the low-energy-growth option. All sectors
except forest products and fisheries would decrease relative to 1972 levels
under either option, and it is only in the forest products and fisheries sec-
tor that the outputs differ between scenarios by one percentage point or more.
Under either option, COD wastes from the plastic materials and resins
sector in the year 2000 would decrease approximately 22 percent from 1972
levels, contributing about 18 percent of total COD wastes. Citric acid ef-
fluents would decrease approximately 73 percent from 1972 levels under both
options, to make up about 6 percent of the regional total. The combined
industrial chemicals sector would decrease about 52 percent relative to 1972,
approximately 16 percent of the total. Under both options, COD wastes from
forest products and fisheries would increase approximately 43 percent over
1972 levels, to make up about 37 percent of the regional total. Overall, in
the year 2000 the BOM scenarios would produce about 3 percent higher COD
waste levels than the FTF scenarios, due to greater output in the industrial
chemicals and forest products and fisheries sectors under the BOM.
Total Suspended Solids. In 1972, 17 percent of the net regional levels of TSS
from point sources originated with the metallurgical cleaning of coal, while
70 percent came from other coal processing (4). Under both the high- and low-
energy-growth options in the year 2000, TSS levels from these two sectors
would decrease, primarily through the control of effluents from coal-
processing operations, and these sectors would not contribute to net TSS
levels. Point-source TSS levels would be reduced 98 percent relative to 1972.
Overall, the high-energy-growth scenarios would produce approximately 3 per-
cent more suspended solids from point sources than would the low-energy-growth
scenarios. The major reasons for this difference lie in the greater number of
coal-fired electric plants and the increased coal mining to supply those
plants under the BOM scenarios. Unfortunately, no data are available on
61
-------
nonpoint sources that contribute to TSS (such as agriculture and urban run-
off) , even though this pollutant may stem primarily from these nonpoint
sources.
Approximately 48 percent of the projected TSS effluents from point
sources in the year 2000 would come from municipal sewage treatment plants,
about 9 percent from the plastic materials and resins sector, and 3 percent
from forest products and fisheries, with no significant difference between the
scenarios for any of these sectors. Existing coal-fired electrical generating
plants would contribute about 8 percent of total suspended solids under both
the BOM and the FTF scenarios, with the BOM scenarios producing 15 percent
greater TSS effluents in this sector than the FTF. Another 8 percent under
the high-energy-growth option and 6 percent under the low-energy-growth option
would come from new coal-fired plants, with 31 percent greater TSS effluents
under the high-energy-growth option. The surface mining of coal would gener-
ate about 6 percent of total suspended solids under both options, with approx-
imately 8 percent greater effluents under the BOM scenarios. Thus the higher
level of energy development would increase sediment transport both directly,
from strip mining, and indirectly, as induced growth, from agriculture and, as
residuals, from point sources associated with power-plant ash or flue-gas
scrubber sludges.
Sedimentation directly affects the cost and feasibility of water-resource
projects by decreasing the life of reservoirs and necessitating larger pro-
jects than otherwise required to accommodate sediment build-up. Similarly,
sedimentation increases the chance of flooding as well as the need for channel
dredging; it affects fish populations directly by interfering with oxygen
absorption. Sediment particles absorb metal ions, radionuclides, and other
substances and release them into waters (27).
Total Dissolved Solids. Major point-source contributors to total regional net
levels of dissolved solids in 1972 were citric acid production (51 percent),
the surface mining of coal (14 percent), underground mining (4 percent), and
coal-fired electrical generating plants (10 percent) (4).
Projections for the high-energy-growth scenarios show that regional TDS
levels in the year 2000 would increase about 84 percent relative to 1972,
while under the low-growth scenario net TDS would increase 78 percent. These
increases can be traced directly to increased coal-mining activity, a result
of ORBES scenario assumptions about fuel use, and to the production of citric
acid, which is not responsive to scenario assumptions. Overall, the high-
energy-growth option would have approximately 3 percent greater TDS levels in
the year 2000 than would the low-energy-growth option.
Total dissolved solids from existing coal-fired electric plants would
drop to about 2 percent under both scenarios, while new plants would add
between 5 and 6 percent of this pollutant. The result would be an increase
relative to 1972 in TDS effluents from all electric plants of 56 percent
under the high-energy-growth option and 12 percent under the low-energy-
growth. Overall, TDS effluents from the electric utility sector in the year
2000 would be 33 percent greater under the BOM scenarios than under the FTF.
62
-------
The effects of high energy growth are reflected in the anticipated 95
percent increase over 1972 levels in TDS effluents from underground coal
mining and in the projected 93 percent increase from surface mining. The low-
energy-growth option would increase underground mine effluents by 76 percent
and surface mine effluents by 78 percent relative to 1972 levels. Overall, in
the year 2000 the BOM scenarios would have 11 percent higher TDS levels from
underground coal mining, and 8 percent higher levels from surface mining, than
would the FTF scenarios, due to the BOM emphasis on high- energy growth and on
coal.
The primary impact of coal mining on water quality comes from acid mine
waters and their by-products. Sulfides in coal are acted upon by bacteria in
the presence of oxygen and moisture to form sulfuric acid and iron salts.
When discharged to streams, acid mine waters increase total dissolved solids,
sulfates, iron, managnese, and hardness. These acid waters are corrosive and
shorten the life of ordinary concrete and metals used in bridges, dams,
pumps, turbines, and boats. In addition, the acidity levels of streams may
become too high for many fish species to tolerate, while precipitated iron
salts on stream bottoms may smother benthic and planktonic biota, disrupting
food chains for fish, shellfish, and so forth.
Comparison of Regional and National Chemical Effluent Levels. Present BOD and
COD waste levels in the ORBES region are lower than would be expected if ef-
fluents were proportional to the region's share of the national population—
about 45 percent lower for BOD and about 40 percent lower for COD wastes. On
the other hand, TSS and TDS discharges are higher than would be expected
Cabout 200 percent and 20 percent, respectively). Some major contributors to
national BOD and COD levels, such as feedlots, are not important ORBES-region
industries. Instead, regional BOD loads come primarily from municipal sewage-
treatment plants; COD loads, from a variety of other sectors. The discrepan-
cies between ORBES-regional and national TSS and TDS levels are traceable
directly to the concentration of coal-mining and processing activities within
the region.
Projections for the year 2000 show essentially the same results for
regional BOD and COD wastes as at present. Levels would remain well below
those expected under both energy-growth options if these levels were propor-
tional to population. TDS would remain above what would be expected if the
national comparison held, with the regional share having risen due to the
heavy concentration of coal-mining activities. For TSS, however, a substan-
tial decrease in net residuals in the ORBES region by 2000 would be expected.
This decrease can be traced to the abatement of residuals from coal processing
within the region, as compared to a projected national increase in these
residuals due to greater reliance on synthetic fuels.^
Water pollution levels in the ORBES region also were compared to those
that would be expected if emissions were proportional to land area. In this
comparison, only projected TSS levels would be below those expected. Levels
of BOD, COD, and TDS would be well above those expected if the national-
regional land ratio held.
reference 28 for more information on synthetic fuel production.
63
-------
COMPARISON OF AIR AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AMONG SECTORS
When gross and net residuals generation in the ORBES region as projected
to the year 2000 are compared for the four air pollutants examined, signifi-
cant differences in output between the two energy-growth options are found for
all four. No significant differences between the two options were found for
the four water pollutants examined. However, if nonpoint sources of pollution
such as runoff from disturbed land are taken into account, differences between
the two energy-growth options would be expected for two of these pollutants,
total suspended solids and total dissolved solids. Some of the patterns found
are the direct result of differing scenario assumptions, while others stem
from the impact of these assumptions on industrial production and the energy-
supply network, including trends in a few key sectors that affect the entire
ORBES region.
The largest single source of differences between the two options is the
electric utility sector. In the BOM scenarios, recent trends of increasing
electricity usage are extrapolated. In the FTF scenarios, on the other hand,
electrical generation is viewed as a primary source of energy inefficiency in
the economy, and attempts are made to slow its rate of growth as part of an
overall conservation strategy. As a result, electrical generation in the year
2000 under the BOM scenarios would be almost twice as large as generation
under the FTF. However, from an environmental standpoint, twice the electri-
cal output does not imply that the residuals from air and water pollutants
also would double. Some of the growth in electricity supply during the period
1986-2000 would come from nuclear reactors, which are not major contributors
to "conventional" air and water pollutant discharges, even though they have
their own special residuals problems. In addition, the projected coal-fired
plants would employ more efficient pollution control devices and thus generate
fewer residuals per unit output than does the current mix of electric utility
plants. Under the BOM scenarios, utilities would still generate approximately
40 percent more residuals than utilities under the FTF scenarios. This would
have a major impact on the total regional loadings of particulates, sulfur
oxides, and hydrocarbons.
The projected lower levels of residuals from the electric utility sector
under the low-energy-growth scenarios would be offset to varying degrees
(depending on the pollutant) by increases in residuals from the industrial
combustion of fossil fuels. That is, in order to both maintain gross national
product and conserve electrical energy under the FTF scenarios, industries in
the region would produce their own power directly through combustion of coal
and natural gas. Although this direct combustion is more efficient and thus
produces fewer residuals than does electric generation, the level of indus-
trial combustion required to maintain GNP is high enough to have significant
effects on residuals under the FTF scenarios. In particular, direct indus-
trial combustion is a major source of net regional particulates, sulfur
oxides, and nitrogen oxides.
On the other hand, the FTF scenarios would achieve substantial reductions
in transportation energy use—about 27 percent in the year 2000. This
decrease would occur because the increased vehicle-miles traveled would be
more than offset by the much greater average efficiency of automobiles used
64
-------
in the FTP scenarios in the year 2000. Significant reductions in mobile
source air emissions also would be achieved by more stringent emission con-
trols. These changes would constitute the bulk of the FTF impact on hydro-
carbon emissions. They also are a significant part of the low-energy-growth
option's impact on nitrogen oxide emissions, even though these decreases would
be offset by increases in other sectors, particularly new coal-fired power
plants. Under the BOM scenarios, anticipated increases in nitrogen oxides for
the year 2000 would stem primarily from emissions from new coal-fired plants
and, to a lesser extent, from increased emissions from commercial trucks.
Scenario assumptions about the level and mix of energy demand and fuels
also would lead to impacts on water quality through the effects of these
assumptions on the outputs of the energy extraction, conversion, and distri-
bution industries. Due to the projected emphasis on coal, under both options
in the year 2000 coal mines and related operations like breaking, sizing, and
cleaning would contribute approximately 6 percent of the net loading of sus-
pended solids and 18 percent of dissolved solids. Overall, the coal-mining
sector would experience about a 98 percent decline relative to 1972 in net TSS
discharges under both options, while TDS levels from the coal-mining sector
would increase 77 percent over 1972 levels under the FTF scenarios and 93
percent under the BOM scenarios.
Hydrocarbon emissions from service stations would decline because of the
imposition of emission control systems on them. Emissions would decline in
direct proportion to the amount of fuel used, and therefore they would be
lower under the low-energy-growth option. Refinery emissions are proportional
to the petroleum produced and inversely proportional to the degree of pollu-
tion control. Under the FTF scenarios, some users of petroleum would increase
their demand over 1972 levels. For other sectors, including electric utili-
ties and residential uses, a decrease in demand would be projected. Overall,
however, relative to 1972, due to increased emission controls on petroleum
refineries, there would be significant decreases in sulfur oxide emissions
from these sources under either energy-growth option.
Finally, a number of significant residuals producers are not responsive
to the scenario variables considered. Included within this category are
citric acid production (a major source of TDS), forest products and fisheries
CBOD and COD), crushed stone (particulates), and municipal sewage (BOD and
TSS).
LAND QUALITY
The main impacts of energy development on land quality and geomorphology
stem from waste disposal, conversion by-products, surface mining, and con-
struction activities. Impacts stemming from land-use conflicts are discussed
in Chapter 3.
Waste Disposal and Extraction
Solid wastes are produced in virtually every energy-related process. For
example, the waste generated during the conversion of coal into electric
energy totals about 1.75 tons of solid waste per ton of coal used if the coal
65
-------
comes from surface mines; about 0.9 tons of solid waste is generated per ton
of underground coal. Historically, there has been little government regula-
tion of the disposal of these mine wastes. In most cases they have been
either stored near the mine site or graded back into the mined area. As a
result, several hundred thousand acres of land in the region have been
"orphaned." Recent federal surface-mining legislation and state action will
change mine waste-disposal practices in the ORBES region in the near- and
long-term future. It is too soon, however, to estimate how significant these
changes will be.
Lime or limestone scrubber wastes accumulate in specially constructed
ponds near generating stations. A 1000 MWe plant requires a 30-foot-deep
disposal pond covering about 80 acres to store the fly-ash and scrubber
sludge produced over a 30-year plant life (7). Procedures for returning these
areas to productive uses are available, but generally not mandated.
Fewer solid waste-disposal sites are required for the nuclear fuel cycle
than for coal, but their potential impacts on land quality may be greater.
That is, nuclear wastes potentially require that a relatively small area of
land be disrupted in perpetuity, while coal mine wastes require disruption of
large areas of land for a relatively short period of time. The principal
nuclear waste problem in the ORBES region probably will be the long-term
storage of irradiated wastes from nuclear power plants at regional disposal
sites. The ORBES region already has storage facilities for low-level wastes
and is a candidate for high-level waste-disposal facilities. Technical and
political problems have been experienced in connection with at least one of
these low-level waste-disposal facilities. The potential for land quality
degradation is serious if confinement is incomplete.
During extraction, processing, and waste disposal, direct modification of
the shape of the land and the production of waste materials occurs continu-
ously. Surface mining can result in temporary or permanent piles of unstable
waste materials, disruption of surface drainage and of aquifer flow, and sig-
nificant acceleration of erosion and subsequent sedimentation and acid mine
drainage. Underground mining can result in subsidence, which deforms surface
features and disrupts drainage systems; disruption of aquifers; acid mine
drainage; and surface deposits of mining refuse. Practices required by exist-
ing and proposed regulations, such as siltation basins, diversion ditches,
prompt regrading, and revegetation, may be capable of avoiding or substan-
tially mitigating these impacts as they occur (6). However, analysis of the
effects of these regulations is inconclusive. Such regulations will be exam-
ined in detail during ORBES Phase II.
Surface mining also destroys all existing habitats in the mined area.
Although current regulations require reclamation and reestablishment of the
vegetative cover, this is a lengthy process (it may take many centuries to
reestablish a high-quality deciduous forest). During the time an area is
being mined, wildlife move into other territories and alter predator-prey
relations there. Early in the revegetation process the younger ecosystem is
less diverse and tends to attract different species from those in the original
ecosystem. If any unique areas are destroyed, it is unlikely that their
66
-------
ecosystems could be reestablished. Similar impacts result from construction
activities and other surface disruptions (8, 13).
Conversion, Transportation, and Utilization
Geomorphological impacts associated with reshaping the landscape and the
attendant disruption of drainage patterns and sedimentation and erosion rates
result from all phases of the coal and nuclear fuel cycles. For conversion,
transportation, and utilization, geomorphological impacts are most obvious and
severe during construction activities. Off-site impacts also may occur during
conversion and utilization: increased drainage density, reduced surface
permeability, and reduced drainage cover resulting from paved-over areas may
cause changes in surface-flow intensity which in turn may affect erosion and
deposition rates at downstream locations (6). Land quality also may be
degraded over large areas surrounding coal-fired plants as airborne pollutants
settle to the ground. These impacts on productivity are discussed in the sec-
tion on air quality above.
Impacts on land quality and geomorphology are difficult to quantify.
However, in terms of probability of occurrence, duration, intensity, and
geographical scale, the BOM scenarios would have more severe impacts than the
FTF. In addition, it is anticipated that those scenarios that emphasize coal
usually would have more severe immediate impacts than those that emphasize
nuclear fuel.
ILLUSTRATIVE POLICY ISSUES
Air Quality
—Some secondary, unregulated pollutants are believed to have substantially
adverse effects on human health, perhaps in some cases effects more
adverse than those of their regulated precursor pollutants (for example,
sulfates, which are not regulated, are thought to be more toxic than
sulfur dioxide, which is subject to regulation). To what extent should
these precursor pollutants be regulated to reduce the formation of their
secondary pollutants while research proceeds on the health effects of
these secondary pollutants?
—In some cases state and federal environmental protection agencies dis-
agree as to what power plant emission rates should be allowed. What
changes in procedures would help remove existing inefficiencies in
administrative and legal procedures intended to resolve such disagree-
ments?
—Is a regional institutional mechanism needed to control the siting of new
fossil-fueled electrical generating plants in the ORBES region to avoid
unacceptable regional- and subregional-scale environmental impacts (for
example, the "cascading" effect of air pollutants)?
-What period of time is reasonable within which to meet and enforce the
secondary air pollutant standards?
67
-------
—It is probable that power plants and industrial development in the ORBES
region will "capture" clean air allotments for up-valley and/or cross-
river neighbors. Should a multistate regional institutional mechanism be
responsible for allocating available clean air increments?
—Does low-level radiation emitted routinely from nuclear-fueled plants now
operating (or to be constructed) represent enough of a health hazard to
warrant attention by regulatory agencies? (also listed in Chapter 6)
—Does low-level radiation emitted routinely from coal-fired plants now
operating (or to be constructed) represent enough of a health hazard to
warrant attention by regulatory agencies? (also listed in Chapter 6)
—Should standards to reduce public health risks from continuous radio-
active emissions by coal-fired and nuclear-fueled plants be applied
equally to these two technologies? (also listed in Chapter 6)
Water Quality
—Should thermal control technologies other than wet cooling towers and
cooling ponds be considered for use in the ORBES region?
—Will the best available technology 1983 discharge requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act be sufficient to achieve acceptable
water quality goals within the ORBES region, or should zero-discharge
requirements be developed for selected industries?
—If a municipality believes that the quality of its drinking water might
be affected adversely by a proposed power plant and that additional
pretreatment facilities are necessary to reduce risks from such adverse
effects, should the financial burden fall on the public or private
sector?
—How can permitting procedures for new coal mines be improved in order to
ensure that no acid mine drainage will occur? In cases where acid mine
drainage is already occurring, how can the necessary treatment be guaran-
teed to continue over the many decades or centuries during which this
drainage will take place?
Land Quality
—What should the roles of state and/or local governments be in reviewing
and determining the final acceptability of sites for the long-term
storage of radioactive wastes? What should be their roles in monitoring
such sites? (also listed in Chapter 3)
—Procedures are available for returning acreage affected by lime or
limestone scrubber sludges to productive uses. What criteria should
guide whether this reclamation should occur? What level of government,
if any, should assume responsibility to ensure that this reclamation
takes place?
68
-------
-Whose responsibility should it be to decommission nuclear power plants
after their useful life has ended? On what sector should the financial
burden fall?
-By what decision-making process can society best ensure the safe long-
term storage of radioactive wastes? (also listed in Chapter 6)
69
-------
CHAPTER 6
PUBLIC HEALTH, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Energy development has a wide variety of direct and indirect impacts—
both positive and negative—on social and economic systems. These include an
upgrading of economic conditions, occupational health risks of coal mining,
and indirect effects on local political structures. Although some of these
impacts can be identified easily as direct results of a particular energy
facility, many are dependent on the personal preferences and values of indi-
vidual members of the affected community. The latter are much less predict-
able. Still other impacts, such as nuclear accidents, apparently have a
comparatively low probability of occurrence but nevertheless must be planned
for due to their potentially catastrophic effects. In most cases, however,
the uncertainties are so great that only the boundaries of the probable
impacts, and of possible responses to them, can be identified. Most social
impacts examined during ORBES Phase I were local, or site specific, rather
than regional, or scenario specific, and their quantitative comparison by
scenario was outside the scope of Phase I resources. Thus most of the com-
parisons presented in this chapter are qualitative. The discussion of
potential impacts is followed by a list of pertinent policy issues.
PUBLIC HEALTH
During the first year of ORBES, time and other resource constraints
severely limited the public and occupational health analysis. Therefore,
this section is limited to a general overview of the potential impacts of
energy facility development. During Phase II, much more emphasis will be
placed on regional and scenario-specific impact analysis. However, large
uncertainties arise in such areas as the effects of current control measures
for coal-mine dust on the incidence of black lung disease and of acid sulfate
aerosols on the incidence or aggravation of human respiratory and circulatory
diseases. Studies of these problems are now being made by a number of
research groups.
Both economic development, as the means, and prosperity, as the social
goal, contribute to public health, and each can produce either beneficial or
detrimental impacts. Directly and indirectly, energy transformation and
utilization processes generate significant, complex impacts on health and
well-being which can affect both workers in energy-related occupations and
the general population. First-order impacts (those associated directly with
the production of electric power) include occupational hazards of mining, air
pollution, and nuclear accidents. Higher-order impacts associated with the
production and utilization of electrical energy include the effects of induced
70
-------
growth and its economic ramifications: improved standards of living and
other national goals, diseases of poverty, and diseases of affluence.
Mining
The occupational health impacts of surface and underground coal mining
are fairly well documented; they include respiratory diseases and accidents
caused by falls of the mine roof, face, or highwall; gas or dust explosions;
and mechanical and electrical system accidents. Between 1941 and 1970, the
percentage of total U.S. coal-mining accidents attributable to underground
mines decreased from 91 percent to 80 percent, while the surface mine share
increased from 9 percent to 20 percent. For all U.S. coal mines, there was
an average of 1311 fatalities per year during 1941-1945, while during 1966-
1970 the average was 246 fatalities per year. In 1970, there were 112 coal
mine fatalities in the ORBES region (including 38 in one disaster at Hyden,
Kentucky) and 200 fatalities nationwide (29). Since the creation in 1972 of
the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration to carry out provisions of
federal coal mine safety legislation, fatalities have decreased dramatically.
In 1976, the number of fatalities nationwide was 141; in the ORBES region,
the number was 53 (30). (See Table 9, which also shows nonfatal coal mine
injuries and injury frequency rates for the region and the nation.)
The most significant health risk for workers in underground mines and
mechanical cleaning plants is coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP, or black
lung), a respiratory disorder attributable to inhalation of coal-mine dust.
Although the frequency of CWP is relatively low in comparison to other mining
injuries, its severity in terms of workdays lost is comparable to that for
explosions or cave-ins in underground mines and to falls of the overburden in
surface mines (29). The magnitude of the CWP problem also is shown in the
cost of this disease to government. In 1973 the federal government spent
approximately $1 billion for CWP benefits to coal miners and dependents who
qualified under 1969 and 1972 mine-safety legislation. In contrast, the
value of the coal mined in 1973 was about $5 billion (31).
Although significant occupational hazards are associated with the mining
of uranium, currently no uranium is mined in the ORBES region. Thus consider-
ation of the effects of uranium mining was not central to the ORBES analysis.
Conversion
Particulate Emissions. Coal combustion releases significant amounts of
respirable particles, which usually are considered to be those between 0.1
and 3 microns in diameter. These particulates can combine with other pollu-
tants, causing multiple synergistic effects if inhaled or swallowed. That
is, toxic impacts of irritants absorbed or adsorbed by or onto particulates
are magnified by particles holding toxins close to sensitive tissues—for
example, sulfur dioxide adsorbed onto particulates can be converted to sul-
furic acid, a more potent irritant. Particulates containing silica may cause
excess formation of fibrous tissue, leading to silicosis and pneumoconiosis.
Such carcinogens as nickel, arsenic, chromium, and beryllium can be carried
to lung tissue by particulates. If particles carrying lead, tellerium,
mercury, arsenic, selenium, nickel, chromium, and vandium are inhaled and
71
-------
TABLE 9. COAL MINE INJURIES AND INJURY FREQUENCY RATES,
ORBES REGION AND THE UNITED STATES, 1976
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total ORBES
region
Total U.S.
Disabling injuries Nondisabling injuries All injuries
Frequency Frequency Frequency
Number rate per rate per rate Per
million million million
Fatal Nonfatal man-hours Number man-hours Number man-hours
3 988 32.61 569 18.46 1560 51.07
1 117 13.75 164 19.21 282 32.97
42* 1990 31.17 1912 29.84 3944 61.01
7 681 23.43 391 13.58 1079 37.02
53 3776 30.73 3036 24.37 6865 55.10
141 13,944 36.41 11,853 30.72 25,938 67.13
NOTE: Numbers of injuries shown include all injuries reported to the Mining Enforcement and Safety Ad-
ministration. Frequecy rates are calculated using only those injuries from mines for which man-
hours have been reported.
*
Includes one major disaster (a single accident resulting in 5 or more fatalities) at the Scotia mine
that resulted in 23 deaths.
SOURCF: Reference 30.
-------
assimilated to the body, the nervous system can be affected directly. These
trace metals are contained in fly ash, but current monitoring efforts are
insufficient to indicate whether concentrations around sources such as power
plants are high enough to cause concern. (Trace metals also may leach out of
ash piles and sludge ponds near coal-fired plants into drinking water supplies
if these piles or ponds are not constructed and maintained properly.) Partic-
ulates can be retained in the lungs for periods ranging from a half-life (the
time required to remove half the particulates) of two weeks to months or even
years. Particulate matter swallowed in mucous matter, alone or with other
elements and compounds adsorbed onto its surface, may induce toxic activity
in the digestive tract (32).
Currently, certain industries in the OKBES region emit more particulates
than allowed under primary ambient health standards. Most of these plants
are on compliance schedules that will reduce primary particulate emissions
with electrostatic precipitators or other control devices. As discussed in
Chapter 5, both the high- and low-energy-growth scenarios for the year 2000
would result in about 58 percent decreases in directly emitted particulates
relative to 1972. These figures do not include secondary particulates, how-
ever, and more research on their projected ambient concentrations is required.
Sulfur Oxide Emissions. Although federal regulation of sulfur oxides applies
only to sulfur dioxide emissions (see Chapter 5), recent studies show that
sulfates in the ambient air are more likely to be responsible for adverse
health effects. For example, animal studies suggest that sulfur dioxide
alone is a mild respiratory irritant but that sulfates, especially submicron
sulfuric acid mist, are more severe irritants. Similarly, epidemiological
studies on human beings suggest a higher correlation between poor health and
sulfur oxide particulates than between poor health and gaseous sulfur dioxide
alone. Also, the combination of sulfur oxides with other pollutants increases
the possibility of adverse health impacts. For example, recent research
shows that workers exposed to sulfate aerosols in combination with oxides of
nitrogen and hydrocarbon emissions are two to five times more likely to
experience chronic respiratory disease symptoms than are similar age and
smoking groups in the general population (32).
Even low sulfate levels are believed to lead to worsening symptoms among
cardiopulmonary patients and increased incidences of asthma attacks, breath-
ing impairment in children, and chronic adult bronchitis. Sulfate concentra-
tions believed to be harmful are 9 to 15 micrograms per cubic meter over a
24-hour period and 6 to 10 yg/m3 averaged over a year. Ambient sulfate con-
centrations range between 6 and 15 yg/m3 in rural areas in the northeastern
United States, while concentrations as high as 80 yg/m have been recorded in
industrialized areas. In the region east of the Mississippi River and north
of South Carolina, the 1972 urban annual average sulfate concentration was
q o
13.6 yg/m ; the nonurban, 10.2 yg/m . Outside this region urban and nonurban
sulfate concentrations were 7.9 and 4.4 yg/m3, respectively (22).
Although no dose-response curve for atmospheric sulfates has been devel-
oped, current sulfate levels probably are within the potentially harmful
73
-------
range. As noted in Chapter 5, a 7 percent increase in sulfur dioxide emis-
sions over 1972 levels is projected for the year 2000 under the high-energy-
growth (Bureau of Mines) scenarios; under the low-energy-growth (Ford Techni-
cal Fix) scenarios a decrease of about 1 percent from 1972 levels is pro-
jected. It is probable that the increase under the BOM scenarios would
exacerbate adverse health effects currently experienced as a result of the
presence of and interactions between sulfur oxides and particulates. Under
the FTP scenarios, the present situation probably would continue.
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. Nitrogen oxides are produced by organic nitrogen
compounds in coal and, during combustion, by the oxidation of this element in
the atmosphere. Available data show that nitric oxide reduces ciliary action
by thickening the mucous layer over the cilia, thereby reducing their ability
to keep the respiratory tract clear of mucus and foreign substances. In
addition, nitric oxide derivatives have been shown to be carcinogenic.
Research on animals indicates that intermittent exposure to concentrations of
15 parts per million can cause irreversible emphysema-like conditions; upon
such exposure inflammation occurs. Effects are not evident in human beings
until several hours after exposure (32). Current federal air quality stan-
dards limit annual nitric oxide concentrations to less than .05 ppm; a
standard for short-term concentrations is being developed.
Radioactive Emissions. There are two areas of concern about radioactive
emissions associated with energy development. First are the predictable,
low-level emissions that result from normal operations of both coal-fired and
nuclear-fueled power plants. Second are the unanticipated releases from
nuclear plants that can result from core melt-down, sabotage, improper dis-
posal of radioactive wastes, and other unpredictable spills and accidents.
—Low-level emissions. Both coal-fired and nuclear-fueled power plants
release small amounts of radioactivity routinely. The estimated yearly
release from a 1000 MWe coal-fired plant ranges between .005 and 600 milli-
curies, depending on the concentrations of uranium, thorium, and other radio-
nuclides found within the coal seam utilized. Most of this radioactivity
appears as part of the fly ash, with the remainder in bottom ash and gaseous
emissions. Studies have reported the same or greater routine radioactive
emissions from coal-fired as from nuclear-fueled plants (8). The level of
this radiation received by the general population is low in comparison to
that received from a variety of natural sources, such as the sun, rocks, and
soil, and still is low in comparison to that received from color television
sets, X rays, and air travel.
The question of health hazards associated with small amounts of radio-
activity emitted routinely from both coal-fired and nuclear-fueled plants is
both complex and controversial. During the first year of ORBES conflicting
arguments on this topic could not be resolved adequately. However, the issue
clearly is significant and will be addressed directly during Phase II of the
project.
—Unanticipated releases. Although the impacts from unanticipated
releases of radiation could be catastrophic, the probability of a major
release has been estimated to be low. The chief area of concern is nuclear
74
-------
reactor reliability, but it also is necessary to consider sabotage, theft of
nuclear materials, and the disposal of high- and low-level nuclear waste
materials (including mill tailings, the residue remaining after uranium ore
is refined).
The issue of nuclear reactor safety has led to much public discussion,
but only one research effort, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rasmussen
study (33), has attempted an in-depth, quantitative assessment of reactor
safety and the probability of various accidents. Detailed critiques have
been made of this work, but no other comprehensive study has been carried
out.1
Of the many possible accidents that might occur in a nuclear power
plant, a core melt-down is considered potentially the most serious. The
Rasmussen report predicts that a core-melting accident of any size has a
probability of about 1 in 20,000 per reactor per year. According to the
report, a major core-melting accident predicted to cause 110 early fatal-
ities, 300 early illnesses, and property damage of $3 billion, and which
would necessitate decontamination of about 3200 square miles and relocation
of the population over an area of about 250 square miles, has a probability
of 1 in 100,000 per year for the first 100 reactors in operation. Critics of
the Rasmussen report question many of the study's assumptions and claim that
the probabilities it predicts are thus overly optimistic. Some also question
the objectivity of the researchers. Also, the study does not consider such
factors as human error and civil strife in the probabilities it predicts.
One set of assumptions made by the Rasmussen study concerns the reli-
ability of emergency core cooling systems. At present the U.S. Department of
Energy is conducting an active research program to obtain experimental evi-
dence on the reliability of these systems.
Nuclear wastes generally are divided into two classes, high level and
low level, depending on their radioactivity. Low-level wastes are generated
by nuclear reactors and by research, medical, and industrial users of radio-
active materials. High-level wastes are generated by nuclear reactors and
the production of nuclear weapons. Currently, high-level wastes from nuclear
power plants in the form of spent fuel rods are removed from the reactor core
and held in storage at the reactor site for at least 150 days to allow the
short-lived fraction of the radioactivity to die away. After this time, the
wastes could be shipped immediately for permanent disposal or could be
reprocessed, moved to another site for an additional period, and then shipped
for permanent disposal. At present in the United States, however, there are
no operating reprocessing centers and no permanent storage sites for high-
level wastes. Thus, all spent fuel rods are being held in some type of
interim storage, mostly at existing reactor sites. The long-term effects
of high-level waste disposal are very uncertain.
principal earlier study was conducted at Brookhaven National Labo-
ratory for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission before any commercial nuclear
power plants were in operation. It considered the worst possible effects of
core-melting accidents (34). Among the groups and agencies that have criti-
cized the Rasmussen study are EPA, the American Physical Society, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists (35, 36, 37).
75
-------
Security is necessary throughout the nuclear fuel cycle to prevent sabo-
tage. However, if no fuel is reprocessed, security problems are lessened
because plutonium (from which bombs can be constructed) is not readily avail-
able in isolated form. The theft of spent fuel rods would not be very prac-
tical in terms of possible weapon fabrication: the spent fuel is so radio-
active it requires special equipment to handle, and the plutonium it contains
cannot be extracted without an elaborate facility. Thus, unless a nuclear
fuel reprocessing center opens in the ORBES region, the question of the theft
of nuclear material would not arise there, except for the plutonium that is
contained in the spent fuel rods of light water reactors.
Sabotage of a nuclear power plant is possible but complicated. Nuclear
plants are more difficult to penetrate than are normal industrial installa-
tions, and access to critical areas and components is controlled tightly.
Further, nuclear plants are built with several containment systems to prevent
radioactive releases. Determining the probability of a successful sabotage
attempt would be difficult, but the maximum possible environmental con-
sequences of a successful sabotage are known, even if the probabilities are
not. They probably would not exceed the worst cases discussed in the
Rasmussen report for a reactor core melt-down.
Higher-order Impacts. An individual's physical and mental health can be
closely related to his economic status. Thus the economic consequences of
energy development (such as an increase in standard of living) in turn can be
associated with impacts on health. For example, recent experience shows that
with expanding energy development and rising gross national product in the
United States, the gap between low and high income levels has widened, even
when the absolute standard of living of low-income individuals and families
has increased. Thus there may actually be a relative decrease in economic
standard of living in subsistence-level poverty areas (some of which are in
the ORBES region). Some have argued that the economic consequences of energy
development could result in generally poorer public health and, because of
tensions brought about by frustrated expectations, an increase in stress-
related health effects. At the opposite end of the spectrum, plentiful, low-
priced (relative to income) energy resources may bring higher-order ramifica-
tions such as labor-saving devices, richer food and drink, and increased pace
of living. In this context, the public health impacts of energy development
might include obesity, heart disease, and stress-related conditions. Thus,
economic growth brought about by energy development does not necessarily
guarantee improved public health within any income group.
As noted above, it is not possible at this time to specify expected
public health impacts of the ORBES scenarios. It is possible, however, to
identify the anticipated boundaries of these effects for the year 2000 (see
Table 10). It should be recognized, however, that the occupational disease
rate of zero appearing on the table is unrealistically low. Overall, the
high-energy-growth (Bureau of Mines) scenarios would result in about two-and-
one-half times more premature deaths than the low-energy-growth (Ford Tech-
nical Fix) scenarios for the complete coal and nuclear fuel cycles, from
extraction of coal and uranium through transportation, processing, conversion,
and disposal.
76
-------
TABLE 10: ENERGY-RELATED PREMATURE DEATHS, BY SCENARIO, 2000
(based on installed capacity)
Occupational
Total accidents
Total disease
Total accidents
and disease
General public
Total general
public
Total occupational
and general public
Scenario total
BOM 80/20 BOM 50/50 FTF 100% coal
coal nuclear coal nuclear coal nuclear
105-285 2-14 77-209 4-37 43-116 0-4
0-681 0-17 0-502 1-40 0-281 0-4
105-966 2-31 77-711 5-77 43-397 0-8
314- 0-6 232- 1-14 129- 0-1
21,646 15,963 8929
419- 2-17 309- 6-91 161- 0-9
22,612 16,674 9230
421-22,649 315-16,765 161-9239
FTF 100%
coal
35-94
0-224
35-318
103-
7126
138-
7444
nuclear
nuclear
0-12
1-10
1-22
0-4
1-26
139-7470
SOURCE: Reference 38.
-------
LOCAL ECONOMY
Economic impacts associated with power plant construction usually are
site specific. The scope of the Phase I assessment did not allow these
impacts to be assessed fully or quantified, but they will be evaluated during
Phase II (see also Reference 39).
Direct local economic impacts during the construction of each power
plant would include increases in local employment and in demands for public-
and private-sector goods and services. When increases of this nature are
overly sudden and sharp, and when they accompany an influx of new residents
into an isolated, rural community, they tend to create "boomtown" conditions.
Between 1000 and 2000 workers would be employed during the peak construction
period of each plant, and local economic impacts would be proportional to the
relative numbers of local workers, temporary residents, and commuters. These
impacts could be severe if a majority of construction workers resided tem-
porarily in communities near the sites, but even with a relatively stable
population, some of the trends associated with boomtown conditions could
occur. Most of the potential plant sites in the OKBES scenarios, however,
are located close enough to population centers that severe boomtown problems
would not be expected (40). Also, boomtown conditions are more likely to
occur in conjunction with energy facilities of larger scale than those of the
ORBES scenarios, such as a number of plants grouped in a "power park" or a
power plant sited at a mine mouth.
Increases in demand for public services would begin during plant con-
struction, but the tax revenues needed to offset the necessary expenditures
usually would not be collected until the plant was nearly in operation.
Typically, collection of these revenues lags from two to three years behind
the time that maximum demands for service are made on a community. In
addition, tax revenues might not accrue in the jurisdiction financing the
services. That is, intercounty commuting may result in increased demands for
services in a county other than the one where the facility will be located.
Within the ORBES region under the scenarios, the major stress on public
services would be expected to result from the increased traffic brought about
by plant construction. Water and sewage services also would be expected to
present problems in the Appalachian portions of the region. The provision of
housing for new community residents also could become a problem. The sever-
ity of these impacts would tend to increase with distance from metropolitan
areas, with the greatest problems anticipated in rural counties over 75 miles
from a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) (13).
If the demand for private sector goods and services increases faster
than does supply, this rapid change may cause temporary shortages, price
rises, and inefficiences. To meet the new demands, there might be increased
employment in the private sector, with the magnitude of the impact dependent
on the number of temporary construction workers. As construction nears
completion, the business community would have to adjust to the operational
level of the power plant (about one-tenth of the workers required for con-
struction) . This assumes that no additional industrial growth brought about
by the new energy facility has occurred. Often, however, when coupled with
78
-------
favorable local economic conditions such as increasing population and an
adequate tax base, an energy facility attracts industry to an area. This
secondary, or induced, growth normally occurs after the facility is in oper-
ation. In rural areas, a dramatic expansion of the tax base brought about by
an energy facility may lead to lower tax rates, which in turn may serve to
attract additional industry.
Unlike the growth that may take place during plant construction, induced
industrial development can be a stabilizing factor in the local economy and
may alleviate any boomtown conditions that might have occurred. That is,
employment other than that for plant construction, both public and private,
and resulting revenues may increase in response to demands for additional
goods and services. The extent of the impact would depend on the degree to
which the existing system could supply these goods and services, but also
important would be the degree to which increased demands were met by expan-
sion of local capacity during the construction phase. Without induced indus-
trial development, a community that experienced economic expansion during
plant construction could undergo economic contraction during the early opera-
tion phase. The permanent operating force of the plant would probably reside
locally rather than commute.
SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
In addition to the local economic effects of energy conversion facility
development, a variety of social impacts can occur. Some are the result of
changes in a community's demographic composition, while others are related to
residents' perceptions of their quality of life. Within the ORBES region
under the various scenarios, these social impacts could vary widely from
community to community, influenced by regional population trends. Social
impacts are discussed in the following subsections. A quantitative compari-
son of these impacts across scenarios was beyond the scope of ORBES Phase I.
Also of importance are the institutional arrangements to regulate energy
facility development; these arrangements also are discussed below. Under-
standing such arrangements is crucial when considering the legal and political
framework within which decisions on energy facility development are made.
Demographic Projections
According to most recent estimates, population in the ORBES region
increased by an average of 0.6 percent annually between 1970 and 1975. Total
regional population was about 18 million in 1975. Natural increase was the
primary reason for this growth; other factors affecting population include
age distribution and in- and out-migration. During 1970-1975, Kentucky
gained some population through migration while Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
each lost between 2 and 3 percent of their population due to migration, at
the same time that overall population increased. In 1975, approximately two-
thirds of the regional population lived in SMSAs. However, since the 1960s
population growth rates in metropolitan areas of the north-central states
have declined, primarily because people are leaving central cities for the
suburbs and—more recently—for rural areas, a trend that has accelerated
since 1970. The distribution of recent population growth in the ORBES
79
-------
portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (all north-central states) confirms
this decentralization trend. Even Kentucky's metropolitan areas had a net
migration loss of 0.1 percent as compared to that state's net migration
gains (8).
During ORBES Phase I, three preliminary sets of population projections
were made for the study region (see Appendix J). The ORBES Task 1 projec-
tions were based on combined official state predictions (41); those of a
project special study used a component approach employing a sensitivity
analysis as a check (12); and those of the Kentucky Delphi Project assumed
that the 1970-1975 birth, death, and migration rates within the region would
remain constant through the year 2000 (8). Although the two latter sets of
projections employed different methodologies, both used the fertility level
projected by Series II of the U.S. Census—2.1 lifetime births per woman, a
replacement level of reproduction. Given current population trends, this
rate may be too high.
Although the three sets of projections for the year 2000 considered the
loss of regional population due to out-migration, and two assumed only a
replacement level of reproduction, all three estimate overall population
increases due to changes in age distribution. The annual increase in reg-
ional population between 1975 and 2000 projected by the Task 1 report is 0.9
percent; by the special study, 0.6 percent; and by the Kentucky Delphi
Project, 0.5 percent.
Demographic Change
Social impacts from new energy conversion facilities would result from
shifts in migration patterns, population size, and selected population char-
acteristics such as age distribution and sex ratio (6). Some impacts would
occur in the planning stage (for example, if land acquisition for an energy
conversion facility forces families to relocate), but the most significant
and extensive impacts would occur during power plant construction and
operation.
Employment in the construction and operation of energy conversion facil-
ities is a direct cause of demographic change. During the planning and con-
struction phases, employee numbers increase rapidly, and then decrease as the
plant nears completion, with the number of employees varying by project type
and size. The number of employees needed and the requisite distribution of
their skills may bring newcomers from previously unrepresented social groups
to the community. During the operating phase of all types of facilities, the
number of employees is stable and remains relatively low. The extent to
which these employment impacts could occur in the ORBES region depends on a
number of factors, such as the difference in labor requirements between coal-
fired and nuclear-fueled facilities. As noted above, few severe boomtown
effects would be expected in the ORBES region. However, several areas within
the region are susceptible to some of the trends associated with boomtowns.
80
-------
Community Types and Attitudes
Major social impacts are associated with the individual feelings and
perceptions of the residents of a community housing a new energy facility.
The kinds of conditions that might be necessary for communities to be recep-
tive to, and to be able to benefit from, the siting of energy conversion
facilities have been examined, and candidate counties for energy facilities
under the ORBES scenarios have been classified according to their most likely
response to facility development. The conclusion from this part of the ORBES
research was that, in general, communities that are urbanizing, are economi-
cally diversified, are close to large cities, and that also have relatively
young populations probably will be most receptive to energy facility develop-
ment. Those communities that also show increasing population are attractive
to the secondary development that may accompany energy development. Such
localities usually have the revenues, tax base, and economic system that
enable them to avoid the boomtown syndrome during the construction phase of
development and to benefit from secondary effects of the operating phase.
Rural areas with a commuting labor force may also be able to withstand the
construction phase with minimal impacts, but, due to an undiversified infra-
structure, may fail to expand sufficiently to attract secondary industrial
growth (40) .
Apparently least able to contend with power plant development are poor,
declining, isolated rural communities that are not large enough to house the
construction labor force for a number of years. Under these circumstances, a
classic boomtown effect could occur, with an influx of newcomers with heavy
demands on services, transportation networks, housing, and recreational
facilities. It appears that the result may be a decrease in quality of life
for many community residents during the construction phase. These initial
adverse impacts may cause the community to reject any further industrial
development (40).
Public services are an arena for potential impacts arising from the
presence of a new energy facility. Demands for certain services, either from
new residents or from long-term residents with rising expectations, are
likely to increase. If tax rates have to be raised to finance new or expanded
public services, the result might be political disillusionment and dissatis-
faction with local policy makers.
The pattern of conflict between community newcomers and long-term resi-
dents is well documented; the effects of this conflict could be felt in such
areas as changes in levels of demands for social realignments. Nuclear plant
siting could introduce a special element of controversy, evident in recent
statewide referenda and local debates, that might polarize a community's
attitudes and political groupings. Opposition to nuclear facilities usually
is based on environmental, aesthetic, health, and safety considerations. In
the ORBES region, such disputes would be most likely under both BOM scenarios
and the FTP 100 percent nuclear scenario; they probably would involve related
political issues such as local control over, versus centralization of, siting
decision making.
81
-------
The importance of such chains of events, should they occur in the ORBES
region, could be to decrease the relative benefits of energy development to
the long-term residents of jurisdictions with new energy conversion facil-
ities. In particular, the long-term-resident poor and elderly, and other
groups such as female heads of households, may bear a disproportionate burden
of such impacts as inflated prices and increased property taxes. These groups
are least likely to be able to compete successfully for new employment
opportunities which indirectly or directly result from electrical generation,
and they may leave the locality because of rising taxes, unemployment, or
lack of alternative housing. On the other hand, other long-term residents
may see a rise in the level of public services available to them due to
increased support for local school districts, small businesses, and so forth.
It should be noted that these and other social impacts, which tend to be
localized, are associated not only with the relative numbers of new residents
in a community, but also with the different value systems they might intro-
duce.
Quality of Life
Anything that affects the psychological, social, physical, or biological
condition of people can be said to affect their quality of life. Thus the
definition of quality of life necessarily is broad. In addition, it must
take into account subtleties of the interactions among these conditions (for
example, the effects of physical health on state of mind and social behavior).
In general, all of the ecological features of the human community are in-
cluded in the concept of quality of life.
Quality of life probably is the basis of most concern over the social
effects of energy development. Such development can affect quality of life
either positively or negatively, and personal preferences can influence the
nature and degree of these impacts (42). Among the affected subareas of
quality of life are aesthetics, land use (especially public recreational
land), community industrialization, and economic standard of living. Ques-
tions of personal choice are especially prominent in aesthetics, although
they also are involved in the other subareas. With increased electrical
energy production comes land disturbance through mining, construction of
large buildings and towers, and the stretching of long power lines across the
landscape. In some regions communities may not be affected, but in others
residents may be appalled by the replacement of natural wooded areas, hills,
and valleys by power-plant-related structures. Also, power facilities may
produce more atmospheric haze—in contrast to the relatively clear skies to
which residents may have been accustomed. The cost of these and other
aesthetic elements simply cannot be quantified, in part because the attribu-
tion of costs to them is a personal value judgement. Others would see
benefits from structures they may find more attractive than those that
existed previously.
Energy conversion facility development will affect existing land uses.
A key social impact concerning land use is its effect on recreational land.
In some communities, recreational land may be despoiled, with both social and
financial results. One negative impact would be the absolute loss of land
82
-------
for outdoor activities; an alternative impact would be the replacement of one
form of recreation for another (such as a reservoir for a free-flowing river).
Although the financial impacts on the participants and on the industries and
services that cater to them can be measured, the social impacts of foregone
recreation opportunities can be compared only qualitatively.
The increased industrialization accompanying energy development often
means a rise in communities' economic standard of living. This is not to say
that the quality of life necessarily is improved. In certain areas, standards
of living may be raised above poverty levels, thus improving the quality of
life, but new problems may result from this change. Although a community may
realize an increased economic base, its political structure may be inadequate
to cope with this increase. Also, the relative prosperity may be accompanied
by problems such as increased air and water pollution. Balancing such nega-
tive and positive consequences of energy development becomes a matter of the
individual's and community's perceptions of quality of life.
Institutions
One part of the ORBES Phase I research effort involved an inventory of
the governmental units at all levels with legal, regulatory, and/or advisory
authority over energy facility development (5). Institutional accountability
for energy development and its direct and indirect impacts is divided among
federal, regional, state, and local departments and administrative agencies.
The scope of authority ranges from legislation, rulemaking, adjudication, and
the granting of permits at the federal level to the administration of zoning
ordinances at the local level. Some of this regulatory authority can be
interpreted as a response to complex administrative problems posed by energy
development. For example, a one-stop permit system for energy facilities
could be established at the state level in response to complaints about the
time and resources required to obtain multiple permits from a variety of
agencies. Similarly, creation of the new U.S. Department of Energy was, in
part, a response to the administrative problems that occurred when over 25
separate federal departments and agencies had some jurisdiction over energy-
related issues.
At the ORBES-regional level, the Ohio River Basin Commission and the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) were created to deal
with problems shared by two or more states, the former under federal legisla-
tion and the latter by an interstate compact approved by Congress. Such
regional entities primarily are responsible for long-range planning, includ-
ing the coordination of planning efforts by all other relevant institutions,
both public and private; they have little regulatory authority.
Not only the administrative structure of regulatory authority, but also
its process, reveals how institutions have responded to the complexity of
energy-related problems. The most prevalent regulatory patterns today are
the rule-making and permit processes. In response to public complaints about
the intricacies of these processes, extensive public participation procedures
have been developed. These procedures may include written comment or oral
testimony on proposed rules, permit applications, and environmental impact
statements as well as participation in formal public hearings on the proposed
83
-------
rule or permit. However, these processes are criticized by the regulated
industries for the delay and added expense they cause in the construction of
an energy facility. They also are criticized by citizens who believe that
the public's input is not considered seriously; some believe that the only
real purpose of the procedures is to promote and license energy facilities
(43) .
The impacts of future energy development on institutional structures and
processes in the ORBES region are difficult to anticipate. In the first
place, institutions are tied inextricably to politics, and political impacts
can be considered to be indirect effects more likely to occur in response to
other social and environmental changes. That is, sometimes it is difficult
to determine whether energy development has brought about an institutional
reorientation or whether the reorientation affected the energy development.
For example, the demographic impacts of energy facility development may lead
to a more complex governmental structure which, in turn, may have more con-
trol over future energy development and its impacts on the community. In
addition, regular elections introduce a break in continuity in policy deci-
sion making that makes it difficult to anticipate what the institutional
responses to energy-related problems will be over the intermediate to long
term.
It is possible, however, to identify some of the responses to decisions
to site energy facilities. An affected community's demands for amelioration
of a facility's impacts may lead to policy reorientation (through the elec-
tion of different officials) and/or institutional reorganization. The
affected public—at the community level--might demand a more effective role
in making decisions on siting. There then might be a conflict between
regional and local policy in this decision making: since many of the envi-
ronmental, social, and economic impacts of energy facilities are site specif-
ic, local governments might demand increased control over siting decisions.
On the other hand, as regional impacts of energy facilities (such as pollu-e
tant transport and water consumption) are identified, more people could
demand a governmental siting mechanism at the regional, interstate level.
In differentiating among scenarios, it is clear that the more extensive
the development, the greater the number and likelihood of institutional
impacts. Moreover, coal-fired and nuclear-fueled facilities have different
impacts in many areas—for example, the physical, environmental, social, and
economic. Whether one type of impact will 'be more likely to lead to an
institutional response than another is dependent on community reactions and
current institutional policy and structure.
Scenario Comparison
Given their relatively local and subjective nature, it is difficult to
compare many of the social impacts in a quantitative way. All that can be
said currently in comparing institutional impacts across scenarios is that
such impacts are more likely and more numerous as development increases.
84
-------
The number of counties in which energy conversion facilities would be
sited under the scenarios would range from 83 (BOM 80/20) to 15 (FTF 100
percent nuclear). The BOM 80/20, the scenario requiring the greatest land
area, would call for over 50 percent more acreage for coal extraction and
processing than would the FTF 100 percent nuclear, the scenario requiring the
least land area (see Chapter 3). The BOM scenarios would employ about three
times as many workers during peak construction as would the FTF scenarios
(see Chapter 4). Thus, the potential for significant social impacts under
the high-energy-growth option is high, especially given projected concentra-
tions of facilities in contiguous counties in southeastern Indiana and
southwestern Ohio. Most of these counties are either within a metropolitan
area or within commuting range of one, however, and about half of them
already are growing more rapidly than the subregional average. A few coun-
ties in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana that were selected as
sites for coal-fired facilities may have potential boomtown characteristics,
but even these sites are within a two-hour drive of a metropolitan area.
Relocation of residents could result either from expansion of surface-
mining areas or from acquisition of land for power-plant-related facilities.
Impacts from the latter would be more significant under the BOM scenarios
because these facilities were sited in the more densely populated counties.
Surface mining would create the least need for relocation, considering the
expected use and geographical distribution of coal reserves in the ORBES
region. Even under the high-energy-growth option, however, a relatively
small number of people would be involved.
The scale and intensity of social impacts under the FTF scenarios would
be more local, and much less severe regionwide, than those under the BOM
scenarios. In southeastern Ohio counties, anticipated social impacts would
be similar to those expected under the BOM scenarios. However, there is a
distinction between the FTF 100 percent nuclear scenario, in which facilities
were assumed to be sited in counties with relatively high population growths
and net migration gains, and the FTF 100 percent coal scenario, in which most
candidate counties have a net migration loss. The social impacts of popula-
tion growth and of migration patterns probably would be greater in the
latter case.
ILLUSTRATIVE POLICY ISSUES
Public Health
—Which levels or groupings of governments (such as regions, or groups of
states) should address the trade-offs between possible health abuse and
the need for electrical energy production? Which levels or groupings
should address the trade-offs between possible health abuse and
increased employment from energy facilities? What institutional mechan-
isms would best facilitate such considerations?
—Should any governmental entity below the federal level have the power to
forbid the siting of a nuclear waste-disposal facility within its
boundaries, and if so, which level?
85
-------
—Given the large uncertainties in the response of human beings to envi-
ronmental pollution, are current procedures adequate for controlling
exposure of the population to potentially harmful pollutants? What
balance should be struck between controlling exposure to possibly
harmful pollutants (such as sulfates) and the economic costs of control?
—Are the probability and consequences of unanticipated releases of
radiation from nuclear power facilities in the ORBES region sufficient
to justify joint planning by states or other government groupings to
deal with such releases?
—Does low-level radiation emitted routinely from nuclear-fueled plants
now operating (or to be constructed) represent enough of a health
hazard to warrant attention by regulatory agencies? (also listed in
Chapter 5)
—Does low-level radiation emitted routinely from coal-fired plants now
operating (or to be constructed) represent enough of a health hazard to
warrant attention by regulatory agencies? (also listed in Chapter 5)
—Should the same standards to reduce public health risks from continuous
radioactive emissions by coal-fired and nuclear-fueled plants be applied
equally to these two technologies? (also listed in Chapter 5)
—By what decision-making process can society best ensure the safe long-
term containment of ratioactive wastes? (also listed in Chapter 5)
Local EConomy
—Does the possibility of intercounty commuting of workers to power
plants under construction in the ORBES region justify developing devices
to help compensate those counties that must provide increased services
but that may not receive additional revenue?
—What factors should be considered in apportioning tax revenues received
from an energy facility between state and local governments?
Social and Institutional Factors
—Energy conversion facilities frequently are located close to small towns
or communities with limited planning capabilities. What institutional
mechanism could help these communities plan for and deal with the
demands for services by an influx of construction workers?
—Should a regional, interstate power plant siting agency be established
by governments in the ORBES region?
—What functional role should the local community have in power plant
siting decisions?
86
-------
-How should the trade-off be made between state and local autonomy, on
the one hand, and regional energy-environmental problem solving, on the
other?
-Are there ethical considerations to be taken into account in the devel-
opment of energy facilities? If so, how can they best be addressed by
government?
-Energy conservation achieved through reduction in new power plant
construction apparently will result in relatively little improvement in
sulfur oxide emission levels if the gross national product is maintained
through transfer of natural and human resources to other forms of indus-
try. How can economic development in the ORBES region be continued
while at the same time a substantial reduction in pollution emissions is
achieved?
87
-------
REFERENCES
t. U.S. Congress, Appropriations Committee, 94th Congress, 1st Session,
Senate. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Independent
Agencies, Senate Report 940326, 1975.
2. VJ. G. Dupree, Jr., and John S. Corsentino. United States Energy through
the Year 2000 (revised). Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Inter-
ior, Washington, D.C., December 1975.
3. A Time to Choose: America's Energy Future. Final Report, Energy Policy
Project, Ford Foundation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger, 1974.
4. Pdchard Meyer et al. Impacts of Energy Development in the Ohio River
Basin: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. International Research and Technology Corporation, McLean,
Virginia, September 12, 1977. Supplementary data were supplied by
International Research and Technology Corporation.
5. Nicholas L. White and John F. Fitzgerald. Legal Analysis of Institu-
tional Accountability in the Ohio River Basin. ORBES vol. III-E. Pre-
pared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
6. University of Illinois. Preliminary Technology Assessment Report.
ORBES vol. II-C. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 15, 1977.
7. Thomas H. Pigford et al. "Fuel Cycles for Electric Power Generation."
In: Comprehensive Standards: The Power Generation Case. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Teknekron, Inc., Berkeley,
California, March 1975.
8. University of Kentucky and University of Louisville. Preliminary Tech-
nology Assessment Report. ORBES vol. II-B. Prepared for the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
9. E. Downey Brill, Jr., et al. Issues Related to Water Allocation in the
Lower Ohio River Basin. ORBES vol. III-G. Prepared for the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
10. Weekly Announcements. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion, week ending December 29, 1976.
88
-------
11. Michael Rieber. Energy Transportation/Distribution in the ORBES Region.
ORBES vol. III-F. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 15, 1977.
12. Robert C. Dauffenbach and Thomas P. Milke. Labor Demand Impact and
Labor Market Feasibility of Energy Conversion Facilities in the Ohio
River Basin. ORBES vol. III-A. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
13. Indiana University, The Ohio State University, and Purdue University.
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report. ORBES vol. II-A. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
14. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. AP-49. U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer
Protection and Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution Con-
trol Administration, Washington, D.C., January 1969.
15. Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides. AP-50. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protec-
tion and Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, D.C., January 1969.
16. Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides. AP-84. Air Pollution Control
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., January
1971.
17. Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons. AP-64. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protec-
tion and Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
18. Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants. AP-63. U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer
Protection and Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
19. .air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. AP-62. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protec-
tion and Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
20. Ellis F. Darley. "Vegitation Damage from Air Pollution." In: Combus-
tion-generated Air Pollution, Ernest S. Starkman, ed. Plenum Press,
New York, 1971.
21. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. 2d ed. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., April 1973 (bituminous), and supplements, December
1975 (lignite).
89
-------
22. Position Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates. EPA-420/2-75-007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1975.
23. Joe 0. Ledbetter. Air Pollution. Part A: Analysis. Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1972.
24. R. E. Bailey et al. Pollutant Transport Models for the ORBES Region.
OKBES vol. III-H. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 15, 1977.
25. Lowell F. Smith and Brand L. Niemann. The Ohio River Basin Energy
Study: The Future of Air Resources and Other Factors Affecting Energy
Development. Paper prepared for presentation at the Third International
Conference on Environmental Problems of the Extractive Industries, Day-
ton, Ohio, November 29-30 and December 1, 1977.
26. S. J. Gage et al. Long-range Transport of SOX/MSO^ from the United
States EPA/Teknekron Integrated Technology Assessment of Electric
Utility Energy Systems. Paper prepared for presentation at the Inter-
national Symposium on Sulfur in the Atmosphere, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia,
September 7-14, 1977.
27. Clara A. Leuthart and Hugh T. Spencer. Radionuclide and Metal Ion Con-
tent of Late Summer Ohio River Sediments: McAlpine Pool 1976. ORBES
vol. III-I. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 15, 1977.
28. Donald A. Blome and James E. Jones, Jr. Regional Assessment of the Im-
pact of Synthetic Fuel Production. ORBES vol. III-J. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
29. C. Bliss et al. Accidents and Unscheduled Events Associated with Non-
Nuclear Energy Resources and Technology. EPA-600/7-77-016. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1977.
30. "1976 Summary of Coal Mine Injuries and Worktime." Safety Reviews.
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, February 1977.
31. Keystone Coal Industry Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.
32. Health, Environmental Effects, and Control Technology of Energy Use.
EPA 600/7-76-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1976.
33. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commer-
cial Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. WASH-
1400. Washington, D.C., 1975.
34. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. WASH-740. Washington, D.C., 1957.
90
-------
35. William D. Rowe. Reactor Safety Study (WASH 1400): A Review of the
Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
June 1976.
36. H. W. Lewis et al. "Report to the American Physical Society by the
Study Group on Light-Water Reactor Safety." Reviews of Modern Physics,
vol. 47 (1975):S1-S124.
37. The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety
Study. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Novem-
ber 1977.
38. C. L. Comar and L. A. Sagan. "Health Effects of Energy Production and
Conversion." In: Annual Review of Energy, vol. I, Jack M. Hollander,
ed. Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1976.
39. Richard A. Tybout. A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Power in the ORBES
Region. ORBES vol. III-B. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, May 15, 1977.
40. Sue Johnson and Esther Weil. Social Aspects of Power Plant Siting.
ORBES vol. III-D. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 15, 1977.
41. Development of Baseline Data for the Ohio River Basin Energy Study.
ORBES vol. I-B. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 15, 1977.
42. Sven B. Lundstedt, Henry L. Hunker, and Clark Leavitt. Subjective
Quality of Life in the Ohio River Basin as Related to Future Energy
Development. ORBES vol. III-C. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 15, 1977.
43. Harold G. Cassidy. A White Paper, V. The Marble Hill Hearings: A
Tragic Farce in Eight Acts. Prepared for Save the Valley Inc., June
15, 1977.
91
-------
APPENDIX A
STUDY ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 of this report touches upon organizational arrangements
devised to carry out the initial year of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study.
A more detailed description of the study organization and of evolving
relationships between the federal granting agency—the Environmental
Protection Agency—and the participating universities is provided in this
appendix. It is hoped that this discussion will be of interest both to
students of research-and-development management and to citizens seeking to
understand how certain government decisions are made.
As noted in Chapter 2, the first official step toward formalizing the
ORBES project was taken in late July 1975, when the U.S. Senate Appropria-
tions Committee directed EPA "to conduct. . . an assessment of the. . . im-
pacts of the proposed concentration of power plants in the lower Ohio River
Basin." During the next few months, EPA considered a variety of organiza-
tional approaches to carry out this mandate from Congress. By winter 1975-
1976 officials of EPA's Office of Research and Development had decided to
utilize university personnel in the undertaking. In spring 1976, EPA
invited researchers from a selected group of midwestern universities to
prepare proposals for internal and external review to carry out various
tasks outlined in a work plan provided by the agency.
On May 19, 1976, the authors of this report submitted a proposal
entitled "Experimental Management Plan for an Impact Assessment of Energy
Conversion Facilities in the Ohio River Basin, Phase I." In that proposal,
it was asserted that management arrangements for interdisciplinary research
projects are often inadequate:
This inadequacy is intensified when attempts are made to
implement research efforts which involve investigators
from more than one university campus. When such endeavors
include researchers from two or more states difficulties
are magnified. . . .The investigators preparing this
proposal believe that present evidence is inconclusive
as to the most promising research management forms for
interstate-interinstitutional research projects involving
energy and the environment. It is their belief, therefore,
that many experiments must be undertaken to test the
efficacy of a host of managerial arrangements.
92
-------
The proposal further argued that the literature of interstate energy and
environmental research (meager as it is) demonstrates well that "unprecedent-
ed social, economic, and 'political1 elements present constraints likely
never faced before by university researchers. The character of this. . .
study is so complex that any ultimate management arrangement by necessity
must be an experiment in the sense that its results can in no way be predict-
ed at this time." It was emphasized that it would be unrealistic to ignore
inevitable political considerations involving long-standing sensitivities
between and among states, universities, and the federal government. Because
of these sensitivities, the authors felt the need to attach the condition
that independent access to members of the U.S. Congress, as well as governors
and other state officials, would not be denied them. (As noted in the pre-
face, EPA did indeed accord the authors total independence during Phase I
and encouraged them to seek counsel from public officials at all levels.)
The proposal outlined general administrative functions for the ORBES
project and described how coordination and guidance would be achieved among
the four task groups defined in the EPA work plan. This was to be accom-
plished chiefly through a project office to be established within the Univer-
sity of Illinois, with that institution as fiscal agent. The proposal also
stated that the authors would be responsible for preparing an integrated
summary report at the close of Phase I.
In early August 1976, EPA announced that funding for this management
plan, in the amount of $113,995, was among a series of grants totaling
$720,579 awarded to researchers at universities located in the states of
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio to begin ORBES Phase I. Selected to
undertake the preliminary technology assessment and special study aspects of
the initial year were researchers from the following campuses: Indiana Uni-
versity, Bloomington, Indiana; the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ken-
tucky; the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio; Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; and
both the Chicago Circle and Urbana-Champaign campuses of the University of
Illinois.
The combined grants provided funding to more than 100 researchers (in-
cluding student assistants) on the seven campuses. Four basic research tasks
were to be performed by various combinations of university faculty and staff.
At the center of the first year's activity were three preliminary assess-
ments, to be carried out independently by three university teams.
The overall relationships among these various responsibilities and units
are depicted in Figure A-l. A project officer from EPA's Office of Energy,
Minerals, and Industry, Washington, D.C., became responsible for general
oversight of the ORBES project and continued in that role throughout the
year. Two regional EPA offices—Region IV, with offices in Atlanta, Georgia,
and Region V, with offices in Chicago, Illinois—have jurisdiction over
portions of the study area. A representative from each of these offices was
appointed to join the project officer and the authors of this report on the
nroject Management Team.
93
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OFFICE OF ENERGY, MINERALS, AND INDUSTRY
_L
PROJECT OFFICER
MANAGEMENT TEAM
Project Officer
EPA Region IV Representative
EPA Region V Representative
PROJECT OFFICE
Two Co-principal Investigators} ] ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TASK1
Scenario
Development)
i
i
•
TASK 2
(Preliminary
Assessments)
_„ „_ _ _C— -_ -. .
TASKS
(Integrated
Report)
| TEAM1 | | TEAM 2 | | TEAM 3 |
.-J--
uicc|[uiuc]
! TASK 4
(Special Studies)
Labor Demand Impact and Labor
Market Feasibility
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Power
Subjective Quality of Life
-j Social Aspects of Plant Siting]
-{ Institutional Accountability j
-j Energy Transportation/Distribution |
-{Water Resource Allocation j
[Pollutant Transport Models
I Metal Ions and Radionuclides in
Ohio River Sediments
I Impact of Synthetic Fuel Production I
FIGURE A-l. OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY ORGANIZATION, PHASE I
94
-------
Since much of the impetus for the ORBES project came from the concerns
of citizens in the study area, from its earliest planning EPA envisaged ac-
tive participation of representatives of major public and private sectors in
the region. In September 1975 in Louisville, Kentucky, an Interim Steering
Committee was convened to provide counsel to the researchers in the early
ORBES planning. Within a few weeks members of this interim committee and
other appointees were phased into a permanent ORBES Advisory Committee. The
Advisory Committee (listed in Appendix D) provided counsel and suggestions
throughout the first year. Among their contributions were critiques of the
three preliminary assessment reports and of this integrated summary report.
As noted in the foreword, EPA has decided to support the initial year of
Phase II of ORBES; on November 1, 1977, the agency announced that a series of
grants had been awarded to an expanded group of universities. In addition to
the six institutions named above, grants were received by researchers at the
University of Pittsburgh and West Virginia University. Awards to these two
institutions reflected EPA's decision to include virtually all of West Vir-
ginia and southwestern Pennsylvania in the ORBES Phase II study region.
The complexity of such regional assessments is illustrated by the fact
that Pennsylvania and West Virginia are located in still another EPA region
(Region III, with offices in Philadelphia). Under a new grant, the authors
will continue as co-directors for the university management team. In a de-
parture from the Phase I format, however, a single core team of thirteen
researchers from the eight universities will carry out the impact assessment
of Phase II. A group of support studies also will be funded.
95
-------
APPENDIX B
ORBES PHASE I REPORTS
VOLUME
I-A ORBES Phase I: Interim Findings, by James J. Stukel and Boyd R.
Keenan (identical to the present report)
I-B Development of Baseline Data for the Ohio River Basin Energy Study
II Preliminary Technology Assessment Reports
II-A Indiana University, The Ohio State University, and Purdue University
II-B University of Kentucky and University of Louisville
II-C University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and at Urbana-Champaign
III Special Study Reports
III-A Labor Demand Impact and Labor Market Feasibility of Energy Conver-
sion Facilities in the Ohio River Basin, by Robert C. Dauffenbach
and Thomas P. Milke (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
III-B A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Power in the ORBES Region, by Richard A.
Tybout (The Ohio State University)
III-C Subjective Quality of Life in the Ohio River Basin as Related to
Future Energy Development, by Sven B. Lundstedt, Henry L. Hunker,
and Clark Leavitt (The Ohio State University)
III-D Social Aspects of Power Plant Siting, by Sue Johnson and Esther
Weil (University of Kentucky)
III-E Legal Analysis of Institutional Accountability for the Ohio River
Basin, by Nicholas L. White and John F. Fitzgerald (Indiana
University)
III-F Energy Transportation/Distribution in the Ohio River Basin, by
Michael Rieber (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
96
-------
III-G Issues Related to Water Allocation in the Lower Ohio River Basin,
by E. Downey Brill, Jr., Glenn E. Stout, Robert W. Fuessle,
Randolph M. Lyon, and Keith E. Wojnarowski (University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign)
III-H Pollutant Transport Models for the ORBES Region, by R. E. Bailey,
R. G. Barile, D. D. Gray, R. B. Jacko, P. O'Leary, R. A. Rao, and
J. E. Reinhardt (Purdue University)
III-I Radionuclide and Metal Ion Content of Late Summer Ohio River
Sediments: McAlpine Pool 1976, by Clara A. Leuthart and Hugh T.
Spencer (University of Louisville)
III-J Regional Assessment of the Impact of Synthetic Fuel Production,
by Donald A. Blome and James E. Jones, Jr. (University of
Kentucky)
IV Independent Comments
97
-------
APPENDIX C
ORBES PHASE I PERSONNEL
ORBES PERSONNEL
Task 1: Boundary Determination and Development of Baseline Data and
Scenarios
Robert E. Bailey
Purdue University
Donald A. Blome
University of Kentucky
James P. Hartnett
University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle
Boyd R. Keenan
University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle
Richard E. Klein
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Sven B. Lundstedt
The Ohio State University
J. C. Randolph
Indiana University
Michael Rieber
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Hugh T. Spencer
University of Louisville
Robert C. Stiefel
The Ohio State University
James J. Stukel
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Nicholas L. White
Indiana University
Task 2: Preliminary Technology Assessments
Team 1
1. Indiana University
Faculty and Staff
Jerry Davis
Michael Ewert
John F. Fitzgerald
Student Assistants
David Cowgill
Dale Duffala
Michael Evarts
98
-------
J. C. Randolph
Nicholas L. White
The Ohio State University
Faculty and Staff
Oscar Fisch
Steven I. Gordon
Paul S. Lande
Kenneth Pearlman
*
Robert C. Stiefel
E. E. Whitlatch, Jr.
Purdue University
Faculty and Staff
*t
Robert E. Bailey
Ronald G. Barile
Peggy F. Hull
Robert B. Jacko
Robert D. Miles
Virginia K. Peart
Arunachalam Ravindran
Richard A. Weismuller
Frederick Fisher
Billy Giles
Timothy Hippensteel
James Kariya
John Kelly
Glenn Montgomery
Christopher Smith
Student Assistants
Louis Carnevale
Anna S. Graham
David Hulefeld
Mary Karen Wilson
Student Assistants
J. Carter
Kenneth Einselen
John North
Patrick J. O'Leary
John Reinhardt
S. Sadagopan
R. C. Smith
B. Jim Suzman
Paula Thompson
Team 2
J. University of Kentucky
Faculty and Staff
*
Donald A. Blome
Sue Johnson
James E. Jones, Jr.
Angelos Pagoulatos
Alan Randall
Esther Weil
Student Assistants
B. N. Hiremath
John Sullivan
t
campus coordinator
team leader
99
-------
2. University of Louisville
Faculty and Staff Student Assistant
James M. Brockway Richard S. Colyer
John A. Busch
W. Landis Jones
Clara A. Leuthart
Agnes D. Livingood
William J. Morison
J. Douglas Nunn
William D. Pearson
Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette
Michael A.
^ .
Hugh T. Spencer
Varley E. Wiedeman
Team 3
1. University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
Faculty and Staff Student Assistants
Daniel J. Amick Bryan Beyer
Lyndon R. Babcock, Jr. (Medical Jan Saper
Center) John Tomasovich
Gilbert W. Bassett
Kathleen M. Brennan
Gary L. Fowler ^
James P. Hartnett
Steven D. Jansen
P. V. Sudhindra
Charles E. Teclaw, Jr.
Lettie M. Wenner
2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Faculty and Staff Student Assistants
Wayne J. Davis ^ Tune Aldemir
John J. Desmond Ron Balazs
Daniel F. Hang Forrest Gunnison
Jon C. Liebman Anthony Kruger
Judith S. Liebman Judy Orvidas
Ross J. Martin"1" William Parry
G. Laurin Wheeler Hasan Sehitoglu
Marvin E. Wyman*
campus coordinator
team leader
100
-------
Task 3: Integrated Summary Report
Faculty and Staff
Robert E. Bailey
Stephanie L. Kaylin
Boyd R. Keenan
Bruce A. McDaniel
A. Jenifer Robison
Hugh T. Spencer
James J. Stukel
Student Assistants
Tune Aldemir
Forrest Gunnison
William Parry
Task 4: Special Studies
See the listing in Appendix B for the authors of the ten special study
reports (Volumes III-A through III-J).
ORBES MANAGEMENT TEAM
Walton W. Jones
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Boyd R. Keenan
University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle
Chicago, Illinois
James H. Phillips
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Lowell Smith
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C.
James J. Stukel
University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
Urbana, Illinois
ORBES PROJECT OFFICE
Co-directors
Boyd R. Keenan
James J. Stukel
Staff
Philip S. Haag
(through March 1977)
Stephanie L. Kaylin
101
-------
APPENDIX D
ORBES PHASE I ADVISORY COMMITTEE
George R. Alexander, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
John P. Apel
Vice President
Columbus & Southern Electric Company
Columbus, Ohio
Minx Auerbach
Director
Department of Consumer Affairs
City of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky
Professor Charles Bareis
Illinois Archaeological Society
Urbana, Illinois
Hugh A. Barker
President
Public Service Indiana
Plainfield, Indiana
Thomas L. Beehan
Former Administrative Officer
Tri-State Air Committee
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. Harold G. Cassidy
Save the Valley
Madison, Indiana
James P. Darling
Assistant Director of Power
Resources Planning
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Thomas Duncan
President
Kentucky Coal Association
Lexington, Kentucky
C. Wayne Fox
Chief Electrical Engineer
Illinois Commerce Commission
Springfield, Illinois
Damon W. Harrison
Commissioner
Kentucky Department of Energy
Frankfort, Kentucky
E. R. Heiberg III
Brigadier General
Division Engineer—Ohio
River Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. L. John Hoover
Assistant Director
Energy and Environmental Systems
Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois
Brian Kiernan
Assistant Director for Research
Kentucky Legislative Research
Commission
Frankfort, Kentucky
Senator John Knuppel
Chairman
Illinois Energy Resources
Commission
Virginia, Illinois
102
-------
Eugene Land
International Legislative Representative
United Auto Workers
Region III
Lexington, Kentucky
Owen Lentz
Executive Manager
East Central Area Reliability
Canton, Ohio
Ralph Madison
President
Kentucky Audubon Council
Louisville, Kentucky
Fred Morr
Chairman
Ohio River Basin Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jack Ravan
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
(through June 1977)
Senator Walter Rollins
West Virginia Commission on
Interstate Cooperation
Kenova, West Virginia
Dr. John Roth
Commissioner
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Protection
Frankfort, Kentucky
Robert Ryan
Director
Ohio Energy and Resource Development
Agency
Columbus, Ohio
Jackie Swighart
Chairperson
Kentucky Environmental Quality
Commission
Louisville, Kentucky
Charles C. Tillotson
Patriot, Indiana
Carl B. Vance
Senior Vice President-Operations
Indianapolis Power and Light
Company
Indianapolis, Indiana
Leo Weaver
Executive Director
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio
David Whaley
Executive Director
Strategies for Environmental Control
Louisville, Kentucky
Ned Williams
Director
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio
Willis Zagrovich
President
Indiana AFL-CIO
Greenwood, Indiana
103
-------
APPENDIX E
STUDY ORIGINS
A series of decisions made at the national level nearly 30 years ago
predetermined that the lower Ohio River Basin would be at the center of the
country's fuel conflicts in the 1970s and 1980s. Indirectly, these same
events led to the concerns of residents along the 100-mile reach of the Ohio
River stretching from Louisville, Kentucky, northward and eastward to and be-
yond Cincinnati, Ohio.
In November 1950, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) approved con-
struction of the nation's second gaseous diffusicn uranium enrichment plant
near Paducah, Kentucky, located on the Ohio River about 935 river miles down-
stream from Pittsburgh. During World War II and the immediate postwar peri-
od, all of the nation's uranium was enriched at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, site of
the world's first gaseous diffusion plant, built as part of the Manhattan
Project. Located in northeastern Tennessee, Oak Ridge is just outside the
Ohio River Basin.
By 1952, the AEC had begun plans for the nation's third gaseous
diffusion plant, to be located near Portsmouth, Ohio (about Mile 340), where
the Scioto River flows south into the Ohio. Electric power demands for the
Portsmouth uranium enrichment facility were so great that the AEC contracted
with a consortium of investor-owned public utilities to provide energy from
what would become for a time the world's two largest coal-fired power plants.
Partially for national defense reasons, it was decided that the plants should
be sited a considerable distance from each other and from the uranium enrich-
ment plant itself.
The consortium—the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC)—selected
Ohio River sites 220 river miles west of Portsmouth at Madison, Indiana, and
80 river miles east at Cheshire, Ohio. In early 1955, the first units of
both facilities—the Clifty Creek plant near Madison and the Kyger Creek
plant at Cheshire—went "on-line." Transmission lines charged at 330,000
volts (the hightest voltage level in the country at the time) carried elec-
tric power to the uranium plant at Portsmouth. Three 680-foot stacks at the
Clifty Creek plant were then the tallest in the world. From 1955 to 1974
they remained as the focus of Madison residents' resentment at the plant's
presence.
104
-------
During this 25-year period, hostility increased between a portion of the
Madison citizenry and consortium companies operating at Clifty Creek.1 Re-
ports from OVEC reflected pride in its achievements: "Air pollution was
carefully studied. The high-stack concept—releasing stack gases at high
velocity far above the level where people breathe—is now a standard approach
to air quality control. It was a world-first at Clifty and Kyger" ("Twins on
the Ohio: This is OVEC-IKEC," brochure, n.d.). Under present air quality
regulations. high stacks are not an adequate abatement mechanism.
A growing number of residents in Madison and the surrounding area took
issue with OVEC claims of concern for the environment during the early 1970s.
Ironically, OVEC could probably not have selected a community site with more
overall pride in aesthetics and total environment. A town of 13,000 nestled
below the bluffs along the Ohio River, Madison is characterized as a living
museum of nineteenth-century architecture, with scores of buildings recog-
nized as national historic treasures. The local chamber of commerce calls it
"the Williamsburg of the Midwest."
The 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo stimulated national policy discussions on
coal produced in the Ohio River Basin and possible new power plants in the
region. In Madison, reports began circulating, supported by statements from
area public utilities, that 30- to 40-mile stretches of the river—both up-
stream and downstream from Madison—were being considered as prime sites for
additional coal-fired power plants. In response, a group of Indiana and Ken-
tucky residents around the Madison area incorporated under the name Save the
Valley (STV). The organization's early public reports indicate chief con-
cerns over the concentration of coal-burning plants on both sides of the
river.
The Clifty Creek plant and the historic character of Madison were major
factors placing STV in a uniquely critical role in power plant siting debates
in the Ohio River Basin. On September 20, 1974, members of STV met in the
nation's capital with federal officials, organized by U.S. Senator Birch Bayh
of Indiana. In an apparent reference to the Clifty Creek plant, a spokesman
for the group asserted: "We've been living with broken promises for twenty
years. That's why we're worried about the future" (Louisville Courier-Jour-
nal, September 20, 1974).
1
Members of the consortium are: Appalachian Power Company, Cincinnati
Gas and Electric Company, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company, Dayton
Power & Light Company, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Kentucky Utili-
ties Company, Louisville Gas & Electric Company, Monongahela Power Company,
Ohio Edison Company, Ohio Power Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, Potomac
Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company. Appalachian, Indiana & Michi-
gan, and Ohio Power are subsidiaries of American Electric Power, Inc. Monon-
gahela, Potomac Edison, and West Penn Power are suosidiaries of the Allegheny
Power System, Inc. Pennsylvania Power is a subsidiary of Ohio Edison. OVEC
operates the Clifty Creek plant through its own subsidiary, known as the In-
diana-Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC).
105
-------
Senator Bayh urged STV and federal officials to "get all the facts
spread on the table" so that a study could be arranged. A year later,
Senator Bayh declared that "these concerned individuals had tried to track
down information about several proposed power plants along the river. But
every time they contacted an Indiana, Kentucky, or federal agency the buck
was passed. . . . They were getting nowhere and they were frustrated."
(News from Birch Bayh, July 22, 1975).
"The consensus was that an in-depth study of the development of power in
this region would be the best way to address these concerns," Bayh said. He
continued: "This study will allow everyone involved in the decision-making
process about power development to share the same information, to speak the
same language. It will go a long way toward putting the individual concerned
citizen on an equal footing with the state and federal agencies and the power
companies. We need adequate power supplies. But we need to protect our-
selves and our environment, and that can't happen unless the citizens of our
communities play an active, informed role in the decision-making process
about energy development."
Senator Bayh is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its
subcommittee with authority to review EPA appropriations. Reportedly at
Bayh's request, the committee's report on EPA's fiscal year 1976 funding
formally directed the agency to perform a specific study, the project that
would later be named the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES).
106
-------
APPENDIX F
SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS, SITING CONSTRAINTS, AND
SITING CONFIGURATIONS
In developing the ORBES scenarios a number of assumptions were made.
Some of these assumptions apply to both the high-energy-growth option (Bureau
of Mines) and the low-energy-growth option (Ford Technical Fix). These
assumptions were as follows (41):
1. Of all the electrical energy generated in one year in the United States,
11.9 percent is generated in the ORBES region. It is assumed that this
percentage will remain constant through the year 2000.
2. It is assumed that electrical energy demand in the United States is a
direct indication of energy demand in the ORBES region, but the converse
is not necessarily true.
3. It is assumed that electrical energy production in the ORBES region
roughly equals consumption. That is, the net exports (from the four
ORBES states, not the region) are zero, and it is assumed that they will
remain zero through the year 2000.
4. It is assumed that in the next 25 years the major sources of electrical
energy in the ORBES region will be coal and uranium. (Geothermal power
and solar energy will be taken into account in Phase II of the project.)
5. It is assumed that the ORBES region will supply 5.5 percent of its own
needs for natural gas.
6. The driving force behind the scenarios is the economic situation in the
United States and its effects on national energy demand. Any major
occurence not now accounted for could have a serious disruptive effect on
these forecasts, for example, a major war, another Arab embargo, or a new
extensive governmental policy concerning energy development or environ-
mental controls.
7. It is assumed that sufficient uranium is available to meet demands for
projected nuclear plants. The supply of coal is also sufficient to meet
the demand. Water can be found in quantities abundant enough to meet the
needs of new plants.
8. It is assumed that existing governmental regulations will remain in ef-
fect through the year 2000.
107
-------
9. It is assumed that labor demand can be met for both skilled and unskill-
ed positions related to the building and operation of new power plants.
10. It is assumed that sufficient capital will be available to finance the
building of new facilities.
11. It is assumed that the plants projected in the scenarios will meet all
existing pollution control standards.
12. The five major sources of electrical energy are coal, petroleum, natural
gas, uranium, and (perhaps) hydropower.
13. It is assumed that technology and governmental policies will determine
the supply of resources available for development.
14. By agreement, the capacity per unit will be 1000 MWe for incremental
additions to existing power plants, unless otherwise stated.
15. It is assumed that all projected plants will be in areas meeting minimum
size requirements.
16. It is assumed that mineral rights can be acquired when necessary.
17. It is assumed that the location of projected plants will be away from
population centers and major metropolitan areas.
18. It is assumed that the availability and accessibility of transmission
lines present no problem in regard to plant siting.
19. It is assumed that the chance of concentrated power parks being con-
structed in the ORBES region in the next 25 years is highly remote.
20. It is assumed that the number of additional power plants in the ORBES
region through 1985 is as listed in Reference 41, Section Ig/h.
21. It is assumed that there will be at least one nuclear plant built in
Kentucky by the year 2000.
22. It is assumed that all new power plants will meet the "best available
control technology" environmental standards and will also use the best
available construction technology.
An additional series of assumptions were made for each of the basic
energy-growth options. These were the assumptions made in the Bureau of
Mines (2) and Ford Foundation (3) studies; they are implicit in the ORBES
scenarios. The following are some of the major assumptions made for the
BOM study (for details, see Reference 2):
1. In the year 2000 the gross national product (GNP) in the United States
will be $2981 billion (1971 dollars).
2. The national population will be 264 million in the year 2000.
108
-------
3. Annual energy consumption will increase at an average rate of 3.1 per-
cent between the early 1970s and the year 2000—from 73 quadrillion
Btu's in 1974 to 163 quadrillion Btu's in 2000.
4. The regulation of strip mining will not be overly restrictive.
5. The leasing of federal offshore areas will continue at an accelerated
pace.
6. The federal government will lease western coal lands, oil shale lands,
and known areas of geothermal energy.
7. The government will continue to support research and development.
8. The Federal Power Commission will relax regulation of wellhead prices.
9. Domestic crude oil prices will be decontrolled.
10. A policy seeking to rationalize the world petroleum market will be es-
tablished.
11. Price effects will not be incorporated.
12. Commercially feasible techniques for coal gasification and liquefaction
will be developed.
13. Economically viable techniques for the control of sulfur oxide emissions
from power and industrial plants will be developed.
14. The breeder reactor will be introduced.
15. The role of solar energy will not be taken into account.
16. Energy conservation will not be taken into account.
17. The slow trend toward a service-oriented economy will continue.
Some of the basic assumptions made for the Ford Technical Fix are listed
below (for details, see Reference 3):
1. Long-term energy prices and government policies will encourage greater
efficiency in energy consumption.
2. Annual energy consumption will increase at an average rate of 1.9 per-
cent between the early 1970s and the year 2000—from 78 quadrillion
Btu's in 1975 to 115 quadrillion Btu's in 2000.
3. The nation will adopt specific energy-saving technologies, for example:
(a) direct energy savings resulting from the application of energy-con-
servation technologies at the point of energy use (such as increased use
of thermal insulation and heat pumps, improved automotive fuel economy,
and total energy systems); and (b) indirect energy savings in the energy
109
-------
processing sector (such as power plants, petroleum refineries, and ura-
nium enrichment plants).
4. In the year 2000 the GNP in the United States will be $3219 billion
(1971 dollars).
5. The national population will be 236 million in 1985 and 265 million in
2000.
Location of the hypothetical energy conversion facilities under the
scenarios was at the county level. The following general constraints were
taken into account:
1. Transportation accessibility
2. Site development
3. Water supply and hydrology
4. C1imatology
5. Population distribution and density in the plant vicinity
6. Seismic design requirements
7. Accessibility by labor force, heavy equipment, and plant components
8. Transmission line corridors
9. Fuel supply
10. Terrestrial ecological sensitivity
11. Aquatic ecological sensitivity (waste heat and chemicals)
12. Demographic patterns
Specific constraints on selecting sites for coal facilities included:
1. A facility cannot be sited within a highly polluted area.
2. Primary standards for sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and particulates
must be met.
(See reference 41.)
See Figure F-l for a map showing electrical generation units in the
region as of December 31, 1975. The remaining maps depict hypothetical
facilities projected under each of the scenarios in addition to existing
facilities: the BOM 80 percent coal/20 percent nuclear (Figure F-2); the
BOM 50 percent coal/50 percent nuclear (Figure F-3); the FTF 100 percent
coal (Figure F-4); and the FTF 100 percent nuclear (Figure F-5).
110
-------
FIGURE F-l. ELECTRICAL GENERATING UNITS, O.RBES REGION
DECEMBER 31, 1975
Capacity m
MW (E)
25-500 >500
-------
H
-------
FIGURE F-3. ELECTRICAL GEMLRA'I'ING UNIVS, O^BUS REGION,
iX)M SO PEROEixT, COAL/50 PERCENT NUCLEAR SCENARIOj
2000
Capacity in
MW(E)
25-500 >500
-------
FIGURE F-4. ELCCTRICAL GENERATING UNITS, ORBES REGION,
FTF 100 PERCENT COAL SCENARIO, 2000
Copccify in
MW(E)
25-500 >500
-------
* l3»i*>l»-oWH
a S09
/I°-"1|ON
*
*
CO
OOS<
OOS-S2
l3)MVt
01 ^ODdb3
ooo?
--
-------
APPENDIX G
WATER USE DATA
The tables in this appendix were adapted from Reference 9. Refer to
that volume for additional information and notes on data sources.
TABLE G-l. WATER SUPPLY IN THE ORBES REGION
(in cubic feet per second)
Water supply
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio
Total
Average conditions
Rainfall
Runoff^
Inflow
Total
Low- flow conditions
Runoff^
Inflow
Total
140,000
34,000
160,000
200,000
1,500
43,000
45,000
95,000
28,000^
0
28,000
1,700,
0
1,700
140,000
50,000
80,000
130,000
1,400
31,000
32,000
98,000
30,000
50,000
79,000
1,800
4,500
6,300
471,000
140,000
290,000
440,000
6,400
78,000
85,000
t
Only inflow from outside the ORBES region is given here. Thus, the
inflow to Indiana is listed as zero; the Ohio River, for example, is
accounted for as a combination of runoff from the different states
and inflow to Ohio.
Total equals inflow plus runoff. Totals do not necessarily equal
sums of column entries because of rounding.
116
-------
TABLE G-2. WATER USE IN 1970, ORBES STATES AND STATE PORTIONS
(in cubic feet per second)
Illinois
Water withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Water consumption*
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
430.
1,500.
18,000.
19,000.
86.
87.
7.
180.
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Indiana
720.
400.
6,500.
7,600.
140.
24.
7.
180.
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Kentucky
480.
450.
5,900.
6,900.
96.
27.
33.
160.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ohio
1,400.
3,300.
21,000.
26,000.
270.
200.
22.
490.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
3,000.
5,600.
51,000.
60,000.
600.
330.
70.
1,000.
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Estimated at 20 percent of withdrawals for municipalities and 6 percent
for industries.
NOTE: Municipal and industrial estimates are for the areas of each
state within the ORBES region. Power estimates are for the
entire state.
117
-------
TABLE G-3. PROJECTED WATER USE, ORBES REGION, 1985
(in cubic feet per second)
Water withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Water consumption
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Illinois
470
2,500
720
3,700
95
150
480
720
Indiana
790
730
560
2,100
160
44
370
570
Kentucky
560
770
510
1,800
110
46
340
500
Ohio
1,500
3,700
1,000
6,300
310
220
670
1,200
Total
3,400
7,700
2,800
14,000
670
460
1,900
3,000
TABLE G-4. PROJECTED
WATER USE,
(in cubic
ORBES REGION, BOM
feet per
second)
80/20
SCENARIO, 2000
Water withdrawal
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Total
Water consumption
Municipal
Industrial
Power
Illinois
540
3,800
1,600
5,900
110
230
1,000
Indiana
910
1,200
1,500
3,600
180
71
1,000
Kentucky
660
1,200
1,400
3,000
130
71
930
Ohio
1,700
6,000
2,600
10,000
340
360
1,700
Total
3,800
12,000
7,000
23,000
760
730
4,700
Total
1,400
1,200
1,100 2,400
6,200
118
-------
TABLE G-5. PROJECTED WATER USE, ORBES REGION, BOM 50/50 SCENARIO, 2000
(in cubic feet per second)
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio Total
Water withdrawal
Power 1,700
Total municipal,
industrial, and
power withdrawals 6,000
Water consumption
Power 1,100
Total municipal,
industrial, and
power consumption 1,500
1,600
3,700
1,100
1,300
1,500 2,800 7,600
3,400 10,000 24,000
1,000 1,900 5,100
1,200 2,600 6,600
TABLE G-6. PROJECTED WATER USE, ORBES REGION,
FTP 100 PERCENT COAL SCENARIO, 2000
(in cubic feet per second)
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky Ohio Total
Water withdrawal
Power 750
Total municipal,
industrial, and
power withdrawals 5,100
Water consumption
Power 500
Total, municipal,
industrial, and
power consumption 840
620
2,700
420
670
580 1,200 3,200
2,400 8,900 19,000
390
810 2,100
590 1,500 3,600
119
-------
TABLE G-7. PROJECTED WATER USE, ORBES REGION,
FTP 100 PERCENT NUCLEAR SCENARIO, 2000
(in cubic feet per second)
Illinois Indiana Kentucky Ohio Total
Water withdrawal
Power 760
Total municipal,
industrial, and
power with-
drawals 5,100
Water consumption
Power 500
Total municipal,
industrial, and
power consump-
tion 840
660
2,800
440
690
620 1,300
410
610 1,600
3,400
2,500 9,000 19,000
880 2,200
3,700
120
-------
TABLE G-8. WATER CONSUMPTION FOR IRRIGATION COMPARED TO OTHER
USES, ORBES REGION, 2000
Irrigation consumption (cfs) Scenario consumption (cfs)
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
low
170
(33)
110
(20)
110
(20)
110
(20)
500
(93)
moderate
530
(100)
530
(100)
210
(40)
800
(150)
2100
(390)
high BOM 50/50
1100 1500
(200)
1100 1300
(200)
320 1200
(60)
1300 2600
(250)
3800 6600
(710)
FTF 100
percent
coal
840
670
590
1500
3600
Estimates are for municipal, industrial and power uses.
NOTE: Irrigated acreages appear in parentheses (thousands of acres).
121
-------
TABLE G-9. RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS,
ORBES REGION, BOM 50/50 SCENARIO
River basin
Muskingum, OH
Big Sandy, KY
Scioto, OH
Licking , KY
Great Miami, OH
Little Miami, OH
Kentucky, KY
Salt, KY
Green, KY
Wabash, IN
Cumberland, KY
Number
of
plant units
5
0
8
0
8
0
2
0
2
18
5
Minimum
ratio
.12
.02
.43
.18
.41
0
.03
*
.008
.01
.02
Maximum
ratio
.20
.02
1.45
.18
.96
0
.37
*
.14
.23
.26
Average
ratio for
all reaches
.16
.02
.83
.18
.58
0
.20
*
.11
.14
.10
Relative
impact
moderate
light
heavy
moderate
heavy
light
moderate
heavy
moderate
moderate
moderate
Ohio River
135
.006
.14
.10
t
moderate rate
Kaskaskia, IL
Big Muddy, IL
Mississippi River
2
°t
24
.65
.33
.007
.65
.33
.05
.65
.33
.026
heavy
heavy
light
No ratios calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
All power plants in the ORBES region were taken into account in
calculating the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants
in the ORBES portion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi
River.
122
-------
TABLE G-10. RIVER BASIN CONSUMPTION RATIOS, ORBES REGION,
FTP 100 PERCENT COAL SCENARIO
River basin
Muskingum, OH
Big Sandy, KY
Scioto, OH
Licking , KY
Great Miami, OH
Little Miami, OH
Kentucky, KY
Salt, KY
Green, KY
Wabash, IN
Saline, IL
Cumberland, KY
Ohio River
Kaskaskia, IL
Big Muddy, IL
Illinois, IL
Mississippi River
Number
of
plant units
1
0
2
0
4
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
22+
0
0
2t
2
Minimum
ratio
.04
.02
.13
.18
.15
.63
.02
*
.008
.01
%0
.01
.002
.06|
.33*
.01
0
Maximum
ratio
.07
.02
.64
.18
.30
.63
.03
*
.00
.13
-vO
.01
.03
.06
.33
.06
.01
Average
ratio for
all reaches
.055
.02
.33
.18
.19
.63
.03
*
.008
.07
^0
.01
.02
.06
.33
.03
.005
Relative
impact
moderate
light
heavy
moderate
moderate
heavy
light
heavy
light
moderate
light
light
light
moderate
heavy
light
light
t
No ratios calculated since the 7-day 10-year flow is zero.
All power plants in the ORBES region were taken into account in calculating
the consumption ratios for the Ohio River. Only plants in the ORBES por-
tion of Illinois were considered for the Mississippi River.
123
-------
APPENDIX H
CAPITAL INVESTMENT DATA
TABLE H-l. FINANCIAL INVESTMENT, ORBES-KEGION ELECTRIC UTILITIES,
ORBES SCENARIOS, CUMULATIVE TO 2000
(in billions of current dollars)
BOM scenarios FTP scenarios
Cost function 50/50 80/20 100% coal 100% nuclear
Power plant construction 226.6 206.0 40.2 45.6
Pollution control 20.0 30.0 5.7 2.5
Transmission and
substations 49.4 49.4 9.5 9.5
Distribution and
substations
General
Total
Capacity
expenses
additions (MWe)
37.
9.
342.
5
4
9
186,
37.
9.
332.
602
5
4
3
7
1
55
35,
.2
.8
.0
800
7
1
66
35,
.2
.8
.6
600
SOURCE: Reference 6.
124
-------
TABLE H-2. CUMULATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, COAL MINES, BY SCENARIO
(in billions of current dollars)
Cumulative investment Present worth of
Scenario to 2000 1975-2000 investment
BOM 80/20 9.7 4.8
BOM 50/50 6.7 3.1
FTF 100 percent coal 1.8 0.9
FTP 100 percent nuclear 1.4 0.6
SOURCE: Reference 6.
TABLE H-3. CUMULATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, URANIUM MINES, BY SCENARIO
(in billions of current dollars)
Cumulative investment
Scenario to 2000
BOM
BOM
FTF
FTF
50/50 7.6
80/20 3.5
100 percent nuclear 1.6
100 percent coal 1.0
Present worth of
1975-2000 investment
2.5
1.2
0.5
0.4
SOURCE: Reference 6.
125
-------
APPENDIX I
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,
ORBES STATE PORTIONS
The tables in this appendix, as well as Tables 7 and 8 in Chapter 5,
summarize several types of information about the nature of environmental
pollutant loadings projected under the Bureau of Mines and Ford Technical Fix
scenarios. For each major air and water pollutant category (listed in column
1), columns 4, 5, and 6 of the tables indicate the percentage of total net
discharges that would be generated by a given manufacturing or consumption
activity in an ORBES state portion (Tables 1-1 through 1-8) or the ORBES
region as a whole (Tables 7 and 8). Only activities contributing more than
3 percent of total residual output are presented in the tables; therefore,
columns will not total 100 percent. Columns 6 and 8 indicate the percentage
change between projected emissions in tons for each sector in the year 2000
and the base year (1972) discharge levels for the BOM and FTF scenarios,
respectively. In column 9, the residual outputs in 2000 for the two scenari-
os are compared with each other. In that column, a positive difference indi-
cates greater outputs under the low-energy-growth (FTF) scenarios; a negative
difference, greater outputs under the high-energy-growth (BOM) scenarios.
The tables were constructed using data from Reference 4.
126
-------
TABLE 1-1. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR POLLUTION, ILLINOIS, ORBES PORTION
Pollutant
Particulates
Total net
Sulfur o;:ides
Sector
crushed stone
sintering
petroleum refining
electric- coal-old
electric- coal-new
industrial-coal
industrial-oil
small rural
grain handling
automobile travel
light truck
petroleum refining-
catalytic
petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
Percent
difference
Net 1972 (" FTF-BOM ~|^
emissions Percent of Percent of '»
(thousand porn»n<- «f ROM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total total* change total* change [ 2
211 26 33 -45 34 -47 -4
125 15
4
121 15 4 -88 5 -87 3
6 5 -39
62 8 5 -73 9 -55 49
17 2 6 28 8 43 11
77 9
28 3 18 129 14 67 -31
3
823 -57 -60 -8
48 4
195 15 7 -43 8 -44 -2
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-1 (continued)
Pollutant Sector
electric- coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial-coal
industrial-oil
residential-coal
Total net
H Nitrogen
GO oxides petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
electric- coal/oil-old
electric- coal-new
industrial-coal
industrial-oil
industrial-natural gas
automobile travel
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
666
94
120
45
1315
28
189
16
51
44
212
Percent oft
1972 total
51
7
9
4
4
28
2
7
6
31
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
19
33
17
15
6
8
20
4
6
12
Percent
change
-57
172
45
12
131
-52
193
32
-36
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
20
21
28
13
6
9
16
8
8
4
10
Percent
change
-56
347
62
8
126
-51
382
47
8
-54
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM 1 ,
-------
TABLE 1-1 (continued)
Pollutant
Total net
Hydrocarbons
Total net
Sector
light truck
heavy truck
solvent-based paint
rail
petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
crude oil S
petroleum storage
service stations
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
personal truck
Percent
difference
Net 1972 F FTF-BOM f
emissions Percent of Percent of h
(thousand Percent of ^ BOM 20
-------
TABLE 1-2. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR POLLUTION, INDIANA (ORBES PORTION)
Pollutant Sector
Particulates asphalt
crushed stone
sintering
electric-coal-old
electric-coal- new
industrial- coal
U)
O industrial-oil
automobile travel
light truck
Total net
Sulfur oxides petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
ele ctric- coal-old
electric-coal-new
Net 1972
emissions Percent of
(thousand Percent ofA BOM 2000 Percent
tons) 1972 total total change
5
113 14 25 -42
299 37 6 -94
137 17 6 -88
10
60 8 8 -66
1
15
4
797 -65
82 6 4 -43
790 60 23 -57
50
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM " »t
FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
total * change [_ 2
5 2
24 -44 -4
6 -95 -5
6 -87 3
6 -41
13 -44 49
1 11
11 -31
-64 3
5 -44 -2
42 -56 3
27 -87
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-2 (continued)
Percent
difference
Pollutant Sector
industrial coal
industrial-oil
Total net
Nitrogen
oxides petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial-coal
industrial-oil
industrial-natural gas
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
Total net
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand Percent of
tons) 1972 total*
90 9
6 1
1054
152 35
15 4
3 1
30 7
118 27
29 7
32 8
433
Percent of Percent of
BOM 2000 Percent FTP 2000
total* change total*
9 8 19
1 135 2
14
3
13 -31 16
33 33
2 84
1 58 1
5
11 -30 9
12 237 10
14 233 12
73
Percent
change
78
163
3
-29
78
77
-9
-49
134
131
54
" FTF-BQM ~Lt
10
FTF+BOM
2
49
11
-30
3
-20
49
11
-31
-36
-36
-18
Only sections contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
f
-------
TABLE 1-2 (continued)
Pollutant Sector
Hydrocarbons solvent-based paints
solvent-based paints-
industrial
service stations
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
personal truck
Total net
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand Percent of
tons) 1972 total*
16 3
21 4
37 7
219 43
107 21
27 5
507
Percent of Percent of
BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000
total* change total*
4
5 -28 6
13 8 12
22 -68 20
31 -8 27
10 9
5 -38 5
-37
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM 1
o/T
Percent FTF+BOM
change |_ 2
-38
-28 -.7
-22 -32
-77 -31
-36 -36
-36
-39 -.7
-51 -25
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-
growth (BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-3. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR POLLUTION, KENTUCKY
H
U)
W
Pollutant Sector
Parti culates asphalt
crushed stone
electric- coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial-coal
coal-metallurgical
cleaning
automobile travel
Total net
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
288
187
60
39
729
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM "1
f
_ ^ _ n j_ jr
Percent of Percent of
Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
1972 total* total* change total* change L 2 _
3
40 58 -19 58 -22 -4
26 6 -88 6 -87 3
8 5 -36
8 5 -68 8 -47 49
5
7 5 -31
-45 -47 -4
Sulfur oxides
petroleum refining-
catalytic
petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
23
21
t
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-3 (continued)
M
Pollutant Sector
electric- coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial-coal
industrial-oil
residential-coal
Total net
Percent
difference
Net 1972 T FTF-BOM-1
to
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change [_ 2
348 64 19 -57 27 -56 3
48 17 -115
90 17 17 49 38 146 49
5 7 11
16 3
547 43 6 -30
Nitrogen
oxides
electric-coal-old 192 51
electric- coal-new
industrial-coal 15 4
industrial-oil
18
38
4
3
-31 22
32
80 7
4
-29 3
-34
197 49
11
t
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-3 (continued)
Percent
difference
Pollutant Sector
industrial-
natural gas
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
H
w Total net
01
Hydrocarbons ethylene dichloride
solvent-based paints
solvent-based paints-
industrial
crude oil &
petroleum storage
FTF-
Net 1972
emissions Percent of Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTFH
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change |_ ;
5
BOM
0/1
to
>-BOM
>
84 22 8 -30 7 -49 -31
12 3 6 254 5* 146 -36
13 4 6 250 5* 143 -36
379 93 64 -16
11 3
34-
17 5 6 -35 7 -35
.5
.7
18 5 5 -47 5 -52 -9
t
#.
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
PTF 2000 emissions in these sectors estimated from other state figures.
-------
TABLE 1-3 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTP 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
service stations
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
personal truck
Total net
23
156
44
25
346
7
45
13
12
25
21
7
-68
-3
-38
-42
11
23
19
-22
-77
-33
-55
-54
-32
-31
-36
-36
-32
-24
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
'A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy-growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-4. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO AIR POLLUTION, OHIO, ORBES PORTION
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTP 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
Particulates
M
asphalt
structural
clay products
74
-1
lime 81 5
crushed stone 174 11
sintering 302 20
electric-coal-old 325 21
electric-coal-new
industrial-coal 227 14
industrial-oil
automobile travel
coal transportation-
conventional train 67 4
13
6
8
4
6
11
18
-47 13
-88 6
6
-87 7
7
8
88 18
-49 -4
-87 3
-35
-79 49
11
-31
74 -8
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-4 (continued)
H
LO
00
Pollutant
Total net
Sulfur oxides
Total net
Percent
difference
Net 1972 FTF-BOM 1
emission?; ppr^ont r\f Percent of "'
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change |_ 2
coal transportation-
unit train 7 6 -g
coal transportation-
barge 3
coal transportation-
other 33-8
1577 -56 -59 _6
petroleum refining-
ncncatalytic 98 4
electric-coal 1399 64 29 -57 28 -56 3
electric-coal-new 35 29 -14
industrial-coal 415 19 18 -11 27 47 49
industrial-oil 81 4 8 107 8 132 11
2189 -6 43
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-4 (continued)
Pollutant
Nitrogen
oxides
Total net
Hydrocarbons
Sector
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
industrial- coal
industrial-oil
industrial-
natural gas
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
solvent-based paints
solvent-based paints-
industrial
Percent
difference
Net 1972 f FTF-BOM 1 f
emissions Psjrcsnt of Psrcsnt of • ' &
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change [_ 2
261 40 12 -34 14 -29 3
28 23 -34
70 11 5 17 10 92 49
33 5 6 160 7 191 11
45 7 4 21
208 32 11 -22 9 -43 -31
53 8 11 219 9 121 -36
59 9 12 215 9 119 -36
644 80 61 -11
32 3 3 -39 4 -40 -.5
38 4 4 -35 5 -35 -.7
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-4 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
emissions
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
service stations
automobile travel
light truck
heavy truck
personal truck
Total net
76
386
196
38
952
8
41
21
13
22
28
9
5
-65
-13
12
21
25
8
4
-36
-24
-74
-40
-56
-50
-32
-31
-36
-36
-24
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total emissions are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater emissions under the low-energy growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater emissions under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-5. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO WATER POLLUTION, ILLINOIS, ORBES PORTION
Net 1972
effluents
( thous and
Pollutant Sector tons)
Percent of
Percent of BOM 2000
1972 total* total*
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM
Percent FTP 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
change total* change [_ 2
BOD wastes
Total net
municipal sewage
high-processing
pack inghouse
sulfite pulp
building paper
industrial chemical
maleic anhydride
plastic materials &
resins
forest products s
fisheries
canned & frozen
seafood
canned & frozen
fruits s vegetables
13
69
18
5
10
5
2
4
7
15
7
3
6
44
-9
-79
-60
-61
44
-9
-80
-60
-3
-.5
-1
-.5
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
t
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-5 (continued)
Pollutant Sector
COD wastes meat animals s
other livestock
forest products S
fisheries
industrial chemicals
dyes S dye
intermediates
maleic anhydride
plastic materials S
resins
petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
plasticizers
poultry processing
dimethyl terephthalate
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
4
5
7
6
9
9
6
3
2
2
Percent
difference
" FTF-BOM "
Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
1972 total* total* change total* change |_ 2
6
8 21 89 22 87 -1
12 9 -45 10 -45 -1
10 5 -64 6 -64 -.3
14 16 -25 17 -26 -.5
14 17 -19 18 -19 -.5
9 6 -59 6 -60 -2
5 4 -47 4 -48 -.5
3
4
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-5 (continued)
Net 1972
effluents Percent of Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
Pollutant Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change
Percent
lifference
"FTF-BOM "
FTF+BOM
2 j
£t
/G
flat glass 2 4
electric-LWR 8
Total net
64
-32
-37
-8
Total suspended
solids (TSS) coal-strip-mined
coal-metallurgical
cleaning 163 8
coal-other processing 1828 86
electric-coal-old 6 6
electric-coal-new 7 5
municipal sewage 44 45
canned S frozen
fruits & vegetables 4 4
3
-34
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-5 (continued)
Pollutant
Total net
Total dissolved
solids (TDS)
Percent
difference
Net 1972 r FTF-BOM 1 f
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change |_ 2
plastic materials &
resins 9 9 -.5
2127 -99 -99 -2
coal-liquefaction 3
coal-underground 23 8 10 92 10 77 -9
coal- strip-mined 88 32 38 83 38 69 -8
coal-other processing 41 15
maleic anhydride 15 5 10 191 11 189 -.5
electric- coal-old 41 15 3 -64 4 -63 3
electric-coal-new 10 8 -34
electric-LWR 4
industrial chemicals 8 3
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-5 (continued)
Percent
difference
Net 1972 FTF-BOM
effluents Percent of Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
Pollutant Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change
FTF+BOM
dyes & dye
intermediates 5 5
Total net 273 55 44
in *
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-6. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO WATER POLLUTION, INDIANA, ORBES PORTION
-------
TABLE 1-6 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent
tons) 1972 total* total* change
Percent of
FTF 2000 Percent
total* change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
citric acid
plastic materials &
resins
petroleum refining-
noncatalytic
forest products S
fisheries
poultry processing
industrial chemicals
electric-LWR
21
47
47
24
2
2
1
6
5
3
7
5
-72
-16
-59
Total net
46
-42
-73
50
25
-72
-16
-60
-43
-74
-.1
— 5
-2
-1
-6
Total suspended
solids (TSS) municipal sewage
44
46
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-6 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
CO
Total net
coal-strip mined
coal-other processing
asphalt
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
plastic materials S
resins
833
69
1060
83
7
9
15
10
12
-98
-98
3
-31
-.5
_tr
Total dissolved
solids (TDS) coal-strip mined
citric acid
electric-coal-old
81
694
48
9
80
6
9
81
1
100
139
-59
8
89
1
85
139
-58
-8
-.1
3
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-er.ergy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-6 (continued)
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
Net 1972
effluents Percent of Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
Pollutant Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change
FTF+BOM
electric-coal-new 4 3 -34
Total net 868 137 -10
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-7. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO WATER POLLUTION, KENTUCKY
Pollutant Sector
BOD wastes municipal sewage
high-processing
packinghouse
alcoholic beverages
plastic materials S
resins
t— '
Ul . .
O plasticizers
Total net
COD wastes meat animals &
other livestock
forest products &
fisheries
woven fabric finishing-
cotton, synthetic
Percent
difference
Net 1972 I" FTF-BOM 1 f
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTP 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change |_ 2
13 34 57 -1 57 -1
2 6
277 -43 7 -43 -.1
35 4 -75 4 -75 -.5
1 3
37 -41 -41 -.4
2 5
2 5
145 -37 5 -37 -.2
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-7 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of Percent of
Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
1972 total* total* change total* change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM "
FTF+BOM
Ul
M
Total net
knit fabric finishing
industrial chemicals 3
propylene oxide 4
dye & dye
intermediates
plasticizers 2
ethylene dichloride 1
poultry processing 1
plastic materials S
resins 4
polyvinyl chloride 2
synthetic rubber 5
34
9
12
6
4
4
12
5
16
6
9
8
4
6
4
20
15
12
-48
-68
-51
-60
-24
-29
-63
-52
3
9
8
4
6
4
19
14
12
-49
-69
-51
-61
-25
-25
-63
-52
.1
-1
.5
.3
.5
.6
.5
-3
.7
1
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-7 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
Ul
Total suspended
solids (TSS) municipal sewage
coal-strip mined
coal-other processing
coal-metallurgical
cleaning
1173
971
52
43
51
6
53
5
-9
Total net
Total dissolved
solids (TDS)
electric- coal-old
electric- coal-new
alcoholic beverages
plastic materials. &
resins
2260
coal- underground 61 24
10 10 3
13 10 -31
4 5 -.1
5 5 -.5
-99 -99 -4
34 97 33 75 -11
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-7 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of Percent of
Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
1972 total* total* change total* change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
Ui
oo
coal-strip mined
coal-metallurgical
cleaning
coal-other processing
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
Total net
46
15
27
61
248
19
6
11
25
34
162
34
139
-9
7
15
-59
42
11
-58
31
3
-34
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-8. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO WATER POLLUTION, OHIO, ORBES PORTION
Percent
difference
Net 1972
effluents Percent of Percent of
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTP 2000 Percent
Pollutant Sector tons) 1972 total* total* change total* change
" FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
2
o/t
%
BOD wastes
municipal sewage
plastic materials S
resins
forest products S
60
10
47
49
-61
-62
49
-61
-62
-.5
fisheries 7 6
citric acid 7 6
paper S paperboard
mills
Total net 128
COD wastes meat animals &
other livestock 7 5
forest products &
fisheries 34 25
acrylonitrile 8 6
26 66 26 64 -1
3 3 -.7
-63 -63 -.4
56 55 56 53 -1
4 -61 4 -61 -.4
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-8 (continued)
Pollutant Sector
citric acid
dyes s dye
intermediates
plastic materials s
resins
synthetic rubber
M
uj woven fabric finishing-
cotton, synthetic
industrial chemicals
Total net
Total suspended
solids (TSS) municipal sewage
coal-other processing
asphalt
Percent
difference
Net 1972 [ FTF-BOM 1
£* "F^T llf^nt" ^ T'oTTT^nt' 0"F T"*^T~/T*ni~ r\f °^
(thousand Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTP 2000 Percent FTF+BOM
tons) 1972 total* total* change t"-al* change |_ 2
14 11 4 -75 4 -75 -.1
973 -66 3 -66 -.3
21 16 17 -24 17 -25 -.5
86 3 -63 3 -63 -.7
5 4
753 -56 3 -56 -1
134 -30 -31 -2
51 5 48 -50 49 -50
673 65
92 9
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTP) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-8 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of Percent of
Percent of BOM 2000 Percent FTF 2000 Percent
1972 total* total* change total* change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
cn
basic oxygen furnace-
integral facility
electric-coal-old
electric-coal-new
forest products &
fisheries
coal-strip mined
plastic materials &
46
3
-31
-1
resins
Total net 1037
Total dissolved
solids (TDS) coal-strip mined 107 13
citric acid 460 54
electric-coal-old 77 10
12 12 -.5
-95 -95 -2
12 67 12 54 -8
68 115 70 115 -.1
3 -59 3 -58
t
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
TABLE 1-8 (continued)
Pollutant
Sector
Net 1972
effluents
(thousand
tons)
Percent of
1972 total*
Percent of
BOM 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent of
FTF 2000
total*
Percent
change
Percent
difference
FTF-BOM
FTF+BOM
electric-coal-new
steel
acrylonitrile
Total net
45
854
69
65
-34
-2
Ui
Only sectors contributing more than 3 percent of total effluents are presented. Therefore, the columns will not total
100 percent.
A positive difference means greater effluents under the low-energy-growth (FTF) option relative to the high-energy-growth
(BOM) option; a negative difference means greater effluents under the BOM scenarios relative to the FTF scenarios.
-------
APPENDIX J
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS, ORBES REGION, 1975 and 2000
CO
State
portion
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total ORBES
region
1975*
Population Percent
3. .394, 500 18.4
4,100,500 22.3
3,396,000 18.4
7,530,200 40.9
18,421,200 100.0
2000
, Special
Task 1 Percent studytt
4,040,331 17.6 3,653,540
5,122,200 22.2 4,582,594
4,406,794 19.1 4,428,826
9,455,839t1" 41.1 3, 469,472
23,026,164 100.0 21,134,432
projections
Percent
17.3
21.7
21.0
40.1
100.0
Kentucky
Delphi Project
3,572,712
4,616,192
4,361,992
8,426,950
20,977,046
Percent
17.0
22.0
20.8
40.2
100.0
*Current Population Reports. Series P-26, nos. 75-13, 75-14, 75-17, and 75-35. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1976.
See Reference 41.
#
See Reference 12.
**
See Reference 8.
'^Calculated on the assumption that the ratio between the population of Ohio within the ORBES region and
the total state population would remain constant between 1985 and 2000.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1 REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON1 NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ORBES Phase I: Interim Findings
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
James J. Stukel and Boyd Keenan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of Illinois
331 Administration Building
Urbana, Illinois 61801
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE 624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
US EPA R804848-01
12. SPOvNSO_RING_ AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Energy, Minerals & Industry
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 2Q46Q
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
8/76—8/77
f4T"SPONSbRTNS AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
Energy/Environment R&D Program.
16. ABSTRACT
This report is an integrated summary of various elements of Phase I of the Ohio
River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) which includes three parallel but independent pre-
liminary technology assessments and a number of in-depth topical studies. ORBES Phase
I was conducted by research faculty from six state universities in the state compris-
ing the Phase I study region': all of Kentucky, and substantial portions of Illinois,
Indiana and Ohio. The results reported are preliminary in nature and reflect limita-
tions in data availability and analysis which were found.
Four alternative scenarios for energy development in the region through the year
2000 were employed to conduct the analysis. Some of the major preliminary fundings
of this first year assessment are: (1) air quality limitations in the region are be-
coming increasingly important considerations; (2) water availability limitations may
become important before the year 2000; and (3) a high rate of growth may be associated
with an insufficiency of skilled labor to construct conversion facilities. The im-
plications of these and other selected findings for public policy development are
discussed.
17.
(Circle One or More)
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT; Field/Group
Ecology
Environments
Earth Atmosphere
Environmental Engineering
Geography
Energy Conversion
Materials Handling
6F 8A 8F
8H 10A 10B
48 A-F 13B
97 A-H
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
160
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |