REPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TO
THE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
ON
THERMAL QUESTION
SEPTEMBER, 1972
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT ON THERMAL QUESTION
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER, 1972
I have distributed to each of you copies of the EPA statement
on the thermal question. I will not be reading the full document
but instead will present certain remarks and summarize as necessary
the attached documents.
I think it would be appropriate to discuss briefly the background
of the thermal question to refresh your memories and to inform the
audience.
Background
At the First Session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
held on January 31, February 1-2, February 5-7, March 7-8, and March 12,
1968 in Chicago, Illinois, the conferees discussed the rapidly Increasing
construction of nuclear power generating stations designed to use Lake
Michigan water for cooling. They found that, in addition to one existing
nuclear power plant, five more were proposed, or under construction at
Lake Michigan cities and projected for completion between 1970 and 1973,
They agreed that the combined impact of siting many reactors on the shores
of the Lake must be considered so that this activity would not result 1n
pollution from wastewater heat or from the discharge of excessive amounts
of radionuclides. The following recommendation was made:
"The States and the Department of the Interior will appoint
members of a special committee on nuclear discharges and the
thermal pollution aspects of power plants and reactors.
-------
-2-
The committee will meet with representatives of the Atomic
Energy Commission and other interested parties to develop
guidelines for pollution control from nuclear power plants.
The committee is to pay special attention to thermal dis-
charges which affect the aquatic life environment of the
lake. Representatives of the committee will be available
to appear before any Federal or State agency considering
approval of a permit for such power plants and reactors."
The Committee on Nuclear Power Plant Waste Disposal held its first
meeting on May 27, 1968, followed by numerous work sessions over the
next few months. They produced an extensive report which was presented
at the Second Session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, held
in Chicago on February 25, 1969. While the committee did reach some
tentative conclusions on certain aspects of the thermal issue, the main
theme of their report was that sufficient information was not available
to permit establishment of a basin-wide regulation on power plant waste
disposal.
The conferees at the February 25, 1969 Session expressed disappoint-
ment that the committee was unable to recommend a strong thermal pollution
policy to the conferees. The Second Session of the Lake Michigan Enforce-
ment Conference made the following recommendation:
"6. Nuclear Discharges and Thermal Pollution
The report of the committee Uau accepted by the conferees for
consideration. One of the -recommendations of the report was
for further study > and this will be taken under consideration by
the States and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
-------
-3-
It will be necessary to determine whether nuclear discharges
and thermal pollution are covered by the State water quality
standards, particularly in regard to thermal pollution. The
FWPCA recommended that the State and Federal Conferees
establish a committee to make specific recomnendations to
the conference on this problem. "
The thermal question was discussed by the conferees at the March 31,
April 1, and May 7, 1970 Executive Sessions and a variety of proposals
were made. At this latter session the conferees agreed that a series of
technical sessions would be necessary to evaluate the thermal question.
These workshop sessions were held on September 28-30 and October 1-2,
1970 and were devoted solely to the thermal question.
At the October 29, 1970 Executive Session, the conferees authorized
the formation of a technical committee to specifically review the various
proposals that had been made on this question. The committee's report
was presented at the March 23-25, 1971 session. At this session extensive
time was again devoted to the subject of waste heat discharges. On the
basis of the full discussion on the question, the conferees made certain
findings and recommendations.
These findings and recommendations were approved by EPA Administrator
William D. Ruckelshaus on May 14, 1971. In the case of Items 18 and 25,
where the conferees were unable to reach a unanimous position, Mr. Ruckelshaus
supported the Federal position and requested the concurrence of the reluctant
conferee.
-------
-4-
State Actions
Subsequent to the issuance of the approved findings and recommen-
dations by Mr. Ruckelshaus, the four Lake Michigan States took certain
actions relating to implementing the conference recommendations. While
the individual States will undoubtedly be reporting this Information
in greater detail, I would like to present a summary of their actions
at this time.
MICHIGAN: On August 7, 1971, the Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Department of Natural Resources, adopted
temperature standards for Interstate and Intrastate
Waters of the State of Michigan. These standards
established two zones within Lake Michigan, north
and south of a line running due west from Pentwater,
Michigan,
1. Adopted maximum temperatures, after mixing, for
the southern zone were identical to the Conference
recommendation. Maximum temperature standards for
the northern zone are 5°F lower than Conference
recommendations for all months except June and
November. In those two months the maximum allowable
temperatures are the same for both the north and
south portions.
2, Michigan's mixing zone provision does not specify
maximum distance or configurations. Michigan's mixing
zones are to be established on a case-by-case basis
and designed to minimize effects on the aquatic biota
-------
-5-
and to permit fish migration at all times. The
Conference had recommended that the criteria be
met outside a 1,000 foot radius from a fixed point
adjacent to the discharge.
3. Michigan's general provision regarding water intake
and discharge design criteria are excerpts from the
Conference recommendations. The Conference require-
ments that thermal plumes not touch the Lake bottom
or affect fish spawning and nursery areas and that
intakes not be influenced by warmer discharge waters
are not contained in Michigan's standards.
4. Michigan's standard does not contain time schedules
for waste heat discharges covered by the above
criteria and general provisions. The Conference
recommendations establish dates for dischargers 1n
operation to complete facilities to meet the criteria
and general provisions.
5. The State's revised temperature standards do not
contain monitoring requirements for waste heat dis-
charges greater than 1/2 billion BTU/hour.
6. With regard to the specific recommendations applicable
to waste heat discharges in excess of 1/2 billion
BTU/hour:
1. Michigan's standard restricts cooling water
discharges to the amount essential for blowdown
of a closed cycle cooling facility as recommended
by the Conference.
-------
-6-
2. Michigan's closed cycle cooling requirement
applies to heated discharges 1n excess of 1/2
billion BTU/hour which start construction
between September 1, 1971 and March 1, 1975.
The Conference recommendations require all new
waste heat discharges in excess of 1/2 billion
BTU/hour placed in operation after March 1, 1971,
to provide closed cycle cooling systems.
ILLINOIS: On June 9, 1971, the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(IPCB), amended water quality standards applicable to
Lake Michigan, particularly the thermal portion. On
March 7, 1972, the IPCB reprinted Water Pollution
Regulations of Illinois with some revisions. Section
206(e) of these regulations applies to Lake Michigan
Temperature and was unchanged from the June, 1971 version.
With regard to the general thermal recommendation of the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference:
1. Illinois amended standard contains specific
numerical temperature limitations identical to those
recommended by the Enforcement Conference. The
Illinois standard defines a mixing zone similar to
that recommended by the Conference. The Illinois and
Conference mixing zones are Identical in area. However,
the Illinois standard enables the shape of the mixing
zone to be described in any simple form, as opposed to
-------
-7-
the Conference requirement which defines a circle
or a portion of a circle.
2. The Illinois standard contains general provisions
with regard to water intakes and discharges for
the protection of aquatic life which provides the
same protections as the Enforcement Conference
recommendations. However, Illinois general pro-
visions apply only to waste heat discharges from
sources under construction as of January 1, 1971, but
not in operation. The general recommendations of the
Enforcement Conference apply to all existing and future
waste heat discharges except municipal treatment plants
and vessels.
3. The Illinois standard does not contain a time schedule
for the one facility under construction (Zion) to which
the above criteria and general standards apply. Dates
are established for existing facilities in the Conference
recommendations. The Conference criteria and general
charges would apply to Zion, since it is greater than
1/2 billion BTU/hour. The Conference recommendation for
backfitting with closed cycle cooling systems applies to
Zion.
4. The Illinois standards require monitoring of any source
of heated effluent if specified by the State. The
Conference recommendation requires monitoring of all
waste heat discharges greater than 1/2 billion BTU/hour.
-------
-8-
W1th regard to the specific recommendations:
1. The Illinois standard will require any source of
heated effluent in excess of 1/2 billion BTU/hour
which is in operation or under construction as of
January 1, 1971, to backfit with alternative cooling
devices, unless it is demonstrated to the State by
the owner or operator of the source of heated
effluent that discharges from that source have not
caused and cannot be reasonably expected in the
future to cause significant ecological damage to
the Lake. Since the Illinois standards will not
permit the discharge of waste heat in excess of a
daily average of .1 billion BTU/hour from any
source not in operation or under construction as
of January 1, 1971, the Conference provision for
waste heat discharges in excess of 1/2 billion
BTU/hour will not have further application in
Illinois.
2. The Illinois standard does not provide dates or a
typical schedule for completion of backfitting of
alternative cooling devices. Should the heated
effluent dischargers fail to prove the absence of
ecological damage by June 1977, backfitting of
alternative cooling device is to be accomplished
within a reasonable time to be determined by the
State.
-------
-9-
INDIANA; On November 17, 1971, the Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board adopted standards nearly identical to
those contained in the Summary of the Conference.
The differences are enumerated as follows:
1. Existing discharges were exempted from compliance
with the requirement that discharge plumes shall
not overlap or intersect.
2. Conference specified plan of implementation dates
for construction of appropriate facilities whereas
Indiana does not specify dates. The proposed time
schedule will evidently be a part of the implemen-
tation plan now under development which will be
submitted to the Stream Pollution Control Board for
consideration and public hearing by the end of this
year.
3. The effective date for control of new waste heat
discharges greater than 1/2 billion BTU/hour as
required by the conference was March 1, 1971.
Indiana made that date "as of the effective date
of this regulation" which was February 11, 1972.
4. The Conference required a detailed pi ant-by-plant
evaluation of intake design and potential corrective
measures within six months. This assessment will be
completed as part of the plan of implementation under
development by the State.
-------
-10-
5. The State did not adopt a policy of nonproliferation
of new power plants on Lake Michigan.
WISCONSIN; On December 8, 1971, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources adopted Lake Michigan Thermal Standards (NR102.04)
to become effective February 1, 1972.
The numerical maximum temperature criteria are identical
to those recommended by the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference, however, the implementation plan varies from
Conference recommendations in the following aspects:
1. Mixing zones are to be established by the State
following two-year studies of the environmental
impact of thermal discharges exceeding 1/2 billion
BTU per hour. The Conference had recommended a
maximum mixing zone of 1,000 foot radius for all
cases. The 3°F maximum temperature requirement in
Wisconsin standards was not referenced to natural
temperatures as recommended by the Conference.
2. Unless the two-year study results prove damage,
Kewaunee and Point Beach nuclear power plants will
be allowed to operate with once-through cooling
contrary to Conference recommendations.
3. Conference requirements relative to intake and
discharge design criteria are not present in the
Wisconsin implementation plan.
-------
-n-
4. The Milwaukee Harbor, Port Washington Harbor, and
the mouth of the Fox River are excepted from the
monthly temperature maximums.
Status of Compliance with Conference Recommendations
In order to achieve the conferees' objective of protection of the
Lake, it is mandatory to maintain a detailed status of compliance on
the established requirements. EPA has attempted to compile detailed
status of compliance information on all dischargers covered by thermal
pollution control requirements as adopted by the conferees. This
information was furnished by the individual States. This information
is presented by the attached Tables I-IV.
Rather than discuss these tables at this time, it may be more
appropriate to wait until after the individual States' presentations.
Federal Admi ni strati on Acti ons
Certain Federal administration procedures must be followed and
permits received in order for a power plant to legally operate. These
procedures may include permits from the Corps of Engineers and the Atomic
Energy Commission.
Corps of Engineers. All power plants except the Bailly Nuclear Generating
Facility have applied for and received Section 10 permits relating to
construction of intake and outfall facilities in Lake Michigan.
The Refuse Act Permit Program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, requires all
dischargers of industrial waste water to obtain permits which specify
permissible waste loadings. This program as such applies to all thermal
dischargers covered by the Conference recommendations in question. All
-------
-12-
major power plant dischargers under consideration by this Conference have
applied for permits.
As a result of a court decision, discharge permits are not being
issued by the Corps of Engineers at the present time. However, EPA 1s
working with the States to complete the processing of applications so
that permits, with suitable conditions, will be ready when they may once
more be issued. This overall program has provided a great quantity of
valuable data, which is now contributing to many Lake Michigan Enforce-
ment Conference Reports.
Atomic Energy Commission. The Atomic Energy Commission has established
detailed procedures that must be followed by applicants for nuclear
power plant operating and construction licenses.
Table V summarizes these steps and depicts the status of the
facilities located on the Lake Michigan shore.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
require the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. These
Statements are detailed analyses of environmental effects of proposed
action which all Federal Agencies are required to prepare and use in
their agency review processes before they take any "major actions"
(including recommendations and reports on legislation) which "signifi-
cantly affect the quality of the human environment."
The Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines require that each
statement be prepared in two states: first, the sponsoring agency
prepares a draft statement using its own expertise and information.
The draft is then reviewed and commented on by other agencies which have
special expertise relating to the project. Finally, the sponsoring
-------
-13-
agency uses these comments to modify the project plans (if necessary)
and to preapre a final statement.
The agency preparing the draft statement is responsible for making
it available to the public. Any individual or organization may then
comment on the draft; he may express support or opposition, suggest
alternatives, or point out project effects that may have escaped the
attention of its sponsors. These comments may be in the form of a
letter, a critique, or even, as done by some citizen's groups, a
"counter environmental impact statement" setting forth their views and
analysis in as great a depth as the draft itself.
The final Environmental Impact Statement represents the Federal
Agency's official position and actions taken subsequent to its prepara-
tion - relative to the project in question - must be compatible with the
findings and recommendations contained therein.
Environmental Impact Statements are required on all of the major
power plants planned or under construction on Lake Michigan. The state-
ments are being prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Judi ci al Proceedi ngs
In addition to the administrative proceedings relating to these
plants, there have been a number of judicial proceedings involving the
Lake Michigan power plants and the thermal question. Some lawsuits have
sprung from the administrative and regulatory hearings and others have
been based upon independent grounds. All lawsuits to date, that involve
the thermal issue either directly or indirectly, deal with the construction
or operation of a nuclear power plant. The following plants have been, or
are presently,involved in litigation:
-------
-14-
I. Zion Nuclear Plants 1 & 2 - Z1on, Illinois
1. Businessmen for the Public Interest (BPI) v United States
Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)
Suit filed: July 14, 1972
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Status: Pending
2. Robert Johnston & U.A.W. v Commonwealth Edison Company
Suit filed: October 1969
Court: Cook County Illinois Circuit Court
Status: Pending
3. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSD) v
Commonwealth Edison Company
Suit filed: September 27, 1969
Court: Cook County Illinois Circuit Court
Status: Suit withdrawn on July 24, 1972
II. Cook Nuclear Plants 1 & 2 - Bridgeman, Michigan
1. BPI v USAEC
Suit filed: July 14, 1972
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Status: Pending
2. Indiana & Michigan Electric Company v William Ruckelshaus,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Suit filed: July 20, 1971
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Status: Case dismissed
-------
-15-
3. MacDonald v Indiana-Michigan Power Company
Suit filed: March, 1970
Court: Federal District Court, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Status: Pending
III, Kewaunee Nuclear Plant - Kewaunee, Wisconsin
1. BPI v USAEC
Suit filed: July 14, 1972
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Status: Pending
IV. Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2 - Two Rivers, Wisconsin
1. BPI, the Sierra Club, and Protect Our Wisconsin
Environmental Resources v USAEC
Suit filed: June 20, 1972
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Chicago, 111.
Status: Temporary restraining order granted, later
dissolved. Preliminary injunction denied.
Argonne National Laboratory Report
Earlier in my statement I mentioned the extensive testimony that
has been presented to the conferees on the thermal question on Lake
Michigan. Since the March 1971 conference, additional work has been
completed on the Lake and elsewhere that bears on the question before
you. For that reason, EPA entered into a contract with the Argonne
National Laboratory for a review of any new technical information
relevant to the environmental effects of thermal discharges into Lake
Michigan, which is not reflected in the existing record of the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference.
-------
-16-
Attached 1s a copy of that completed report. Let me spend a minute
summarizing its contents.
The primary sources of information for the report included hearing
testimony from local, state and Federal pollution control agencies,
reports from the Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, universities performing research on Lake
Michigan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, technical and environ-
mental reports prepared by or for power companies discharging into Lake
Michigan and environmental impact statements prepared by the Atomic
Energy Commission. Results from studies conducted on bodies of water
other than Lake Michigan and reports from the open literature were cited
if they were judged to be particularly relevant and as time permitted.
The report discusses the physical and biological aspects of thermal
discharges. A section on Ambient Lake Conditions describes preoperational
field studies, thermal bar measurements and general lakewide phenomena
that are pertinent to power plant siting considerations. A section on
Studies Related to Thermal Plumes describes field measurements of the
physical and biological characteristics of thermal discharges, summarizes
mathematical modeling techniques, and describes some laboratory tests on
the biological effects of heated water. An Intake and Discharge Effects
Section summarizes operational data from most of the power plants on Lake
Michigan, describes the intake and outfall designs of the five major nuclear
facilities sited on the lake, and discusses biological effects observed at
various power plants.
The report also discusses alternative cooling systems. A section on
Cooling Towers, Ponds and Spray Canals describes several analyses of closed
-------
-17-
cycle cooling systems as reported in some of the Environmental Impact
Statements and summarizes available data on estimated costs of original
installations and backfitting. Chemical discharges from both fossil
fired and nuclear power plants are tabulated in the section on Chemical
Inputs. This section also describes chemicals used in condensers, process
water systems, cooling towers and ponds and reports on recent experiments
to study the biological effects of various concentrations of these
chemicals.
Environmental Protection Agency Thermal Policy
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the process of
establishing nation-wide effluent guidelines for the Refuse Act Permit
Program , has reviewed large quantities of data on the effects of cooling
water discharges on the aquatic environment. From the beginning it has
been recognized that the effects of cooling water discharges are dependent
on many factors in addition to that of temperature increase. These factors
include such variables as intake and outfall, location and design, quality
of the cooling water supply and receiving waters, biological importance
of the effected area, chemical discharges associated with plant operation,
etc.
It became obvious that a single effluent requirement for the entire
nation was neither feasible nor desirable. For this reason, EPA has
established the policy that all discharges to the aquatic environment
involving waste heat must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account that some discharges must be evaluated collectively due to
their combined impact on the receiving water.
-------
-18-
Attached are copies of EPA's Thermal Policy as stated by
Mr. John Quarles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General
Counsel, on May 12, 1972. Also attached is a speech by Mr. Quarl ;s
that relates to this subject.
To determine the impact of this policy on Thermal discharges to
Lake Michigan, one must conduct a thorough assessment of each majrr
heat source individually and collectively due to any combined impacts
that may occur.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions now or we can move into the statements by the
respective States.
-------
CM
F»
0)
O)
(tj
X
-
i/i
,_~
O
(_
CJ
;
LJ
;~~
o
LU
CZ.
LU
1'J
C ~
l-L
Ll-
^_^
O
o
r^
t
^
LU
» :
2
p-
c
tj_
o
CO
_-^)
i
«=c
i
VI
i >n 5
1- HJ 11 -. r V)
:; - c: _i t. t'j)
* o f- t.
O -r- ^ nj tTI
r-- t- -t-J uj .i_ cr
i ~< '-*- ai r ; 1 o
1
1 Or-
VI Ol i
01 s_ to
0 !-
r* o o 01
>i c: to
-H 1_ O 4-J
-« to -i- C
1 I VI 4-> i 1
O r-
QJ "D C CT>
t flJ -r- r
U S- CT> C
>>T- OJ O «
CJ 13 LO -r-
CT -MX:
-o 01
OJ CX +J i_ i-
tn c: o) ro
O en to JT.S:
r '.'- 1 O
CJ -r- O_ S-
f cn oj
o r^ c -*->
o
in s_
m ^:
CD -^
r- A =3
b 0; CO
4-> tm
- 1- C
c: to o
O ^I -i-
'- ' L> i
t/1 r
J") Q Cd
-
O
3
vi j'3 «^
c 1 1 : s-
, r ' > rrt
i- v>
(W o iyi
^r i OJ t/>
o o. o 01
t/) .1 QJ en
O to
4 r~
-a ;; o cj
(ij '
f
3T C
O
r GJ !-
r "" T 4->
t^ ^- tO
'1 U
1 _- O
U 1
i; !- a)
O i
H-^l n d.
o
7^_
T3
lO
C 01
t- ITS -r-
4-J - J J_
fD C QJ
4-» i < 4->
QJ t.
C- CM CJ
r >
r 1
Q X
£ ai
(T3 C CO
ll 01
QJ CX C
+-> E 0
r- QJ Ol
O CD
C
»-I
O'
LJ
CD
OL
S
00
a
State does not specifically prohibit new power plants on Lake
Miclnnan. Requirement for closed cycle cooling on new plants
doe1', not apply to those already under construction.
STATE DID NOT COMPLY
C
4)
O C
2T (Q
r-
h-t r-
*" Q-
'rf "*"* t^ *r
^ I ^ -'
*
c
0
c = = = =
tf "i^ iff
. £- ^^
Z => z
01 01
C c
s i
= = = r c
0 o
z: z
-C
o
CO
c c c c c
o o o o o
Ol+J 014-1 014-J 014-1 OJ4->
C i fO r fO f to i fO l~ to C
O too IT3O fOO fOO fOO O
C -Q T- J3 T- JD -r~ £1 ( -O !- C
^ O5» O> O>- O> O> Ji!
C S- I- S- S- 1- C
^) r>
H
o c c c c B
33 ° _. _g ° OH-
+J *r C C Z3 *r" (" 4->
IO O14JQ Ot Ol 4-> OJ 4-> IO
"*~ to O to to to O *^~ O "^
oa» o ooi o5 w>
O i- -r- T- OO l_ O O
z Q- > ;» ' CL. a. z
OJ
^- t» 2 fl.
* t 01 *^ ^
O W r "** >
CL *- 4-> O C * i-
0 **" c C -3 ° r~ *
T *J i^scl'orxr'flj' i1 ~ ?'-< "*J u
*-* tO ^~* O.^ 3: US-f-^ o£:'O'ttiocQ4->coio a. 3
**J t- ! o t- r^ c^3-isco>>O Q_
O^lD V)« CJ1£3 4->toO O Q1CO in
Zvionjtoo oioaim
^o.|°-Joa- °- * * g
zoo g
0 t/l CJ| V,
CO I« ^
» 4 ^
31
fc
u
c
1*
r^>H
ft-
g
D
0
c
* <
4->
t o
B
C X
c c
o o
QJ +> OJ 4^
*** rt3 r^ (O
-Q r J^ r
H3 O «3 O
^t *r J?)
0 > O »
c c
»-
1
C
0 C
I fO I
to o o
o > Oi
L- OJ
D- CO
IO
0)
c 01 75
03 3 3 ^"*
ir> oi o £
E Ol v-
IO CM C 4-> O
r- C7I 3 IO **
1 fO 10 4->'^^
i^ I10'*"
ol
-------
(U
Ol
ID
O.
O
t_J
LU UJ
_J <_>
§^~
. 1. J
I 1_ 4- in
n (II
I U r
I/I tt)
a> t. fa
o 1-
_<1) D 'I- t"
>-, C "o
-» S- O +->
14 rO -r- C
0) -u t; en
< a> T- f
U I- rn c
>l-t- ai O r
t__3 Z3 [33 *
cr 4-> ^:
Q) cv: 4-> (_ s_
i^ C QJ ffl
O tn fo O- 2;
i r~ , O
<->!- a. s-
rn a)
o . c -M
>i O ?i -r- '(-
T A IE
5 OJ CQ
C ra O
O -d -r
" O r
l/l I
un a CQ
yi JJ
c , -
i i
o in
' O I/)
' - u ai
_ aj en
ii S C
IB
tf- -C
^,- O O
State does not specifically prohibit new power plants on Lake
Michigan. Requirement for closed cycle cooling on new plants
does not apply to those already under construction.
STATE DID NOT COMPLY
c
o
(U
c
s
o
25
e
o
n o
. o
O _J
en
r- HJ
3
iO O-
c
o
10 o o
-a -r- c
o> ^
a. ^>
ii.
o
UO o
s: tu
IN
(O
01
a. c
E q
-------
H4
*-«
UJ
1
l_
t/>
»""
c5
f
«3T
m
fcj
o
LU
C^
Ijj
UJ
r:
it!
o
o
h-
UJ
o
2
p=
o
o
Cc_
O
CO
£
. ~
(_/
i o> n
1 S- M- u)
c ni 1 1 i- - m
O '*- fij rt CD
o T- ": m co
l^-t Ll_ CC1 . '. 1 - CJ
1
1 c ) r*-
(/> CU i
QJ l_ rd
O i-
CIJ O *f- ul
i; o a Q>
>> C ro
c-1 S- 0 4-'
f-i CO !- C
i i t/> 4-1 t «
O
1 r-.
ai -a t: en
u s- en c
=Vr- OJ 0 f
to 3 CQ -i-
13 QJ c/) TO C_>
CU C~ 4-> I- L.
c/) C: UJ rd
o 01 CD n s
C r O
cj .- a. s-
i tr, a)
o '. c; 4-J
i » (^ rt -r- 4-
> c cj ^:: c !^C
1 r_
VI
c,
t
k.
CO
u
CO
o
o
CD
c
31
J . .
s^
O
'H-
^ o ~>.
r- A ZD
O OJ CO
- <.- C
cr crj o
o -t; -
T- u r-*
00 I
to Q oa
5
'-
it]
. ^>
» fTl
r^ QJ I/I
'-> O QJ
.-; CD oi
*~4 "^. £^
ro
<^* O C_3
O
OJ 'C
t- ro
rti CJ
i :-- 6
Crl oo
SL r- QJ
r- a r=
o
,0
o
c
ro
c
o
CO
aJ
QJ
q
ro*
il
QJ
V
t-1
13
ro -.
QJ
^ fTJ
(O -r-
JJ ^
*"* ?*
' .
s.
CM r_j
1
X
11
10 -<
c
E
3
o
CD
CD
in
1
xi
0
a"
H*
i
3
ii
to
u *J
c
C IO
o ^~
1/1 Ou
O i. QJ
UJ ro 3
^ r^E
*J *0 O
i 3 O
C ^ OJ
1) CM
CO 1 |~
_J U
_J
losed
cycle cooling for all heated
>0.1 Liilion BTU/hr which were not in
or under construction as of January 1, 1971,
not furnish
^j
ij^
c
o
QJ 4->
t CO
^a r
ro O
o £
i.
Q_
1
^
\^
c
=
0
It
"o
^
+j
(O QJ
f- 31
o. s:
C CO
CO «^
OJ r
3
2
O
C
c
t3
g
c
o
ro
o
*
*
I
CL
u
0? §
« LO
U CM
C
ii
implementation schedule.
^
5 «
o
c
c: ^^
: a
c
0
QJ 4J
ro C
XI !- C
o :» JT;
S- C
a. rs
= *
g |
>- v
9) 4-» a
ro O f
1S o
Q. Z
els
O I/t U1 ( p)
3 01 r CO f)
01 r Ji
JC 0 CO C D
S 2 1 5 5
OQ. 3 r
10 O r I
1 08 -r-
i fT) JD r~
QJ en i rjj
OJ
4-> -r- i. O 4J
COt ' QJ A */l
O +J«-*
O ro
tOO 3 (/)
-------
CJ
If.
o
r~
QJ
cn
03
D.
oo
^~-
c
1
=c
£
~=
0
>-H LiJ
1 1 C£.
-4
UJ
UJ C.->
CO L'J
t UJ
Uu
o
3:
I
t 1
UJ
o
c\_
c
Lu
O
1/1
1
1
1 Oi O
1 V~ '-(- rji
t j '( - >n ni o ;
-', ,- r _i ( . ui
» O > '? (1) fi .
r - *., -t > ! C *O3
t < ^._ O 4-*
t i rt3 -i C
O r~"
i r"-
, Cl) -r^ i
U i- 01 C *
>»T- <1> O r
(_j ~i CO ~r-~
a- 4-> JZ
*O oj t/t fO o
Q> QX 4-J S- i-
i/l C QJ rO
O Oi T) CXS*
. ^ r- O
CJ -r- CL. S-
i cn a)
O I' C +J
-« a cj T- 4-
»* (_j LJ: c: =i
to
6
un (.
C71 J=
e o -~.
r A ^>
f I
C5 QJ CO
-U CT)
r- i- C
C CQ
'
6
40
|O
Cj -Z *~
V
-C
U
C
o
C^T 4J
C cO
CTJ O
-i= 0
U J
t/1
r- OJ
a E3
n r^-
(1)
^ 10
-IJ S_
C CD
. '£
CM O
X
5 U
C C C ' C
So o o
r~i /~* y^
X QJ OJ
o o o o o o
JC
r "O
" E S
c e c: o s-
o o c E o i- «o
c- -r- e S *- cj
Q) 4J Q) -«J 3 . *J
i co i ^^ f ^ wf
£ t-
c c c
o § S
5 ^ e s z e c
c e: c
^3 ra 13
*
c l"* c e
e o c o o
O &} 4^ § .^«
O p> ft) 0>« in».
1- f~ QJ t. O
& a. co r- QJ C* O
iO m r^ 10 ^ E
S*i3f ino ^-C E
OCCXr Or3 O.fQ *O
£^10 -2 ^^i* ^ *~~ Q
LU O)(O 4>>QJ3E'r-''f~Sral33 CJI3 **J
J= C S -00 SETS *-> E: E E »-
*-**«-C;LJ co c**^ «3
i _j CM >-i .« too J5^~-o at
«j IO'»- (1 U*-> CJ
«C O «-> .C S_ Q) 10 C- -r-r- -»-
EEtO4JQjc3ca s: i-j= »-
=t E t- \n QJ 3 ai
z
14
-------
CM
O
CM
OJ
CT
03
O.
K>
0
r-
et
C;
i^r
u.
i.^
0
" C-J
- UJ
-1 a:
LJ UJ
0 ^
C | L 1
- C-
UJ
u.
^
£
*
r
i i
~^!
UJ
CJ
Ji
p_
0
o
u_
o
in
\
r
1
1- ii) 0 i- I'l
-^ T- r _i i: rji
i-O i- l~
13 r- < Ol at
i- 1 n~
>, C (O
>-! '_ O <-'
i i fO * c;
-! I/I *-> >-«
O r
(D XJ C C7l
r (1) -r- j
U !- 01 C "
>v~ ill O r
(_J 13 O3
*U O UI it3 O
CD K ±J t- S-
O O) (T3 O. SC
r i: r O
CJ T- D- t-
r rn 0)
o ./ c: »->
M cj .1: c a:
to
r,
f
s-
(C
jn
u
Ul
o
T3
OJ
E
r~
^
1
C
c:
s-
o
c
Q
1
C
o
ft
+->
c:
CJ
aJ
o
E
>
TO
CJ
>^
O
t~«
j
tr> V.
i o -^
r- A ^3
r [
0 QJ CQ
r- (- C
^ n3 O
O -C T-
VI U r
un Q 03
o
(d
J S-
I (O
i_j UI
t J Ul
r OJ l/l
^ O QJ
_ tu cn
> i ^r c;
fO
< o o
c
o
OJ-r-
tl (T3
t3 O
.- o
O J
in
r- OJ
13
CO tX
ai
--^ (O
(O T-
s^ aj
< <->
r~
s-
tM «_>
1
X
5 Q)
N
-0 !-
C (/>
id
Q)
q. c
i ivi
en
c
r !-
o^
UJ
'JJ
1
o
(O
*" 1
State riops not prohibit new power plants. Require'^nt o^ closed-
cycle coding has been established for all new plants.
State did not. nx-et deadline, but has forwarded a partial list.
,
*£ ^
*-*.*** = r e
zr z:
»
£ *
c: = s s c
c
QJ
o
Q
5 2 Z i£
4->
^
.
.,_
c °
o o c
r- 4-> (13
dj 4^ »_>
r (O O-'r- C
_Q i (O &- 3
(13 O 1 QJ O
J3 -r- i. E C = S
OS- QJ «C .^
D. 0 =
^
5
C = = = =
^*
C
13
c c
0 0
I T-
fjj 4^> Q) 4_>
i 1X3 » (O C
J3 r- -Or- »
03 0 T- 0 O
J3 -r- Ul T- C S Z
E"" o" -M
0-0- =)
01
crl (3 *j
C . vi
r- 'OHI
* c o] ui
-r- 0 ro 01
f (_> IQ
>J 2 4-> U
I- r OJ T- O
(O " Q) QJ J^ O
--" C3 T3 *J C I/} r
1 -i- LO O +> CU
C -Q 4-> C Ul CL>
Or i- ES- SiT34->Ol
OJ <-J i: 4-> <-> S|
4-J OJ Ul U) » ^3 Ol
CttO C r QJ CT- C-r-l
z: o JT j= c o 10 j^l
«£V> -f- *-"CJ 3Ol <_>!
H-I C OJ O C
a ra ^ CQ >- -
1 «
-------
CM .
<*-
O
01
01
r?
LJ»
CO
- »
0
f
e£
Q
UJ
* "
g
UJ
Cf
LU
-~
Ljj
[i.
C
2^
H-
» t
;s
UJ
r i
_j
n_
o
LJ
[^
0
LO
i
I
|
U1
t n i < *
t t- 'i - ^ J>
E-- iLt O < ^~ */)
O lf- -i i-' O t->
» * O '«~ t"
t t/1 4J *
O
cu v> c cr»
1 OJ !-
U s- er> C
>,- 01 O i
O 3 CO
C^ -!-> JC
"O 'U t/1 f' U
m cr: *-> s_ s_
in c: OJ *X3
o rn rd o ;s~
. c; r CD
tj .,- a. t-
i rn tu
O -"^ " *-*
or: c <:
in
O
LO i-
rn -C
f- A ^3
^ h~
O OJ CO
-W CD
i- S- C
c: (0 o
_O J^ -r-
VI f
LO O CQ
r-
b
ra
t-1 >i
c, i r, ^
i-
ro
_£t
U
o
"O
dJ
c
^«
CC
,
Cr
[I
o
o
2:
o
c:
ro
c
0
re
c.
0)
r
0
E
TO
S-
CU
0
K-I
i : J,
l~J t/>
i S-
c cu
_
. ^_
CM O
1
X
*~ »M
a
0)
n. c
s o
QJ Kl
01
r-^ -^
ex.
UJ
CD
C£
1/1
^ -H
Q
State req: r?s do^ed-cyclp roolino systems 01 all new waste
heat ?0'jr_t<3 whie.'i sta>"t construction between September!, 1971
anci March \ 1975. No permanent non-p'-ol iferation statement was
adopLed-
State did not comply.
0) . 1
u -o
re i/i
o
Q- CJ
§ 0
<1)
c -o i
Q) >,
+-> s- c_y «x
o en ~^ E e i =
z «t z
c*
i
C ± = = S
=> «"
ft) 0)
c c
P 0
fi Q
O) = = = =
O 0 O
Z Q Z
i i (
C C
i i -° °
3 3 QJ +J Q) *J
i i i lOCr rtJ fc
O O J3 K JD i S
O OO3OOIT5O O «
_n .^ c f^ *^^ c*
O) 0)0>J- J<
cu oi u c i_ c
LO t/7 Q. H> O- > _
>-<
"^
Q
E
< EC
O QJ X
0 S
J3 C s
01 0 1£
CU ^ S- C
i/) o o» ^>
t 1
- g
C O 0 -r-
E "r- ^-^ $J
5 JO r J3 i O
10 O * -r- 0 *-
J3 - CO -r- 3k
Ol O 5» VI >
OJ t- O O
KO Q. 0. S
U L C 4->
T IP * c
l-4> r *J r0O4^Tj
«-»i O.C ^--^CC
UU . "* D_r-H,«
QJ 3 k. r J3 (
f BE « Q- 4-» J- SCL. 4-»
UJ OQJ CfOQ.^
c: o *"*' o r- p r *#- c: -^-» » **
JO O (U i- 3-^^ CL)*^. Q- -^-* (j o ^3 O» ^J c
Cr CJ ^5 U Z£ QJ x^ flj 41 Z5 *-1~» O ^2 i^ ,^-u.
**"" S 5 g£ c3-^: x> gc sr .r OUTICQ OO CJ"OIT>
i ^- *t) c\j s- en r*-. tuD mo:r^ m^ o; -r- m
TO /o^-* oj -o:^^ !_>*-* **-* x>*/> ft^-* viw yi -N^-
Kcr CQ. H» en c: _i^ 5 t-CJ >%
X IQ O 3t3 «r- fO S- itl OJ "X ID
cj-r-oQ uio. «-a co.cn --or* S-ocS
f»HTDCJ C i 3E WQ-
3= C 0 0 C
o *-. tj a: f_
-------
State requi e: closed cycle cooling systems on all new waste
heft sounds 'vhlch start construction' between September 1, 1971
and March "I, 19/5. No permanent non-proliferation statement was
State d-'d not comp'y.
in i.
Q ca
-------
u. <:
o oi
: s:
s:
o
o
£
o
t/l
Z
I
I
^\
5^
^
&*»»3
^u
"""^--^.
'«/£»I7
_^?»
^^4;^
Vta£»'7
^£%
^\^
°!f^
W^rf
\^%>j
~-v^_
HOlfl'KJd
^Sttf
^
FACILITY
1
6-29-72 - AEC issued "Notice
of Consideration of Issuance
of Facility Operating Licenses
and Notice of Opportunity for
Hearinq, "
6-30-72 - AEC issued "Notice
of Consideration of Issuance
ity Operating Licenses
ce of Opportunity for
- AEC issued "Notice
deration of Issuance
ity Operating Licenses
'~e of Opportunity fcr
<- 4-> C7> CNJ '(-*->
U r> c l~- C" <-> O
rO 7^ 'r- 1 O (X3 2:
Lj_ S- CNJ CJ U-
"XJ CX3 OvJ ~U
4- C OJ 1 ^t- 4- C
O fO ~T~ to O O CO
CU !-
C_) o
M
O C
^ 0
4-1
O CO
CU O
3 -
to i
to Q.
r- O.
UJ C
<£ O
1 CT
= c
C 1 CO
r- en cu
s- CM :r
CU OJ 4-
31 i O
i
a.
cu
Q.
C
o
4->
O
3
S-
4->
C
O
c_>
hearing conference scheduled
for September 6, 1972 in
Hammond, Indiana, hearing to
scheduled
CM
CM
CO
CM
0
ro
en
10
LT>
CM
^v
ro
ro
12/15/67
o
o
<_>
(_)
fO
c
c
o
+J
£
03
1
S ^
i I1'
^ o
s
CM
CM
in
CM
-^
11/23/71
, CM
^^
CM
1
O l1^
CM i
to ro
CO
to
\
n
r*v
CM
CO
CM
CM
to
to
CM
10
CU
"u
OJ
"O
03 *-->
t/) C
r- 03
03 Q-
11/25/70
12/26/68
1
CO CO
o r-.
C" CM
7/12/67
i^ c:
1 ^5
$- 1-^
CO CO C1
fi -N aj CO
F P'lj ^
S a 3 o
'3 &z E
o o c o
0*000
o
CO
il
CO
if
CM
to
rl
CM
00
Sdiaon Co.Tnany)
'
Cewaunee Nuclear
Station
Ct'is. Public Semi.
CorTpany)
1
oo
CM
-^
OO
Jailly Nuclear
Plant
(northern ind.
Public Sew. Co. )
I
CM
~*,
CO
CM
CO
CNJ
1
r
CM
in
CNI
Ln
i
CM
cr*
CO
ro
CO
LT>
CO
i-O
CNJ
***.
00
03
CU
O
Jd
O3
C
O i
*-»
c=
cu
(/I
£
Q.
O
4_>
CM
CM
CM
r-.
CO
CM
ro
nant -_umt 11
Cdis. Electria
Potter Company)
-------
(
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
& WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20460
May 12, 1972
Office of the
General Counsel
MEMORANDUM
TO : All Regional Administrators
FROK : Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and General Counsel
SUBJECT? Policy on Thermal Effluent
Until further notice, the following will be the policy of the permit
program with respect to processing of permits'for major sources of waste
heat discharge. It is understood, of course, that by reason of the
district court injunction in Kalur v. Resor, no permit may be actually
issued at the present time.
It is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency that all
discharges to the aquatic environment involving waste^heat be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account that some discharges must be
evaluated collectively because of their related" impact on a -receiving
water. Such evaluations should include a comprehensive analysis of all
relevant factors at the site, such as water quality standards, total cumu-
lative heat loading, current biotic impact information', scouring and other
velocity effects, entrainment damage, associate chemicals, and alternative
cooling'and pollution abatement devices and processes.
<
Where the evidence indicates that once-through cooling will damage
the aquatic environment, plants currently operating or under construction
should be permitted to operate, but with a commitment to offstream cooling
(provided that the environmental impact of the offstream cooling technique
adopted is acceptable). In circumstances of substantial environmental
impact, the backfitting may have to be dose under an implementation sched-
ule that requires reduced heat discharge aad restricted operating levels
during times of peak environmental stress. Where the discharger has
demonstrated that there is no substantial evidance of damage from once-
through cooling, the plant should receive a perrait to operate, but with a
commitment to perform environmental monitoring and to go to offstream
cooling if this monitoring produces evidence of substantial damage.
The test for'new plants will be stricter, however because here there
is an opportunity for very substantial reduction in the cost of cooling or
-------
other treatment. In new plant construction industry can optimize environ-
mental protection by giving early consideration to the constraints imposed
by environmental regulations at a markedly lower cost than that incurred
by backfitting. All electric power companies contemplating future Con-
struction should be on notice by now of the need for thermal pollution
control, (If water quality standards will be violated by the effluent,
appropriate treatment is obviously necessary.) Should a company proceed
with design and construction of a new plant without adequate consideration
of attendant thermal problems, it must be assumed to have deliberately
incurred the risks of increased costs of backfitting and of potentially
not being permitted to operate during the backfitting,
It is essential that any inquiry from a utility company concerning
the degree of control required for a new plant be promptly and clearly
answered, in writing. We must establish a clear record of our position
for each new plant. Attached is an example of a response which, although
dealing with a plant under construction, addresses this general issue.
You should, of course, have, your staffs available to provide such
' information as is needed by potential waste heat dischargers in order.
that they may properly design the necessary pollution control equipment
at the outset. As questions arise on technical and cthey problems affect-
ing the position which this Agency should take concerning thermal effluent
from new plants, I urge that you notify and work with-Dr, Gordon Everett
and his staff in the Office of Technical Analysis.
<^^£j±^~-
R. Queries, Jr.
Enclosure
-------
'i: N v i K o N V,; N T A L r- iv o r r c T ' r? N / or- ^ r: Y , w /> F. H i N e T o N , D . c 2 o ^
Remark;; by
John R. Quarley, Jr.
A s .: j t; t a nt A fl rr i p. i s 1 r alo r
for EuforcciT-.ont and General Counsel
Environmental ProlccLion Agency
TO
Edison Electric Jn.5tituir-'s Jij s.;h1.h
Dicnnii^l Khuirr. 'ia! Cionf.^'
Tuesday, May 16, 1972
Doral Country Club and Hotel
M i '< i m i , F ] o r j d a
-------
1 f."'. ll .: pV to b' With ''O'l t.r ! 'V to di'- '." -~0-..^ pvrbl ,".- vM ' b - ' -
of F.r<-'..-i J .'"':'!">"n~c t ) y ;.r ".IrOu: i '\ , to (!._ .^.-\ iru;,.U'.-nl.'.] ProUiTl. jor Agency,
and to the average. Ai.i^rican citizen, The electrical power Industry! r.s one
of the lar;v.st r:id !.)' t Drc'.-.^ly ::i'r'.',Ml indi..-.fries in the United SL.Uer,, ic
be-in;-, ;:ivl will coaflnuo to he, ."ffc'cred by any sLratery to bJlovdatf: cxjst-
Jug pollution probjor.'T i:nd to ])reservc the qualjty of the environment for
future £,c-.nc-rt\t i.o,iK. Hincc cnvironr:.oiilal ri-culati on V7ill j.^apose additional
burdens on the power lindi'.aLry, v.>c need both your uud'ar stand ing and your
affirmative coopcro tn on.
The United States todny faces a severe environmental challenge, In many
areas the past lu:s caught up with us. But ve are a diver.se people in a vast
land and have enjoyed both spectacular and unique economic £rov?th. Thus, If
problems spring from our diversity and from the rate at which v?e have nrde
Ofrvni^m-f r\ nvnrw/if. c; ^ t- clinnlrl ciivnvfcin rirrno nf M1?.
» ..- x «
There is 110 doubt that electrical power lias been the backbone of our
ability to provide contimuJ ly rising ytandards-of-livinc for our citizens
in this century. We have, however, paid a high price for our affluence.
Resource tolerances have bc=.en exceeded our air is dirty our rivers are
polluted. Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969,
we have conic a lon^ v,vy in initiating efforts to protect the environment, but
we have a long way to go. The Environmental Protection Agency has ret stnndr.r'
and hot: built rev. L-e.u t»ic;a with vigorous euforccr.ii.-nt. Such measures taken to
protect the environment, as we all know, involve not only ecology, hut also
economics.
We are aw.ire that Che i'] eetricul 'industry is faced with £rave difficulties
-------
In U.'.-. HO/.! .'.>- ril c1' - .-.i'.".. '..V ai-,. r.t I <> ipl. ' ;, i < be. v«."-p^:.ci.ivct V
tav-'i. of fui;y!v
-------
iuiplc-:. 'L.-ticm <''...i. Yhci.--' .-' voly : '.- .. .i.'.r..;. le: < ' the d;u;'' !>._ Ov-en
power i'C.H! ration "..;:; crviroi.i .'- ii.u.( pi o'_; ^ i .' ui , Ii; ^.."uy vherc nur bff:t
,. i ,,' ,-.,--) -, ^ -'-- i .,1
JjJTOl I.1;-. .1 >'.:-; t .!<-/. - >- '- '
require;. :ii'cs, v:e lulnnd to fi :.!>': '.'iv.!) every rcrumrc.o at our ror.::»ar.ci to
'r>revt-ut e:iviroiir.if..)t.'.l Jc.r.-'Li(.. ','< v.-ill i:r. r 1: i ;TVJ e to be uough ur.tU an
envircni:':"ur.r.l cfliir pervade? every cl'-'clbicci inaOe by luilustry in this country.
The norm] opci'ation of a ^.-v.:cr plant can generate both air pud water
polluficn. EmisaJon of participate ir.atter , S02» NOX, and r-omo. of the traco
metalr, into the n.'.r r.ust be controlled. SORO of the polluting c-ni sr;ions can
be brought to levclr, compatible \:ith Ft'cernl standnrcls through conversion to
different luel sources. Others will require installation of pollution control
equipment such as electrostatic precipitat oru v wet scrubbers, and b?g hour.c-ri,
The rcii'oval of S02 if; a more dlxf icu] t: ]>roMoin a:id is specifically addressed
by thf !:-:-.-. Ronrcc- ]\-rf;;r;:u:;cc: EtaudarclE -.:c-"-ulr,ale'.'! by DrA this y.?ar . It
has been estimated th-it 150 laijljon mp-trJc tons of SC>7 are emitted to the
«
global atmosphere each year, 70 percent of which is directly attributable to
the conbustion of coal .
Thermal pollution is alt:o of i.iajor concern. The return of lergr. amour IT
of cooldnf- water to tlie natural! environment can create a heatload highly
disruptive or destructive to a fragile aquatic environi-ient . The Environmental
Protection Agency h-:-s luid thcr.'.al policy actively und^r consideration for many
months. We have recently established the polJey tlurt each discharge of waste
heat to the aquatic np.vjronment shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Where our analysis indicates th.it once-through coolJnf; damages or will
damage the environment, KTA v;il] insist en a commitment to of fst.rcam coolinr,
-------
as n i>rf.rr.quJ i~l i < to either runt itiuoi' opi>> :aior, r. r inve..: t p '"IT..;. i.. o.i'.-'i' i ' v '* ^i. ".'..' '.; W IK.'! J '- \'> tlu^l i;::. v,;j
will not occur, b-it in vhicb there la .1 clear possibility, va shall insist'
on ti.: '-.-'. "'bJ J - . ''!. C'l ;.r i '"'>'.' f.v'1 r '"'.'! L^r'Jnj; :;y^'r-'" t.o c'.ctocf c'nrr.^f-.a
before it bc'coi.. & ^.CK
Design for nc-j plf-.ntJ; should inccn:por
-------
(wl'.ich in re., l.;l" ; ! y vr'.-oj.'u v V,M. J i ir>L !'c) , ;:-:se, tic «T,Tc;a{>? i cr.ick'iitial coffti'irar would fJnd Iri.s annual
o.U-v. i.i: ..1.4 I y I/ : 1 -^ lu JJ/'j * ; o..: ; : . .''< to .pl/.jvj .«.!.,. i.~r Uioit j L wt'UJu K1 \.'j-L»iouL
any cr.viroi.icut;:]. rc-gu1.ai"ion of tlv clccLi'icaJ powar juduatry. The cost of
electr'i ci ty to ih; Jr,au.st:ri:-.j sector viill al.so .increase. IhJrt, liov.'cver, ns
not expected to hcve a incrjor ir.pact on coiuuur.pt ion of manufactured goods,
Only n fcv: :Iiidt:;> trios nave elcctrifitj' costs equal Ij'nf; more thr.n a fev;
percentage poiritn oJ; their value of shipments.'
We. have now reached a i-'OJat vliej e we liave a cJetirer picture of the
economic consequences of eiwironir.ental protect Jon, Though precise
predictions arc st.i.ll difficult, ve can drnv; two conclusions. One is that
environmental protection vT:f 11 not be cheep. The. second is that the costs
are not prohibitive. The quc&tion, therefore, is not V7hether America can
afford environ'iicnval prorecuiou but vmeoier it v;ant« to, Un the bas.is oi the
laws passed by Congress, we must conclude that the environmental requirements
now being imposed are desired and considered worth the cost by our American
society .
On the other hand, measure?: taken to protect the environment do not
abrogate the vecpcaKibility of fulfilling basic power needs. The Environmental
Protection Agency recognises icily that essential public .services must not
be disrupted in pursuit of envJron:u'jntal protection. Every effort must be
made to nlnimiiic points of friction and adnlnistrative bottlenecks.
As one cx.'i-iple, thi- Atou/ic Energy Co... ,:i b:;ion has proposed Ji'^ihlu
known at, the "Quad Cities Dill". This bill would modify the Notional
Environ .-iVijtal I'oJ i.cv Act oa a limited, tei;;i)orary ba;ijf. to permit inte
-------
< ! 1 .,-'>'.'. ' '. ''. . ''"' : V ".' ' : '' ,\ <"',: of f:ir." *. ' 1 \
power ahor l a !-"' Th<- Knx'ircnr.ienta.1 Protection Agency IIUB- gone on record
in f.?vov of t>j'r> U;,j.c-; "Ion, ;.;! i p.::r.".uii.'J !y iu'vo lest: i.f:i fid before three
different con.-, ."''; rlo.i.:.! uc ,kr:.Ut<- v f. 'r. j 1 -. cu^-:ort. This Is one nxnr.i-vlp of
out fffo-rt.;1 ..t. j'i .'. ti' .'.;". ' .t i.a ..;.', '. VA'.JJ crl.rly t,ilr.ur,ii:tr;:t::on of cuvlr-
i'.cnto] ];roncVive icfu]cM.iou KIK! rn n ini^J xr- Ircnsitior.ul prob.lcr.i.s,
I v/ou.ld like now to discuss tlri:, problcu in a broader context t The
rnviror-.''nt--'I.l t'tovi'i' cr.t I-:;. I believe, prrt. of a pore fuudor,?ntnl revir;ion of
values in our society. People, youn^ end old nlike, have recognized that
our emphasis on material progress shoulc' be better balanced with an appre-
ciation of aer-;tlictic ar,d other non-T-" tcrlal values, Wiile th:ls reorionta-
tiou affectn t-oc:ial attitudes toward the pollution proble-.ns of every industry,
it apposrs to bear upon your industry vi.th rc-T..'.?rUrMy strong effect..
Many citi^cu.s have argued \i±il\ great eii'Otion that stabilization of the
growth of power, or even a decrease in the use of power, is necessary if we
are to save our environment. The stri Icing fact is that in general this
attitude of opposing growth in an industry doc-r. not extend to other industries: ,
even though nany other industries have, severe pollution problems. Why is it
that to a large extent the environmental o.oKTuunity has singled out the.
electric power industry ay the target for this type of attack?
The explanation r?y lie in iiK-.ny .sources. Part o1? the ant.ver, no doubt,
is the environmental damage created by power plants in the past, especially
in a few notorious cases, Perhaps part of. the answer is that electric power
has to so-.ne been;]-.,- a symbol for tnc entire system of induf.trial tU-vclopi;n.Mit
-------
\hic-li ronr.< !-!<- ! l. -:n. Clo.'C'ly ro1-f;d to thl.-, <.-.» ronr"'-, i:-; the- jji-' .
oT c ,"!<":".' i c H::-'. '.',rc>' i ii i ri I!K fl fct.»~j'_ .'.'. vr i'i<.i'..t ; / .:: (, r.' i . ..ici'.u clt.! :.'.
nr>t i i-.n.-; 1 rr'fmirrf1 ro^r-^ \'."c; f-o furl t.lic* tnrbjnos.
I wish Lo 's'-a;:n ny o..-n op I p..ion that ti:0 fun.re vitality of our country
(It-T-'-'.n-H contino-"! Ir.rpo p.rov'fh 311 u'ne pLcctrJr pov.'cr industry. Electrical
povTcr is necc-.ssrry not only to incrense p.t piK'.ards-of-liviTi;;,, but alt;o to
iaprovi- the qi-alJ;y of .lif.c in there United States. A fc\.r cy.GRples quici:ly
nake this clear. Widespread construction of rapid transit systems iy
iifipuro tive to oar r,if.sio;i of al-lev la ting urbr.n air pollution and to achieving
sound land use in r.-etropol i tan areas. Increasing aviountc o£ electricity also
will be rtquirc-d for thn additional vasto trectiacnt plant?; to v?hich VT» are
committed; these are critical to'our resolve- to revitalize our rive.rs. In
short, pov7er is the foundation of national economic growth, and such f,rov;th
f cj T"r-».in T Tr~ H t~n nr^hT/^ATr* nm- fsm/H T mirm-^ f" n 't r\\, -i nr1 f- i \roc MnvomriT* nril\7 T.^-J t^Vi
- « ^
such growth can other vital social goals be. realized, and in particular only
with such growth can the promise of America be extended to the trillions of
our citizens who live close to, or below, the line of poverty.
These factors would seem to indicate indisputably (.he. need for growth in
the generation and use of elec* ri<- xty. To me they siuply intensify the puzzle
of why cso ir.any have become hostile to the power industry. It suggests the
development of a rovcre cor..; .unication prolO vn witliin our society over the
proper role of your industry. J'ay 1 suggest that in the long run this
problem cannot be solved by one side winning and the other side losing. There
are funckuaontal iiu.t.hr. on both sidu.^. ihere must be un accommodation.
If your industry is to recoup itr; position of universal respect as the
-------
i ;.''/ \ v '.> i ' \ < , ". LI , I ' . .._'..., » i I..<.':" i*'.'< i i'.i ;.' 1 ! j'' ' .,',
re curd , r.ci !,,; "jL.i f'lil :..' , ..t ivity !> Li.e c:i. !».: .'I'll co: ferrjs viiicl
,U. l. i.v .:-')..'... L i. vU , . >. .- . ' - .. . i.i ..'.: - i .. .< ...
o1 i::r '-;/. J i CM <-n\ .1; r;-.: ^r.Uil \':!vu;. have <.',!)> i M.v.-n:^- d.'.;,.:i£C to the position.
ol your j nl'.i'.t vy i:-. c>ur count..,,, iliob'.- c .'.r; r.ur.t '.:c>- be repcal-f.c!. /» far-
reachi'i;, coacero Jcr 'juv:iroi-.r.c.iL.i] yirotc-i1.t.-;.CP. -- an lr.;;iHLence of fulfiili;.^
bot'h th._ £;pdr'iv ; r;\ th-r1 Ictvrr ol" 1 c ?,:-.?< r' <;vi re-^ntr. must be present in
all you do.
To p res ant thir;. reco~"^;;d;, ;:io:i In :-pec:!fic terrr.-,, 1 would like to focus
on three pcTKHnf; p/oblr-ac, each of c-norrouc K: gnifics'.co.
Pursuant to F^.ctJ.ori 111 of the CJ can f-.'.r Act, a? anende.d, the Environment a 2
Protect Lon Agency prosnul gated ;"ew Sourc-.e Pcrfuri.ance Standards for fospil-
fuc] fired RLc.iia ,':,c.icrators on December 23, 1971. Thcr.c standards rt^ulate
emission of pnrl.icuiote matter, SO^, «ind NOx from new fossil-fuel pov;er plants.
All now plants with generating un'j'ts over 250 million BTU input «wi 11 be covcrc.
The Kev Soure? Performance- Stfindnrds reflect our best determination of the
degree of emission ].j;.:it avion ach-jevc.blo \;ich tLa best available By.steins of
emission control, and t:Jce into account the co:.;t of achieving such reel uc. Lion.
In setting ther.e ntnndardi;, EPA exp-;iir.'>d powei: jil.-.ntn in Europe as veil PS
in the United States. 1 realize tar.t j;oi?.e in your ir.du.'.try have major
problem with th^se sta.-rJnrc1;- and are prosenLly chal] cn^iuy then in tlie Couri.'
Tlie setting of .'-itiindrjrd.o ijj, in any ease, a difficult task. The
problems encountered are mainly technical in nature, and hard answers arc
not easy to find. In this case, the quc-at i <>m> focus particularly on the
-------
I t-j '-:.:.! ! c-v / - i :-.-,' - -; ' '' ' " <" '" < ' ''! i : i "T ;;n . th"'r
(k,... i-.-. .". Lul.lt ; .-..-' r.-.-'Jr ."... "i -..'. . ;\i;. ': ' '.".:'.: I c ...... c.: I JSMI...-.
..,,. L -. ' ' ^ 1 'if- "- ,' «-. );' 1n; it- to:-,'-; In nclt'iii"
of VV: l.ur-U i. i-.-l'. ' o :l cn\ ;'.-.: \ . -r-.-i.'; obi-oin. \°- LcUcvo In the neu nonrcn
sLnnderds, a'...i '..'2 inlcr,.' to iroinrrL.- ;i;e,r:.
T also v.ish to c:rri']i:tt--; ?..-. the. er....Ci: tJ .:J. ffctors which bear upon th.!.:;
prohlc:::i. We kn:n/ that vc Vi'.ust i'driC'Vf ':.ajor vcclnct Jons 1" sulfur dioxJde
emcr-Ious fror.i ro::.£-il-j"i;..j ! j.'c'.'o.r pl.-nLt,. Tlu'-rc; are only t-."o vr-ys this C.TU
be done. One :; :-. f:o ur.e .lo.v sulfur fr.al. lJut il::- supply iy 15r;iLed. The
other Js to clinn'.r,are Lin: sullur belure it gocr> out Llie fil.ack, The only
way vjo can noc-t vhis probl.c"i 011 a nal'i'onal b?sis is to make hu^c strides
forward in the utiliiWrion of cmi r.r, i or, control technology. Tills v.mst be;
A second area of p^jor antnrest to your industry and r,iy Agency is the
water legislation pending in Congrej-:?. Bills to overhaul the rederal \.ater
Pollution Control Act have been pasted by thr: Senate and hy t!:e House of
Representatives. One. provision of the Hnura bill has special importance, to
your induntry. Section 316 v?ould evmipt thermal discharges from the standard
regulatory structure applicable to other polJu i-untt; , v/hich iu gent-.fal requires
ac.hievtT.ient of V'CsL practicable control technolo^v l>y January 3., 1976. I
am aware of the r.pi?.cln!i. co'.i:]i3 exities in the tiroblfii W thc-rp.nl polluLion,
some of which perhaps mi^ht. justify distinct statutory tre.atuent. At this
time our Agency has tal'en no position on the u'.e.i its oi this provision, and
I V7ill not do :;o either. Thero IK one facet of the problem, hrn.'ever, on
which the ir.o_riu: are clear. 'J'he jan^ua-1/"' <>> the llous-.i.- bill It. -it: raioL-d :;orae
-------
t:< (.:»' '.,'u tb . I f'.LsC:'.: . ' ;; i ' ' ! <_ov,-r:, . ,.; '^;lrni ..'>- ! ;-;u.-vrr u:;:i!
...... i-'-t . . .- , .,, , ,' o ...... ,,,'piv <"- vcrr ;>:v.' four r,-.ontl:n
::fi.":r <); cLi: .-..:. of the u ' . Yc o tV'j. 0 IK: i.v. ',» th.it this- propo'ji.'d : j.- : c I -: 1
t.r(>r;t:V.,''-;l. of l.Lv ':,.;! r '< i.cX'r ;/ :, is :. ii £ b'lrtcr.iy fioncv.iicri.! a>Tion{» cnvivon--
r.ieut all r(:o . r|i:r"i s^ope oi" con''ro\rer K > and Its pT.'.-T'f ional lc-vcl could be1
reduced if it ','cvc i...::cJc-. u'i; '];; ' vocall y cJc.-ir tl:-L Llic-ri.'al rlsjclinr^C'S v.'ould
continue to bu subject to the pres-,;r.t regulatory rtc«uii*encnts unti?. the nu\.'
re;:ulntions r.re ir^acd. I venture to svr^esv that, it is hiylily in t'ne
interests of your industry to take tho lend in inrhing this clear and to
mni:e certain tl)i;t tlie statutory lan^u;\r,e ieavt-'.s no doubt on this point.
Lastly, it. is often much cL>j;ier to iivoid r.'jor environmental problf.ws
than to find solutions for them once thc-.y exist. This is certainly the. case
in your iv:a\:M.ry. ru\.rer ujcii:i. bj tiii'i >_ i. j. u <.* j j.f. nti y emu t r\n cmr-.ni a
rational st.irti'i;; plaro for avoiding probleiv.p Jn the future. The eRtabHr.l*-
«
tnent of such criteria vill be a major instrument in convincing the American
public that power production and envJ vonraenta] degradation are not synonyo:.ioub
The reost serious prebler..s of cnvironnu-nta] danaf'^ encountered by your industry
Jn the past: can be largely avoided through the adoption of aouud sitinf;
criteria in the future. The Admini m ration's Power Plant Siting Act v:ill
provide the necesr.ary ba^Ja tor cnviron^.entnl-ly sound national growth. Tliiis
legislation attacks siting proach to advanced planning and allows for public disclosure
which would faeilitatv.- environment. il re-view nnd reduce the delays you are
now experiencing. You should be. the nt rungei-t supporters of thin legii;lat.i on .
I aiu rerLaJn you will no': fully escape fvua public cc;ntioversy and criticir.ri
-------
u.it ! I p. .; p !. '. <~ iii.. d>.e : ' - ' '!- ;v,: ;,;). t, I t.-.i a } c t,ul u! .;,
sy:.t.',:i v:iif:h ].re .'./.»..:. to i-'h.': p >'-'- . a! .1. ei.:'u '.!--:IL.^ tii,.(, env i re:1;.,.; ill;
the \.JN' iu f .;i'J.; ;, !-h'i s..j 11'..:.(-,.. to /;.,.,) r.ivi roi'i.'.Mi i'.-., 1 prob)i-r,s, j an sui'o
you \/jll j'Jna vi;l1.!c cr I Li'.'4f.r. .']! en.v.:;^-. :!rtc- public .v. up port, T,i» I'ov.-cr
Plant Biting ^;: t provJck-.u an t'i.; i c '.c-::t vehicle for both optimizing envir-
01 !'.".. 1:1 t;:l pretzel i on .rnd Tee'J ll!,.:i;ir-^ the c-j.pai'Tion of po^.'er supply.
In cJopjn^,, I vrlfth to iu, ice it elei-r that I have no illusions that this
job which yeu c;,d v?e jointly f.ii:;re .is easy. Some requirements iir.poe.c-t: in
the na''ie of cncj ron.i?nt t'l protection nay be. unvLre. Others may be. vuinchiev--
able. In such caseF, represent.'.t iver- of the p>ov?er industry have not only the
right but also the obligation to &pc-nk out clearly and express their dissent.
As one. present e.:un-p.lc, the i r.rpl eir.cn irati on pl,"us being developed under the
Congrecr. £or resolving the er-diess con'pl exltles is too short to inal.e it;
possible for all U'jstc.1i;..--5s to be avoided. Your industry r.:ust participate in
tlie tbrar.hinR out of thoee probler.s, and in iio;ne instance:; you will find
yourselves opposed to tb.e eiivironrr.enua]i.sts.
Within the F-nvironuiental Protection Agency ve have on awesome responsi-
bility to parforn the oui.ieu assigned t:o us in a manner vhich does not iiiipo^e
improper re- qu ire., en to on >ou. Oar actlcns have far-rcavhing cor.r.c'ouencc.s ,
and we continuously are rccp-.irpd to t ahe action in a very tij-.ht time schedule
V?e v:if.h v.'e had the. wisdor.i of Solonon, yet clearly we do not. In addition
to environmental requirements, there arc nlL'o i.iany oth.er ]ep,al and {-.cehnienl
cc-,rpjicoti n:u- tl'at ir.ako it dif 5" lci.1 t - - so-.vetir.ie.!.: :;c«.inunrly ii.:pos: i.b! e
-------
Uii3 Jni"? 1 j"d expend i !."i''"''55 ,'iiki tirr u>~-c (~.i ore-.' ' !'itt-ntion." .
']',:, I ;" P'>1 .'.'/ii:.; i';.. " the c-u!~' i nt:.. ^v I. \vc-i cav iron...i. n'a-1 pnM P: t i / n
tine! p.';'.:" r "o%, rr I ' T,; 3 re e :;/ or th^L I'M. issues ar:-' one-side,'. \'hi:t I iiecn
to au^-,'-"-.t, and 1 i'Ops to c'o Uiis nu o frieud ratbor thmi as c; critic, is
that yoi': Louu.'itiy t(-.'--y i-ut ;>;:3y fc f-c.:1 rr; 'ii^'ediat c n;id continuing cri.'ji^;
to provide adequal.e electric iM^neratinp, Cc ;-'>rity but also f.3cc"j n critical
the American .c.oeict.y. The current public concern forces a profound revision
In the c-.;^05:ntini', oli ioct: i vff; of each utility. Your £C.i->\ in, and .'ilv;iy£ );.-:?
bt.en, public service. VJh^L if: c-hai'iging and bein^ brc-'c-'duncid is the i!:e.anin:r,
of the tern "public service." That concept, ir.nst no\,* include a rnjor, and
costly, Cii'.phasin on environ.-;eni;o1 nrnfc-f-r ion .
Pover supply and euvironncntcl protection do pose certain conflicts.
There, arc severe ii:Miedi.;te obyrrclos to iceor.ciling the tvo objectives. Thc-sr.
problems wimply nr.ct be solved. In tlie ! or.;7, run the objectives r.urt be
reconciled, and I have confidence tlicy v.i 11 be reconciled,
------- |