ORDES
Volume II-C
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
May 15, 1977
PHASE I
OHIO RIVER DASIN ENERGY STUDY
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
Volume II-C
PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORT
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
SECOND PRINTING
JUNE 1977
Prepared for
Office of Energy, Minerals,
and Industry
Office of Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D. C.
Grant Number R804821-01
-------
II-C-11
-------
ERRATA
ORBES
Volumn II-C
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
SECOND PRINTING
June 1977
Phase I
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
rgvjc
II-C-23 Table II-C-3 Footnote missing after 1985* (planned).
*Utility plans, as reported by the Regional Reliability Councils,
are subject to change. In several instances utility plans have
in fact changed since the scenario development phase of this
project. Several on-line dates for generating units have slipped
beyond 1985 due to lower demand for electricity than anticipated.
Other utility companies have recently reported plans to construct
coal-fired generating stations by 1985 which were not reported at
the time of scenario development, e.g., Indianapolis Power and
Light Company's Spencer County 2,600 MW(E) coal-fired plant.
These changes point to the need for updating the figures for
planned capacity for the Phase II efforts.
-------
Page
ERRATA
ORBES
Volume H-C
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
May 15, 1977
Phase I
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
*
II-C-23 Table II-C-3 Footnote missing after 1985 (planned).
*Utility plans, as reported by the Regional Reliability Councils,
are subject to change. In several instances utility plans have
in fact changed since the scenario development phase of this
project. Several on-line dates for generating units have slipped
beyond 1985 due to lower demand for electricity than anticipated.
Other utility companies have recently reported plans to construct
coal-fired generating stations by 1985 which were not reported at
the time of scenario development, e.g., Indianapolis Power and
v Light Company's Spencer County 2,600 MW(E) coal-fired plant.
These changes point to the need for updating the figures for
planned capacity for the Phase II efforts.
Paragraph 1, line 6 should read: It is also assumed that
approximately 2% of the capacity existing in 1970 will be retired
in any given year between 1985 and 2000, and that . . .
Table II-C-4 Column 4 for Indiana should read 27, not 25.
II-C-27 Table II-C-8 Total for first column should be 27,335.
II-C-28 Figure II-C-9 ELECTRICAL
II-C-47 Line 1 Five main energy
Line 6 residential, etc.)
Line 8 through the various
Line 39 in_ the narratives.
II-C-50 Ref. 1 Alexander N. Christakis. Perspectives on Technology
Assessment.
II-C-52 Line 30* transshipment
II-C-54 Surface Extraction and Underground Extraction should be subgroups
under Coal Extraction
RECEIVED
'JUL - 5 1977
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
EPA, REGION V
-------
Page
II-O60 Line 38 Comma should be after "preservation of" not after
"for"
II-C-68 Figure II-C-21 "Acres" should not be part of title, should
be (acres) signifying units of map
II-C-69 Line 7 Should market mechanisms
Line 11 continue ori initiate
Line 21 suitable and least sensitive areas.
II-C-74 Line 2 85% to 90%.
Line 13 65! to 70%.
Line 15 45f to 50%.
II-C-82 Table II-C-23 Columns 3 & 4 heading should read:
1975 Estimated Reserves*
II-C-94 Ref. 14 Underline Science
Ref. 16 "Protecting farmlands by use-value assessment" in
Illinois Issues,
Ref. 7 Underline title
II-C-123 Footnote, 2nd line turbine^ generators
II-C-124 Line 8 fuel rod supplier.
II-C-125 Line 34 $104/kw and $236/kw respectively
Line 36 architect^
II-C-134 Line 36 60%^ to 65% were assumed
II-C-135 Line 4 coal units does^
II-C-136 Line 23 4. Continued indecision
II-C-142 Ref. 1 Coal Transportation Practices & Equipment Requirements
to 1985(or in quotes)
Ref. 3 Put title in quotes or underline.
Ref. 5 "Inland Waterway
Ref. 7 Put title in quotes or underline.
Ref. 8 Put title in quotes or underline.
Ref. 6,9,10 Underline name of periodical.
II-C-161 Line 8 Perhap_s the most
II-C-169 Line 4 67,5^- compass heading
Case G Under Atmospheric Stability,
should read Unstable, not Neutral
II-C-190 Heading number should read: 7.6.2.3_. WASTE HEAT
II-C-192 Heading number should read: 7.6.2.4_. POLICY OPTIONS
-------
Page
II-C-197 Sec. 7.2., Ref. 1 Underline title
II-C-199 Ref. 17 Underline title of document
II-C-200 Sec. 7.6., Ref. 1 Put title in quotes; underline Science.
Ref. 2,3,4,6,7 Put titles in quotes.
II-C-201 Ref. 9,11,12,13,14,20,23 Put titles in quotes.
Ref. 15 Put titles in quotes; underline journal.
Ref. 20 Write out journal name (ES&T, 10)-Environmental Science
and Technology, 10
Ref. 23 An Evaluation
II-C-202 Ref. 24,27,29,30,31 Put titles in quotes.
Ref. 24 Lake Sangchris Project.
II-C-238 Paragraph 5, line 4 page II-C-285.
II-C-245 Paragraph 5, line 2 on Table II-C-57, p. II-C-285.
II-C-264 Paragraph 2, line 13 Line missing, should read: Second, most
of the employment multipiiers estimated . . .
II-C-285 Table II-C-57 (Part A) For Underground Nuclear,
column 6 should be £, not 1;
column 9 should be 4_, not 3.
II-C-286 Table II-C-57 (Part A) For Coal Conversion,
column 6 should be _!_, not 2;
column 9 should be 3^, not 4.
II-C-289 Table II-C-57 (Part A) For Waste Disposal Coal,
column 6 should be !_, not 2;
column 9 should be 3_, not 4.
II-C-301 Line 10 the people who are directly or
II-C-308 Line 7 economies in fuel costs
II-C-309 Line 6 Movements . . . demand for capital toward equilibrium
levels. Shortages occur when the demand for capital
at some particular interest rate exceeds the amount
available at that rate.
II-C-A-123 Figure II-C-A-19 SOURCE: Smith and Stall (1975) pp. 63-65.
6/17/77
-------
PREFACE
This is the final report to be prepared by the University
of Illinois mini-assessment team for Phase I of the Ohio River Basin
Energy Study. The study is being conducted under Grant No. R804821-01
for the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry (OEMI). Office of
Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, as
part of its Integrated Assessment Program (IAP). During Phase I, the
research teams are reviewing existing and potential energy conversion
technologies; identifying, characterizing and broadly assessing the
impacts of these systems in the lower Ohio River Basin, from 1975 to
2000; and identifying and analyzing the major policy issues and options
associated with these impacts.
A goal of the study is to identify the longer range socio-
economic, institutional and public health impacts, and to determine what
effects various policy options might have in eliminating or alleviating
these impacts. In order to accomplish this goal the physical and bio-
logical impacts associated with the construction and operation of energy
conversion technologies must be"identified and assessed. This permits
one to determine the delayed, less obvious socioeconomic, institutional
and public health impacts that are related to changes in the physical
and biological conditions in the study area. The organization and flow
of the research effort to accomplish this is described in the following
sections.
The leader of the University of Illinois mini-assessment team is
Ross J. Martin, Director of the Engineering Experiment Station and
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Urbana campus. The coordina-
tors for the Urbana campus segment of the team are Marvin E. Wyman,
Assistant to. the Dean for Long-Range Planning, and John J. Desmond,
Associate Director of the Engineering Experiment Station. The other
members of the Urbana campus team, which has the primary responsibility
for the physical and biological impact assessment, are:
Wayne J. Davis, Assistant Professor of General Engineering
Daniel F. Hang, Professor of Electrical and Nuclear Engineering
Jon C. Liebman, Professor of Environmental Engineering
Judith S. Liebman, Assistant Professor of Operations Research
G. Laurin Wheeler, Associate Research Biologist,
Environmental Research Laboratory
James P. Hartnett, Director of the Energy Resources Center at the
University of Illinois Chicago Circle campus and Professor of Energy
Engineering, is coordinator for the Chicago Circle campus segment of the
team, which has the primary responsibility of the socioeconomic, institu-
tional and public health aspects of the assessment. The other team
members from Chicago Circle and Medical School campuses are:
-------
Daniel J. Amick, Associate Professor of, Sociology
Lyndon R. Babcock, Jr., Professor of Environmental Health
Sciences, School of Public Health, College of Medicine
Gilbert W. Bassett, Assistant Professor of Economics
Kathleen M. Brennan, Research Engineer, Energy Resources Center
Gary L. Fowler, Associate Professor of Geography
Steven D. Jansen, Research Geographer, Energy Resources Center
P. V. Sudhlndra, Research Engineer, Energy Resources Center
Charles E. Teclaw, Jr., Research Economist, Energy Resources Center
Lettie M. Uenner, Assistant Professor of Political Science
The following graduate students from the Urbana and Chicago Circle
campuses contributed in a major way to the project:
Tune Aldemir, UIUC Judy Orvidas, UIUC
Ron Balazs, UIUC William Parry, UIUC
Bryan Beyer, UICC Jan Saper, UICC
Forrest Gunnison, UIUC Hasan Sehitoglu, UIUC
Anthony Kruger, UIUC John Tomasovich, UICC
The broad scope of the mini-technology assessment has necessitated
the overview format of the material in this report. The Impacts of the
four Regional Technology Configurations (RTCs), or combinations of size,
type and location of energy conversion facilities developed during the
first part of the study, have been broadly Identified and characterized.
Individuals, groups or institutions affected in some manner by these
impacts have been tentatively identified, and agencies and institutions
that may have the capacity to respond to these impacts have been Indi-
cated. The researchers have made preliminary identification of the action
options available to these agencies and the possible effects of these
options on the RTCs.
M-C-iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . • II-C-i1i
APPENDICES. . . II-C-1x
TABLES. . . II-C-x
FIGURES ....... ....... II-C-xlx
1. INTRODUCTION. II-C-1
1.1. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ........ II-C-1
1.2. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY REGION H-C-2
1.3. METHODOLOGY II-C-4
1.3.1. COMPREHENSIVEfTECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .... II-C-4
1.3.2. PHASE I OBJECTIVES II-C-5
2. PRESENT (1975) AND PLANNED (1975-1985) ENERGY
CONVERSION FACILITIES IN THE ORBES REGION II-C-13
3. SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT. . II-C-19
3.1. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE ENERGY CONVERSION
FACILITIES IN THE ORBES REGION (1975-2000) -
FOUR SCENARIOS. II-C-19
3.2. DESCRIPTION OF BUREAU OF MINES SCENARIOS. ..... II-C-21
3.2.1. THE PROCESS OF PROJECTING INSTALLED
GENERATING CAPACITY FOR THE ORBES
REGION (BOM 1985-2000) II-C-22
3.2.2. REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS II-C-24
3.3. DESCRIPTION OF FORD TECH FIX SCENARIOS. II-C-24
3.3.1. THE PROCESS OF PROJECTING INSTALLED
GENERATING CAPACITY BY ORBES SUBREGION
(FORD TECH FIX 1975-2000) II-C-30
4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY II-C-45
4.1. INTRODUCTION II-C-45
4.1.1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF A MINI-TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT II-C-45
4.1.2. DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE CONDUCTION
OF MINI-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS II-C-46
II-C-v
-------
5.
6.
9 • b •
4.2.1. MASTER INTERACTION MATRIX
4.2.2. IMPACT TABLES
4.2.3. FLOW DIAGRAM
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES . .
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
INTRODUCTION
LAND USE IMPACTS.
5.2.1. EXTRACTION
5.2.2. CONVERSION
5.2.3. ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
5.2.4. WASTE DISPOSAL
5.2.5. PROCESSING
5.2.6. UTILIZATION
5.2.7. LAND USE CONFLICTS.
5.2.8. POLICY ISSUES .
5.2.9. POLICY OPTIONS.
WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY
5.3.1. POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS . . .
IMPACTS ON MINERAL RESOURCES. ....
5.4.1. COAL. .
5.4.2. URANIUM .
5.4.3. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
SUMMARY - IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
INTRODUCTION
IMPACTS UPON TRANSPORTATION .
6.2.1. TRANSPORTATION OF COAL AND LIMESTONE. . . .
6.2.2. TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL. ....
6.2.3. BOM VERSUS FORD TECH FIX. . .
IMPACTS UPON MANUFACTURED GOODS . .
CAPITAL IMPACTS OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS
6.4.1. INVESTMENT VS. FUEL COST TRADE OFF -
NUCLEAR VS. COAL PLANTS .
6.4.2. RELEVANCE OF LOAD FACTOR AND
CAPACITY FACTOR ..............
II-C-46
II-C-47
II-C-48
II-C-51
II-C-51
II-C-52
II-C-56
II-C-57
II-C-57
II-C-58
II-C-58
II-C-59
II-C-60
II-C-69
II-C-69
II-C-71
II-C-72
II-C-73
II-C-73
II-C-84
II-C-87
II-C-90
II-C-117
II-C-117
II-C-118
II-C-118
II-C-121
II-C-121
I I -C- 123
II-C-125
II-C-133
II-C-134
II-C-vl
-------
6.5. IMPACTS ON LABOR. . . II-C-137
6.6. SUMMARY - IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES II-C-140
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS II-C-149
7.1. INTRODUCTION. II-C-149
7.2. LAND QUALITY AND 6EOMORPHOLOGY II-C-150
7.2.1. POLICY ISSUES II-C-152
7.2.2. POLICY OPTIONS II-C-152
7.3. WATER QUALITY II-C-153
7.3.1. POLICY. . . II-C-154
7.4. IMPACTS UPON THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT. . . II-C-155
7.5. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATOLOGICAL. . II-C-157
7.5.1. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS II-C-157
7.5.2. CLIMATOLOG.CAL IMPACTS II-C-179
7.6. BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS II-C-183
7.6.1. EXTRACTION II-C-183
7.6.2. PROCESSING AND CONVERSION II-C-T85
7.6.3. COMPARISON OF SCENARIO^ II-C-192
7.7. SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . II-C-195
8. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS II-C-237
8.1. INTRODUCTION. ..... II-C-237
8.2. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS II-C-238
8.2.1. DEFINITIONS II-C-238
8.2.2. ASSESSMENT RATIONALE II-C-240
8.2.3. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT II-C-242
8.2.4. VOLUNTARY VERSUS INVOLUNTARY
RISK TAKING II-C-245
8.2.5. UNCERTAINTY II-C-245
8.2.6. PROBABILITIES OF FUTURE EVENTS II-C-245
8.2.7. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE II-C-245
8.2.8. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ... II-C-245
8.3. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS . . II-C-249
8.3.1. INTRODUCTION. . . II-C-249
8.3.2. TYPES OF IMPACTS II-C-252
-------
8.3.3. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
FOR THE ORBES REGION . II-C-255
8.3.4. ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS II-C-256
8.3.5. SECOND- AND HIGHER-ORDER
SOCIAL IMPACTS II-C-259
8.4. ECONOMIC IMPACTS II-C-261
8.4.1. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS . II-C-261
8.4.2. OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACTS II-C-264
8.5. LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPACTS . II-C-265
8.6. POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS II-C-269
8.6.1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT II-C-269
8.6.2. PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES II-C-272
8.6.3. PRICING POLICY. . .. II-C-273
8.6.4. CONTROL OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS. II-C-273
8.6.5. COMPARISONS II-C-274
8.7. SUMMARY II-C-276
8.7.1. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT HIGHLIGHTS II-C-276
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS II-C-291
9.1. SCOPE OF PHASE I - TASK 2 STUDIES . . . .... . . II-C-291
9.2. OVERVIEW OF THE SCENARIOS II-C-291
9.3. HIGHLIGHTS OF IMPACTS, POLICY ISSUES, AND
POLICY OPTIONS II-C-293
9.4. DISCIPLINARY INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN THE
MINI-ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............. II-C-295
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II II-C-299
10.1. INTRODUCTION. . '.-..• II-C-299
10.2. GENERAL ASSESSMENT. . ..." ........ II-C-299
10.2.1. SCENARIOS . II-C-299
10.2.2. REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY
CONFIGURATIONS (RTCS) . . . II-C-300
10.2.3. BASELINE DATA . . II-C-300
10.2.4. IMPACT ANALYSIS . .. II-C-300
10.2.5. POLICY ANALYSIS . . ...... II-C-301
10.2.6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. ... II-C-301
10.2.7. MICRO-ASSESSMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES .......... II-C-302
-------
10.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC RESEARCH NEEDS .... II-C-302
10.3.1. OVERVIEW II-C-303
10.3.2. NATURAL RESOURCES II-C-303
10.3.3. DEVELOPED RESOURCES II-C-303
10.3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS II-C-304
10.3:5. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS . II-C-304
10.4. CONCERNS RELATED TO THE BOM AND
FORD TECH FIX SCENARIOS II-C-306
10.4.1. INTRODUCTION II-C-306
10.4.2. CAPITAL AVAILABILITY. II-C-308
10.5. GENERAL QUESTIONS ....... II-C-310
APPENDICES
Page
A. SITING CONFIGURATIONS II-C-A-1
B. TECHNICAL DATA FOR THE FOUR SwuiARIOS II-C-A-13
C. BASELINE FUTURES . II-C-A-69
D. BASELINE DATA FOR ILLINOIS II-C-A-101
-------
TABLES
Table Page
II-C-1 COUNTIES, LAND AREA AND POPULATION OF
THE ORBES REGION II-C-2
II-C-2 INSTALLED AREA PLANNED GENERATION CAPACITY
IN ORBES STATES AND SUBREGIONS, IN MW(E) II-C-13
II-C-3 PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MW(E)
IN THE FOUR STATES II-C-23
II-C-4 PROJECTED NUMBER OF 1000 MW(E) PLANT UNITS
TO BE SITED IN THE ORBES SUBREGIONS BETWEEN
1985 AND 2000 II-C-23
II-C-5 PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-ILLINOIS
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES II-C-26
II-C-6 PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-INDIANA
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES . . .-. . II-C-26
II-C-7 PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-KENTUCKY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES II-C-27
II-C-8 PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-OHIO
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES II-C-27
II-C-9 PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MW(E) IN
THE FOUR STATES II-C-31
II-C-10 ORIGINAL PLANNED ADDITIONS AND REMOVALS
(1976-1985) II-C-32
II-C-11 A PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR THE FORD TECH FIX PROJECTION . , II-C-34
II-C-12 DATES FOR NEW PLANTS FOR FORD TECH FIX 1994
TO 2000 . • • • II-C-36
II-C-13 NEW DATES FOR BRINGING PLANTS ON LINE:
1976-1994 ...... ... II-C-37
II-C-14 SELECTED ESTIMATES OF LAND AREAS POTENTIALLY
SUBJECT TO IMPACTS UNDER ORDES RTCS (IN SQUARE
MILES) II-C-53
II-C-15 ORBES - STATE LAND USE, 1967 ............. II-C-61
II-C-x
-------
Table Page
II-C-16 COAL REQUIRED FOR A BOM 1000 MW(E) UNIT
AND A FORD TECH FIX 600 MW(E) UNIT IN
MILLION TONS/YEAR II-C-74
II-C-17 COAL RESERVES BY SULFUR CONTENT IN
BILLIONS OF TONS (SHORT) II-C-77
II-C-18 1975 ORBES PRODUCTION OF COAL FOR ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY IN MILLIONS OF TONS ... II-C-76
II-C-19 1975 COAL CONSUMPTION IN THE ORBES STATES
AND THE ORIGIN OF THE COAL IN MILLIONS OF TONS .... II-C-79
II-C-20 1975 ORBES STATE ELECTRIC UTILITY COAL
CONSUMPTION AND GROUPED ORIGIN OF COAL ......... II-C-80
II-C-21 A COMPARISON BETWEEN 1975 COAL CONSUMPTION WITH
CONSUMPTION PREDICTED IN THE BOM SCENARIOS TO 1985 . . II-C-80
II-C-22 YEAR 2000 PROJECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY COAL
CONSUMPTION IN MILLIONS OF TONS/YEAR II-C-81
II-C-23 TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTED COAL CONSUMPTION
BY ORBES UTILITIES FROM 1975 THROUGH 2000 AND
COMPARISON WITH RESERVE BASE II-C-82
II-C-24 U308 CONCENTRATE IN TONS FUEL NEEDS THROUGH YEAR
2000 AND COMMITMENT BEYOND 2000 FOR PLANT LIVES
OF 30 YEARS EACH II-C-86
II-C-25 APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
FOR PWR PLANT AT BRAIDWOOD, ILLINOIS II-C-88
II-C-26 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - LAND USE II-C-96
II-C-27 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - NATURAL RESOURCES - WATER
USE II-C-104
II-C-28 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - NATURAL RESOURCES -
HYDROLOGY II-C-108
II-C-29 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND-POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - NATURAL RESOURCES (COAL) . . . II-C-110
-------
Table Page
II-C-30 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - NATURAL RESOURCES
(URANIUM) II-C-112
II-C-31 FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IMPACT II-C-126
II-C-32 FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IMPACT (USING UTILITY A-E DATA)
POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION II-C-127
II-C-33 COMPARISON OF POWER PLANT COSTS—1986 STARTUP .... II-C-127
II-C-34 ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS - COAL
MINES TO SERVE THE ORBES REGION••- CUMULATIVE
CAPITAL TO THE YEAR 2000 IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . II-C-129
II-C-35 INVESTMENT CAPITAL NEEDED FOR URANIUM MINES -
CUMULATIVE TO YEAR 2000 IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS .... II-C-130
II-C-36 FUEL (REPLACEMENT COSTS) MILLS/kwh - 1974 DOLLARS .. II-C-132
II-C-37 15 YEAR LEVELIZED FUEL COST FOR A 1100 MW(E)
PLANT IN MILLS/kwh II-C-132
II-C-38 FUEL COSTS PER YEAR OF THE BOM RTCS AT YEAR 2000
USING FUEL COSTS 15 YEARS LEVELIZED FOR STARTUP
IN 1984 AND 1986 . II-C-133
II-C-39 COAL AND NUCLEAR CAPACITY FACTORS FOR FOUR RTCS ... II-C-135
II-C-40 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISON
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - TRANSPORTATION . II-C-146
II-C-41 A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
AND ENERGY FUNCTIONS . . II-C-157
II-C-42 DESCRIPTION OF PARTICULATE BEHAVIOR II-C-158
i . • . •
II-C-43 PREDICTED'DOWNWIND DISPERSION OF S02 UNDER
DIFFERING ATMOSPHERIC AND WIND CONDITIONS II-C-170
II-C-44 PREDICTED DOWNWIND DISPERSION OF S02 UNDER
DIFFERING ATMOSPHERIC AND WIND CONDITIONS . . . . . , II-C-175
II-C-45 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF SOX, NOX AND
FLUORIDES FROM NUCLEAR FUELS PROCESSING II-C-186
II-C-46 POTENTIAL DAMAGES TO ALFALFA FROM S02 UNDER
THE BOM 80-20 SCENARIO EXPRESSED IN PERCENT
OF LEAF DESTRUCTION II-C-189
Il-C-xii
-------
Table Page
II-C-47 ESTIMATED YEARLY EMISSIONS OF S02,
PARTICULATES AND N0¥ II-C-193
A
II-C-48 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(LAND) II-C-204
II-C-49 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS II-C-208
II-C-50 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISON
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(WATER) : II-C-216
II-C-51 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(AIR) II-C-222
II-C-52 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(CLIMATOLOGY) II-C-226
II-C-53 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL . . II-C-228
II-C-54 LEVELS OF ILL HEALTH EQUATED TO LIFE SHORTENING. . . . II-C-244
II-C-55 EXAMPLE OF ADJUSTED LIFE SHORTENING (ALS)
CALCULATION II-C-246
II-C-56 ADJUSTED LIFE SHORTENING ASSOCIATED WITH
ENERGY IMPACTS II-C-247
II-C-57 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND POLICY OPTION COMPARISONS
UNDER THE 4 SCENARIOS - PUBLIC HEALTH. ........ II-C-285
-------
APPENDIX TABLES
Table
II-C-A-1
II-C-A-2
II-C-A-3
II-C-A-4
II-C-A-5
II-C-A-6
II-C-A-7
II-C-A-8
II-C-A-9
II-C-A-10
II-C-A-1 1
II-C-A-1 2
II-C-A-1 3
II-C-A-14
II-C-A-1 5
II-C-A-1 6
II-C-A-17
II-C-A-1 8
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - BOM SCENARIO 80-20
(4 STATES)
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - BOM SCENARIO 50-50
(4 STATES)
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTF - 100% COAL & 100%
NUCLEAR - ILLINOIS
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTF - 100% COAL & 100%
NUCLEAR - INDIANA
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTF - 100% COAL & 100%
NUCLEAR - KENTUCKY
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTF - 100% COAL & 100%
NUCLEAR - OHIO. .
COAL SPECIFICATIONS BY STATE
FORD TECH FIX (100% COAL) SCENARIO ON-LINE DATES
BY STATE AND COUNTY
BOM 80-20 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW COAL PLANTS
BY YEAR
BOM 50-50 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW COAL PLANTS
BY YEAR
BOM 80-20 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW NUCLEAR
PLANTS BY YEAR
BOM 50-50 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW NUCLEAR
PLANTS BY YEAR. ..... .
ON-LINE DATES FOR INDIANA AND OHIO BY COUNTY. . . .
ON-LINE DATES FOR KENTUCKY BY COUNTY, .
ON-LINE DATES FOR COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS. ....
ILLINOIS BOM 50-50 & 80-20 (1975-1985).
ILLINOIS BOM 50-50 (1986-2000). . .
ILLINOIS BOM 80-20 (1986-2000). . . . . . . ... .
Page
II-C-A-1
II-C-A-3
II-C-A-5
II-C-A-7
II-C-A-9
II-C-A-11
H-C-A-14
II-C-A-1 5
*
II-C-A-1 6
II-C-A-17
II-C-A-18
II-C-A-1 9
II-C-A-20
II-C-A-21
II-C-A-23
II-C-A-26
II-C-A-28
II-C-A-31
II-C-xiv
-------
Table Page.
II-C-A-19
II-C-A-20
II-C-A-21
II-C-A-22
II-C-A-23
II-C-A-24
II-C-A-25
II-C-A-26
II-C-A-27
II-C-A-28
II-C-A-29
II-C-A-30
II-C-A-31
II-C-A-32
II-C-A-33
II-C-A-34
II-C-A-35
1 1- C- A- 36
II-C-A-37
II-C-A-38
II-C-A-39
II-C-A-40
II-C-A-41
ILLINOIS FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR
(1975-2000)
INDIANA BOM 80-20 & 50-50 (1975-1985)
INDIANA BOM 50-50 (1986-2000)
INDIANA BOM 80-20 (1986-2000) ......
INDIANA FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR
(1975-1994)
INDIANA FTF 100% COAL (1995-2000)
INDIANA FTF 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
KENTUCKY BOM 80-20 & 50-50 (1975-1984)
KENTUCKY BOM 50-50 (1985-2000)
KENTUCKY BOM 80-20 (1985-2000)
KENTUCKY FTF 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR
(1975-1994)
KENTUCKY FTF 100% COAL (1995-2000)
KENTUCKY FTF 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
OHIO BOM 50-50 & 80-20 (1975-1985).
OHIO BOM 80-20 (1986-2000)
OHIO BOM 50-50 (1986-2000)
OHIO FTF 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR (1975-1994) . . .
OHIO FTF 100% COAL (1995-2000)
OHIO FTF 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
BOM 80-20--ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000) . . .
BOM 50-50-ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000) . . .
FTF 100% COAL-ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000) .
FTF 100% NUCLEAR— ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY
(1975-2000)
II-C-A-34
II-C-A-38
II-C-A-39
II-C-A-41
II-C-A-43
II-C-A-44
II-C-A-45
II-C-A-46
II-C-A-47
II-C-A-49
II-C-A-51
II-C-A-52
II-C-A-53
II-C-A-54
II-C-A-55
II-C-A-58
II-C-A-61
II-C-A-62
II-C-A-63
II-C-A-64
II-C-A-65
II-C-A-66
II-C-A-67
II-C-xv
-------
Table
II-C-A-42
II-C-A-43
H-C-A-44
II-C-A-45
II-C-A-46
II-C-A-47
II-C-A-48
II-C-A-49
II-C-A-50
II-C-A-51
II-C-A-52
II-C-A-53
II-C-A-54
I I -C- A- 55
II-C-A-56
II-C-A-57
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 052, HUNTINGTON,
WEST VIRGINIA-ASHLAND, KENTUCKY (ADAPTED FROM
1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 053, LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS). .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 054, LOUISVILLE,
KENTUCKY (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS). .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 055, EVANSVILLE,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) . .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 056, TERRE HAUTE,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) . .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 057, SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS (ADAPTED FROM. 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS). .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 058, CHAMPAIGN-URBANA,
ILLINOIS (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS). .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 059, LAFAYETTE,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) . .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 060, INDIANAPOLIS,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) , .
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 061, ANDERSON, INDIANA
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 062, CINCINNATI, OHIO
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) ......
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 063, DAYTON, OHIO
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 064, COLUMBUS, OHIO
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 078, PEORIA, ILLINOIS
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 066, PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS
PROJECTIONS)
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 067, YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN ,
OHIO (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS). . . .
Page
H-C-A-74
II-C-A-75
H-C-A-76
H-C-A-77
II-C-A-78
II-C-A-79
II-C-A-80
II-C-A-81
II-C-A-82
II-C-A-83
II-C-A-84
II-C-A-85
II-C-A-86
II-C-A-87
H_C-A-88
II-C-A-89
II-C-xyi
-------
Table Page
II-C-A-58 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 068, CLEVELAND, OHIO
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) II-C-A-90
II-C-A-59 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 069, LIMA, OHIO
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) II-C-A-91
II-C-A-60 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 075, FORT WAYNE,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) . . II-C-A-92
II-C-A-61 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 076, SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) . . II-C-A-93
II-C-A-62 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 077, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) ...... II-C-A-94
II-C-A-63 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 079, DAVENPORT, IOWA-
ROCK ISLAND & MOLINE, ILLINOIS (ADAPTED FROM
1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) II-C-A-95
II-C-A-64 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 113, QUINCY, ILLINOIS
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) II-C-A-96
II-C-A-65 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 114, ST. LOUIS,
MISSOURI-ILLINOIS (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS
PROJECTIONS) . . . II-C-A-97
II-C-A-66 SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 115, PADUCAH, KENTUCKY
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS) II-C-A-98
II-C-A-67 ORBES PROFILE: 1970-2000 BEAS TOTALLY WITHIN ORBES
REGION (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
(ECONOMIC DATA IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $). II-C-A-99
II-C-A-68 ORBES PROFILE: 1970-2000 BEAS TOTALLY AND
PARTIALLY WITHIN ORBES REGION (ADAPTED FROM 1972-E
OBERS PROJECTIONS) (ECONOMIC DATA IN THOUSANDS
OF 1967 $) II-C-A-100
II-C-A-69 REMAINING COAL RESERVES IN ILLINOIS, BY COUNTY AND
COAL SEAM, JANUARY 1975 II-C-A-124
II-C-A-70 FLOWS OF MAJOR RIVERS IN ILLINOIS . II-C-A-130
II-C-A-71 MINERAL PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS II-C-A-133
II-C-A-72 MINERALS YEARBOOK, 1973 - VALUE OF MINERAL PRODUC-
TION IN ILLINOIS, BY COUNTY II-C-A-134
II-C-A-73 TOTAL ROAD AND STREET MILEAGE: ILLINOIS, 1973. . . II-C-A-136
-------
Table Page
II-C-A-74 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SERVING THE
COUNTIES SELECTED FOR POTENTIAL POWER PLANT
SITES II-C-A-138
II-C-A-75 SHIPMENT OF BITUMINOUS COAL BY TRUCK AND UNIT
TRAIN: ILLINOIS, 1973 II-C-A-139
II-C-A-76 INLAND WATER COAL SHIPMENTS: 1972 II-C-A-143
II-C-A-77 LAND USE IN ORBES REGION OF ILLINOIS . . II-C-A-145
II-C-A-78 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION OF BIOLOGICAL AND
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN ILLINOIS II-C-A-146
II-C-A-79 NATURAL AREAS OF ILLINOIS . . II-C-A-148
II-C-A-80 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN ILLINOIS II-C-A-149
II-C-A-81 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN ILLINOIS'
PORTION OF THE ORBES REGION II-C-A-151
II-C-A-82 FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROTECTING
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES II-C-A-155
II-C-A-83 STATE LAWS PROTECTING HISTORICAL AND
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES II-C-A-157
II-C-A-84 FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF GENERATION AND CONVERSION
FACILITIES II-C-A-159
II-C-A-85 STATE OF ILLINOIS REGULATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF GENERATION AND CONVERSION
FACILITIES II-C-A-160
II-C-A-86 STATE OF ILLINOIS INFORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
ELECTRIC UTILITIES. II-C-A-161
II-C-A-87 STATE OF ILLINOIS REGULATIONS ON STRIP MINING . . . II-C-A-164
II-C-A-88 SUGGESTED ILLINOIS LEGISLATION. . . . II-C-A-165
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
II-C-1 OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY REGION II-C-3
II-C-2 ORBES PROJECT (PHASE I) II-C-6
II-C-3 METHODOLOGY FOR A MINI-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOWER OHIO RIVER
BASIN 1975-2000 II-C-7
II-C-4 . ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES
DECEMBER 31, 1975 ........ II-C-14
I.I-C-5 MAJOR COAL FIELDS IN THE ORBES REGION II-C-15
II-C-6 ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES
PROJECTED TO 1985 . II-C-17
II-C-7 GROWTH OF ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION - BOM AND
FORD TECH FIX SCENARIOS II-C-20
II-C-8 GROWTH IN TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY -
TWO BOM SCENARIOS II-C-25
II-C-9 ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
BOM 80% COAL 20% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REGION. II-C-28
II-C-10 ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
BOM 50% COAL 50% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REGION II-C-29
II-C-11 FORD TECH FIX PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY AND
PROPOSED INSTALLED CAPACITY II-C-35
II-C-12 ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
FORD TECH FIX 100% COAL
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REGION II-C-42
II-C-13 ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
FORD TECH FIX 100% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REGION. . II-C-43
II-C-14 FLOW OF ORBES ASSESSMENT PROCESS II-C-49
II-C-15 URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY TOTAL LAND AREA) II-C-62
Il-C-xix
-------
Figure
II-C-16
II-C-17
II-C-18
II-C-19
II-C-20
II-C-21
II-C-22
II-C-23
II-C-24
II-C-25
II-C-26
II-C-27
II-C-28
CROP LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA)
FOREST LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA)
PASTURE LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA).
DEEP MINEABLE COAL RESERVE BASE, 1975
(IN MILLIONS OF TONS)
STRIP MINEABLE COAL RESERVE BASE, 1975
(IN MILLIONS OF TONS)
SURFACE MINING AFFECTED ACREAGE (INCLUDES ONLY
COAL AFFECTED ACREAGE EXCEPT IN INDIANA WHERE
ABOUT 90% OF THE AFFECTED ACREAGE IS DUE TO
SURFACE EXTRACTION OF COAL)
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SULFUR CONTENT
VERSUS BTU CONTENT OF COAL COMMENSURATE WITH
EPA AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR COAL AND NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS, 1977
HIGH DENSITY CORRIDORS RESULTING FROM
SITING ALONG RIVERS
ORBES COUNTIES COMPRISING LOWER
OHIO RIVER CORRIDOR
ADDED POPULATION FROM ENERGY PROJECT
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR SELECTED ENERGY PROJECTS. . .
LEGAL/ INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPACT PROCESS
Page
II-C-63
II-C-64
II-C-65
II-C-66
II-C-67
II-C-68
II-C-75
II-C-128
II-C-167
II-C-168
II-C-250
II-C-251
II-C-266
II-C-xx
-------
APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure
II-C-A-1
II-C-A-2
II-C-A-3
II-C-A-4
II-C-A-5
II-C-A-6
II-C-A-7
II-C-A-8
II-C-A-9
II-C-A-10
II-C-A-11
II-C-A-1 2
II-C-A-13
II-C-A-14
II-C-A-15
II-C-A-16
II-C-A-17
II-C-A-18
II-C-A-19
II-C-A-20
BEAs IN ORBES REGION.
MAJOR PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS IN CENTRAL
UNITED STATES
PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS OF ILLINOIS
GENERALIZED DRIFT THICKNESS IN ILLINOIS
GLACIAL GEOLOGY OF ILLINOIS
PRINCIPAL GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES OF ILLINOIS .....
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS IN ILLINOIS
GENERALIZED AREAL GEOLOGY OF THE BEDROCK SURFACE. .
SEISMIC PROBABILITY MAP OF THE UNITED STATES. . . .
SEISMIC SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY CENTERS. . .
SEISMICITY AND STRUCTURE MAP
REGIONAL FAULTING MAP OF SOUTHEASTERN ILLINOIS. . .
THICKNESS OF THE PENNSYLVANIAN SYSTEM
CLASSIFICATION OF HERRIN COAL RESERVES
CLASSIFICATION OF HARRISBURG-SPRINGFIELD
COAL RESERVES
GENERALIZED DEPTH OF HERRIN COAL. ...
GENERALIZED DEPTH OF THE HARRISBURG-
SPRINGFIELD COAL
OCCURRENCE OF LOW-SULFUR COAL IN THE HERRIN SEAM. .
OCCURRENCE OF LOW-SULFUR COAL IN THE HARRISBURG-
SPRINGFIELD SEAM
GENERALIZED MAP OF FLOODPLAINS OF MODERN RIVERS
AND STREAMS IN ILLINOIS .
Page
II-C-A-73
II-C-A-1 02
II-C-A-1 03
II-C-A-1 06
II-C-A-1 07
II-C-A-108
II-C-A-109
II-C-A-110
II-C-A-111
II-C-A-1 12
II-C-A-1 14
II-C-A-115
II-C-A-117
II-C-A-118
II-C-A-119
II-C-A-1 20
II-C-A-1 21
II-C-A-122
II-C-A-1 23
II-C-A-1 28
Il-C-xxi
-------
Figure Page
II-C-A-21 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY IN ILLINOIS II-C-A-129
II-C-A-22 WATER AVAILABLE FOR COAL CONVERSION . . II-C-A-132
II-C-A-23 ILLINOIS INTERSTATE AND OTHER PROPOSED FREEWAYS . . II-C-A-137
II-C-A-24 ILLINOIS RAILROAD NETWORK II-C-A-140
II-C-A-25 ILLINOIS COMMERCIAL WATERWAYS II-C-A-141
II-C-A-26 MAJOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES IN ILLINOIS
(GENERALIZED) JUNE 30, 1976 II-C-A-142
II-C-A-27 COUNTIES WITH ZONING II-C-A-162
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND AMD STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The recent emphasis upon the development of domestic energy re-
sources to meet an increased percentage of the United States' future
energy demand requires that policymakers understand the consequences of
alternative policies of energy development upon the environment and upon
the social welfare and public health of the citizenry. The Integrated
Assessment Program (IAP) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has been developed in response to this need.
The purpose of the IAP is to inform policymakers of the consequen-
ces of developing a new energy technology, extending a technology to a
new geographical region, or greatly expanding an existing technology.
The consequences include not only first-order environmental effects, but
also all second-order and higher-order effects of the technologies them-
selves and of the environmental controls applied to them. Technology
assessment is the principal method of impact analysis. These assessments
are designed to inform policymakers of the options open to them and the
possible consequences of those options.
A substantial part of the lAP's technology assessment involves the
study of large-scale energy development in well-defined geographical re-
gions which are likely to have major increases in energy production in
the near- or mid-term. The three regions selected in the contiguous
United States are the Rocky Mountain and Plains States, Appalachia, and
the lower Ohio River Basin.1
The purpose of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) is to
analyze the full range of first-order, second-order and higher-order im-
pacts of selected energy conversion technologies from 1975 to 2000, and
the policy options, including legislative actions, for alternative environ-
mental control strategies.2 The major objective is to identify technolo-
gies and siting patterns that are environmentally acceptable and to apply
environmental controls and siting policies to them that will protect the
environment and the health and welfare of the residents of the region.
The first phase of the western states assessment is completed (1)
and the Appalachian study will begin shortly (2).
o
An energy conversion technology is defined as an energy conversion
facility (generating plant or fuel to fuel conversion plant) as well as
any associated facilities and technologies that support it.
II-C-1
-------
1.2. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY REGION
The study region Includes a total of 358 counties in Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio (Figure Il^Cr-l and Table II-C^l), These coun-
ties account for 88 percent of the land area and 60 percent of the total
population of the four states. Each county contains at least a portion
of the Ohio River watershed or ha,s the majority of its land area in the
Eastern Interior Coal Field, Because of these criteria, the northern
tier of counties in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio are excluded from the
study region, despite the energy demands of large metropolitan areas such
as Chicago, Gary and Cleveland. The other boundaries of the study region
follow state lines, and include all of Kentucky.**
Table II-C-1
COUNTIES, LAND AREA AND POPULATION OF THE ORBES REGION
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Totals
Counties
State ORBES
102
92
120
88
402
85
83
120
70
358
Land Area
State ORBES
55,748
36,097
39,650
40,975
172,470
46,612
32,149
39,650
33,349
151,760
Population
State ORBES
11,145.0
5,311.0
3,396.0
10,737.0
30,589.0
3,394.5
4,100.5
3,396.0
7,494.7
18,385.7
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1974 estimates
for Ohio; 1975 estimates for Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky).
In square miles.
^Estimates, in thousands.
3 Fulton, Carlisle and Hlckman Counties in the extreme southwestern
part of Kentucky are included, even though they are not in the Ohio River
watershed. Will and Rock Island Counties in Illinois are excluded because
they are part of adjoining Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).
II-C-2
-------
Figure II-C-1
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY REGION
N
I
OHIO RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
COUNTIES NOT IN REGION
0
I
TOO
200
Scale in Miles
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census
II-C-3
-------
1.3. METHODOLOGY
1.3.1 COMPREHENSIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Technology assessment is a class of policy studies which system-
atically examines the potential short-term impacts and longer-term conse-
quences of new or expanded technologies upon society, The objective is
to enable policymakers and decisiorwiakers to consider the main options
and determine how they might more effectively intervene in the develop-
ment of a prospective technology to better ensure its societal desira-
bility.
The type of technology assessment used in the ORBES project is de-
signed to be comprehensive, A comprehensive technology assessment is
particularly concerned with the complex of second- and higher-order im-
pacts which may have unintended, long-term consequences for the environ-
ment and the public health and welfare. Consequently, the assessment was
conducted as an interdisciplinary team effort with the major emphasis
upon structuring the problem (3,4, esp. Chapter 5). According to Arnstein
(3, p. 8).
While even the most impeccable technology assessment
cannot possibly anticipate all future societal im-
pacts and consequences of a new technology, a compre-
hensive assessment can narrow the usual vast range of
uncertainty by distinguishing what is known from what
is not known; what is thought to be true from what is
verifiable; what is feared from what is welcomed, and
what competing and sometimes conflicting perspectives
need to be taken into account. Thus the public dia-
logue which follows the release of an assessment can
be based on the maximum amount of information that is
available and an open explication of the mental models
of the various [parties at interest].
In general, technology assessments of energy development have fo-
cused upon a particular energy conversion technology (e.g., geothermal)
or a limited range of impacts (5,6). By comparison, the technology as-
sessment of the ORBES project is concerned with several combinations of
energy conversion technologies, is regional in scale, and is comprehen-
sive in nature.
The ORBES project consists of two phases: Phase I, which is the
subject of this report, was designed as a mini-technology assessment;
Phase II will continue as a comprehensive TA.
II-C-4
-------
1.3.2 PHASE I OBJECTIVES
Phase I of the ORBES Project had two primary objectives;
1. Outline the present and projected energy
conversion technology configurations in
the study region,
2. Perform an initial assessment of present
and future regional Impacts of these tech-
nologies.
The assessment was performed by three sem1<-independent interdisci-
plinary research teams, with support from selected special studies
(Figure II-C-2), The methodology which the University of Illinois team
designed for the assessment is shown in Figure II-C-3,
1.3.2.1. TASK 1: DEVELOPMENT OF PLAUSIBLE FUTURE REGIONAL
TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS (RTCs)
The objective of Task 1 was to summarize present and selected al-
ternative projected future energy conversion technologies in the lower
Ohio River Basin in terms of the energy resource base, conversion sys-
tems and facility locations, environmental control technologies, and the
institutions concerned with energy utilization and its environmental im-
pacts. These plausible futures, or Regional Technology Configurations
(RTCs), served as a baseline for the subsequent mini-technology assess-
ments.
Given the problem as defined above (Section 1.1.), Task 1 consisted
of the following steps (the number of each step corresponds to its appro-
priate box in Figure II-C-3).
1. Problem Definition: Identify technolo-
gies that are environmentally acceptable
and apply environmental controls and sit-
ing policies to them that will protect
the environment and public health, and
maximize the social welfare of residents
of the region.
2. Baseline Present: Describe existing
(1970-1975) conditions in the study re-
gion, including present energy conver-
sion technologies and resource bases
and projections of social, economic and
demographic characteristics.
II-C-5
-------
Figure II-C-2
ORBES PROJECT (PHASE I)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,:
OFFICE OF ENERGY. MINERALS. AND INDUSTRY
PROJECT OFFICER-
MANAGEMENT TEAM
Project Officer
EPA Region IV Representative
EPA Region V Representative
PROJECT OFFICE
1
Two Co-prihcipa
1 Investigators j — ~. INTERIM STEERING COMMITTEE
TASK 1
(RTC Development)
TASK 2
(Preliminary Assessments)
TASK 3
(Integrated Report)
i
o
i
TEAM 1
TASK 4
(Special Studies)
Labor Demand Impact and Labor- Market
Feasibility
Energy Demands, Prices, and Produc-
tivity Effects
Human Values and Quality of Life
Public Attitudes and Preferances
Institutional Accountability
Energy Transportation/Distribution
Tlater Resource Allocation
Pollutant Transport
Metal Ions and Radionuclides in Ohio
River Sediments
Impact, of Synthetic Fuel Prediction
-------
Figure II-C-3
METHODOLOGY FOR A MINI-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOWER OHIO RIVER BASIN 1975 TO 2000
TASK 1. DEVELOPMENT OF PLAUSIBLE FUTURE REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY
CONFIGURATIONS (RTCs)
TASK 2. MINI-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS OF REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY
CONFIGURATIONS (RTCs)
-------
3, Techno!ogi ca 1 ATternat1yes; Identify and de-
scribe alternative energy conversion technolo^
gies and control systems which are, or will be,
available and which could be introduced into
the region; identify and describe an appropri^-
ate set of technological trends and assump-
tions.
4. Societal Assumptions; Identify and describe
sociopalit1cal trends and changes associated
with new energy conversion technologies, in-
cluding changes external to the region which
may alter sociopolitical alignments,
5. Scenario Construction: Develop scenarios
that describe the probable level and type of
energy development in the lower Ohio River
Basin, and that bracket various projections
of energy supply and demand in the nation
- and the region between 1975 and 2000.
6. Regional Technology Configurations (RTCs):
Develop plausible energy conversion tech-
nologies, each based on a different scenario.
These RTCs should vary in the number and
size of facilities, the. fuel mix and the
geographical distribution of facility sites
in the study region.
7. Baseline^Futures: Describe the societal,
- political, and environmental trends and
: structures associated with each RTC,
8. Institutiohal Framework: Describe the in-
stitutions , both public and private, and
the regulatory framework which directly or
indirectly affects the RTCs.
1.3.2.2. MINI-ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL TECWOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS
The objective of Task 2 was to conduct a mini-technology assessment
of the energy conversion technologies projected by the RTCs. A mini-
technology assessment is meant to be comprehensive in nature, but broad
rather than deep.4 By concentrating on broad-scale impacts at regional
by Arnsteih (3).
4The differences in prototype technology assessments are outlined
-------
scale, researchers can work through the problem conceptually and develop
a clear picture of detailed needs and research paths. Sophisticated model-
ing, quantification and collection of new data are not required, Rather,
a reiterative review, critique and synthesis of available information and
data is necessary. A mini^technology assessment is a means of identify*-
ing the boundaries of the study quickly on a low budget..
Box 9 in Figure ll^C-3 was the first step in Task 2. It initiated
three interrelated assessment functions: data collection and evaluation,
impact evaluation, and policy analysis.5
9. Preliminary Assessment: Identify specific ap-
proaches and methodologies to be used in the
mini-technology assessments.
10. Impact Ident if ication; Identify general categor-
ies of impact (e.g., social, economic, public
health and environmental) and list specific de<-
mands in each category.
11. Impact Analysis: Classify impacts as to firstr-,
second-, and higher-order effects, and identify
their interrelationships. The objective is to
trace the chain of cause-and-effect relationships
between the immediate, direct impacts of energy
conversion technologies and the second- and
higher-order effects of long-term consequences.
The latter include the impacts of environmental
controls applied to the energy conversion tech-
nologies.
12. Standardized Measures: Develop standard clas-
sifications and measures for energy conversion
technologies and their expected impacts that
are consistent with current regulatory standards.
13. Data Collection: Collect and organize currently
available data for impact analysis.
14. Data Evaluation: Evaluate the available data
and identify areas in need of additional data
or specialized analysis.
5
The gray, screened area shown in Figure II-C-3 indicates the in-
teraction between Tasks 1 and 2 necessary to complete the RTCs and begin
the mini-technology assessments.
II-C-9
-------
15. Special Studies: Provide special expertise,
detailed analyses and data bases identified
as essential for Impact Evaluation (box 18)
as well as defining Baseline Present (box 2)
and Baseline Futures (box 7).6
16. Parties at Interest: Identify groups likely
to be affected by, or have an interest in,
each impact. Groups include those who might
already have a special interest and those
who might not be aware of the potential fu-
ture impacts affecting them.
17. Policy Issues: Describe the key policy is-
sues associated with the impacts of each RTC.
Policy issues are also of direct importance
to defining Parties at Interest (box 16).
18. Impact Evaluation: Evaluate the impacts as-
sociated with each RTC, and compare the im-
pacts within and between RTCs.
19; Policy Options: Identify the range of alter-
native strategies available for public policy-
makers to decide which policies to adopt,
especially with regard to particular environ-
mental control strategies for new energy con-
version technologies.
Policy Options may effect change through Parties at Interest (box 16) by
altering the Institutional Framework (box 8) for all or certain aspects
of the RTCs (box 6), or by supporting the development of one or several
Technological Alternatives (box 3). The feedback loops in the policy
studies subsystem indicate the pattern of interrelationships between the
assessment of impacts, policy options, and energy conversion technologies.
Figure II-C-2.
The Special Studies, which comprise Task 4, are listed in
II-C-2.
II-C-10
-------
REFERENCES
1. J. L. (Jack) White, F. S. La Grone, et al. Draft: First Year Report
of a Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource Development.
Vol. 1, Summary. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, n.d.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "A Technology Assessment of
Energy Development in the Appalachian Region." RFP cl 76-0320.
3. Sherry R. Arnstein. "Technology Assessment: Opportunities and Ob-
stacles for Health Managers." Paper presented Second International
Congress on Technology Assessment. Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 26,
1976.
4. Francois Hetman. Society and the Assessment of Technology. Paris:
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1973.
5. Thomas E. Baldwin, et al. A Socioeconomic Assessment of Energy De-
velopment in a Small Rural County: Coal Gasification in Mercer "•
County, North Dakota. 2 vols. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National
Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems Division, August 1976.
6. The Futures Group. A Technology Assessment of Geothermal Energy
Resource Development. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975.
The following bibliographic material was used in a general way in
the preparation of the narrative.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Estimates of the Popu-
lation of Illinois Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1974 and 1975.
Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 75-13. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Estimates of the Popu-
lation of Indiana Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1974 and 1975.
Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 75-14. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Estimates of the Popu-
lation of Kentucky Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1974 and 1975.
Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 75-17. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Estimates of the Popu-
lation of Ohio Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1973 and 1974.
Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 122. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1975.
II-C-11
-------
II-C-12
-------
2. PRESENT (1975) AND PLANNED (1975-1985) ENERGY
CONVERSION FACILITIES IN THE ORBES REGION
In 1975, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio had 80,143 megawatts
electric [MW(EJ] of installed generation capacity (Table II-C-2) (1).
Three-quarters of this total (58,647), and the majority of each state's
share, was in the counties which comprise the ORBES region.
Table II-C-2
INSTALLED AND PLANNED GENERATION CAPACITY
IN ORBES STATES AND SUBREGIONS, IN MW(E)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Totals
1975
State
25,044
15,440
12,267
27,392
80,143
Installed Capacity
ORBES
Subregion
13,134
11,343
12,267
21,903
58,647
Percentage
of State
in Region
52.4
73.5
100.0
80.0
73.2
1985 Planned Capacity
State
44,134
24,749
19,856
37,465
126,204
ORBES
Subregion
21,279
20,007
19,855
27,334
88,475
Percentage
of State
in Region
48.2
80.8
100.0
73.0
70.1
SOURCE: University of Illinois, Energy Resources Center. Forecasts of
Electrical Power and Energy Requirements for the ORBES States
and the ORBES Subregions through the Year 2000'Chicago: 1976.
Coal-fired plants account for 89.7% of this present ORBES capacity, with
oil (4.8%) and nuclear (3.2%) plants comprising the remainder (2). The
plants are in places which are accessible to water supplies, coal fields
and load centers (Figure II-C-4).' They are concentrated along the main
stem of the Ohio River and its main tributaries, as well as along the
Illinois River. Figure II-C-5 indicates the major coal fields within the
ORBES region. These fields represent a present and projected primary fuel
source for the region.
The facilities shown in Figure II-C-4 represent 95% of the installed
generation capacity but only 55% of the facilities. Facilities having less
than 25 MW(E) capacity are not shown.
II-C-13
-------
Northern
Boundary
Figure II-C-4 -
ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES
DECEMBER 31,1975
Capacity in
MVV(E)
25-500 >500
-------
Figure II-C-6
RY
NORTHERN
ECU":?/
of O.\C:
RSGJON
o
»—•
in
ORBES REGION
COAL FIELDS
50 100 kilometres
-------
Utilities plan for capacity additions of 57.5% for the four states,
and 50.9% in the ORBES region, by 1985 (Table II-C-2). The majority of
the increase is in Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky, with Indiana having
the largest increase (76.4%). Additions to existing generation facilities
are planned in nine counties, and new facilities are planned for eight
counties which already have (in 1975) at least one plant. An additional
nine plants are planned for counties which, at present, have no generation
facilities (Figure II-C-6). Coal-fired plants will still account for an
estimated 84.7% of the generation capacity in 1985. However, nuclear
plants will have a larger share (10.6%) than in 1975.
REFERENCES
1. University of Illinois, Energy Resources Center. Forecasts of Elec-
trical Power and Energy Requirements for the ORBES States and the
ORBES Subregibns through the Year 2000. Chicago: December 10, 1976.
2. University of Illinois, Energy Resources Center. Electrical Genera-
tion Capability in Illinois. Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio and in the
ORBES Region - 1975 and 1985. Chicago: November, 1976.
2
The sites shown in Figure II-C-6 indicate utility plans for capa-
city additions as reported by the three regional reliability councils re-
sponsible for coordination of electrical generation in the ORBES region:
Mid-America Interpool Network (MAIN), East Central Reliability Council
(ECAR), and Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) (2). These
facilities are expected to be completed and operating by the end of 1985.
II-C-16
-------
Northern
Boundary
o
I
Figure II-C-6
ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES
PROJECTED TO 1985
Capacity in
MW(E)
25-500 >bOO
-------
II-C-18
-------
3. SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
3.1. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITIES IN THE
ORBES REGION (1975-2000) - FOUR SCENARIOS
An objective of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study is to project
a range of probable changes in the technical and societal aspects of the
conditions that will result from the deployment of energy conversion
systems in the ORBES region for the years 1975 through 2000. A series
of multiple scenarios have been developed to meet these objectives. A
scenario is an analytical projection which attempts to portray the future
in response to a given set of assumptions about the future. A scenario
puts into perspective what is likely to happen when the present is sub-
jected to the passage of time and to a number of plausible "what-if"
questions.
The scenarios are based upon existing estimates of future national
and regional electrical energy demands. Important considerations are
the growth rate of the population and the amount of energy (including
electrical energy) per person that will be needed during the time period
under consideration. Energy extraction capabilities, energy sources
available for utilization, energy transportation and energy handling
and processing should also be addressed.
Four scenarios were developed: Scenario 1 uses the 1975 Bureau
of Mines (BOM) (1) forecast'as the basis for what is considered to be
the highest probable limit's of energy demand and generation (i.e.,
highest economic activity) in the U. S. for a given rate of population
growth.' The fuel mix of energy conversion facilities was set at 80%
coal and 20% nuclear facilities to be built between 1985 and 2000.
Scenario 2 is identical to Scenario 1 in regard to the assumed
levels of economic activity and population growth. Only the fuel mix
is changed, i.e., 50% coal and 50% nuclear facilities, are presumed to
be built between 1985 and 2000. The line labeled "Bureau of Mines" of
Figure II-C-7 characterizes the growth of electrical production (capacity)
under both Scenarios 1 and 2.
In Scenarios 3 and 4, a slower growth rate of electrical energy
consumption and demand is used as a basis for projections. In the Ford
Tech Fix scenarios (growing out of the Energy Policy Project of the Ford
Foundation) (2) much fewer energy generating facilities are forecast for
the year 2000. Scenarios 3 and 4 differ in that 3 assumes that 100% of
the electrical generating capacity added or replaced beyond the pres-
ently planned net capacity additions (1975-1985) will be coal fired.
Scenario 4 presumes 100% nuclear replacements or additions. The line
Both the BOM and the Ford Tech Fix projections use the U. S.
Bureau of the Census estimates for population growth.
II-C-19
-------
Figure II-C-7
GROWTH OF ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION - BOM AND FTF SCENARIOS
300
1975
II-C-20
-------
labeled "Ford Tech Fix" of Figure II-C-7 shows the growth of Installed
electrical production facilities under both Scenarios 3 and 4.
The differences between the BOM and Ford Tech Fix scenarios, In
terms of electric generating facilities, are quite significant. The
"x" on Figure II-C-7 shows that by 1985 actual generating facilities now
planned will He somewhere between the two extremes. The word "extremes"
is perhaps well chosen. In all likelihood, both the Bureau of Mines
predictions and the Ford Tech Fix predictions represent extremes—one
an extremely high and the other an extremely low projection of installed
electrical power production capacity required. However, by analyzing the
implications of these very different, though plausible futures, we are
able to dramatically contrast the whole range of consequences and impacts
that a range of futures will have upon the region. The effect 1s that
through this process, we are able to circumscribe or bracket the upper
and lower bounds of the problem. Successive phases of the ORBES study
are likely to utilize scenarios which would fall within a yet more
plausible range of possibilities. However, the present work will have
defined the limits within which more likely futures might be projected.
3.2. DESCRIPTION OF BUREAU OF MINES SCENARIOS
The projections of future electrical energy conversion facilities
in the ORBES region from 1985 to 2000, based upon the Bureau of Mines
(BOM) projections, presume an approximate annual growth rate of 5.8% in
electrical energy (1). In the BOM scenarios it is assumed that 1975
planned capacity will come on line as presently planned by the utilities
during the decade ending 1985. The other major features of the BOM
forecast are:
1. Between 1974 and 2000, the per capita net electrical energy
consumption is expected to grow from 30 million BTU equiva-
lent to 112 million BTU; in the same period, per capita
gross electrical consumption is expected to increase from
93 million BTU equivalent to 298 million BTU.
2. The economic activity, as measured by GNP, is strongly
correlated with energy consumption. The anticipated high
growth in economic activity implies increasing energy
consumption in all sectors, including electrical generation.
3. The availability of primary fuels is relatively unrestricted,
though their price effects are not known.
4. Major technological changes, such as the introduction of
commercial breeder reactors and synthetic fuel plants, are
expected between 1985 and 2000. (However, in this study,
the RTCs do not consider the possibility of commercial
breeder reactors by 2000 in the ORBES region.)
II-C-21
-------
3.2.1. THE PROCESS OF PROJECTING INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY FOR
THE ORBES REGION (BOM 1985-2000)
The projections of national generating capacity for 1985 and 2000
were allocated to each state and subregion within the study area. The
additional number of plants required to replace those retiring during the
period 1985-2000 was estimated by taking a percentage of the national
total requirements, based on an assumed useful plant life of about 35 years,
The corresponding figures for each ORBES subregion were obtained by appor-
tioning the state's capacity and additional unit requirements to the sub-
region on the basis of that subregion's percentage of the state's 1985
capacity. Details of the calculations are in reference (3).
The probable size, number, location and fuel type of the generat-
ing plants to be constructed in the OREfES region between 1975 and 1985
are essentially known at this time because of the lengthy lead time
required to develop such facilities (4). However, forecasting attributes
of the additional generating capacity required for the 1985-2000 period
depend upon several assumptions specified by the Task 1 team. One of
the BOM-based RTCs was given a mix of 80% coal-fired and 20% nuclear-
fueled units. The standard plant unit of either type was arbitrarily
determined to be 1000 MW(E).
In order to project the requirements for generating capacity,
the following selected operating parameters were assumed:
Annual Load Factor 47.8%
Conversion Efficiency 31% Nuclear
37% Coal
Reserve Capacity 15% of total installed MW(E)
(same as 17.6% of peak load)
Given these parameters and the energy consumption projections in the
electrical sector of the BOM projections, the required capacity to be
installed in the United States by 1985 is 2,064,482 MW(E). The criterion
used to apportion the national capacity to the individual states is that
each state's share of the installed capacity will remain approximately
the same in the years 1985 and 2000 as it was in the year 1975. Cur-
rently the four states together account for approximately 16.8% of the
installed capacity in the nation, and very nearly the same percentage in
distributed electricity* The projected capacity required in each state
is shown in Table II-C-3.
In each state, the planned capacities recorded by the utility
companies are less than the BOM projections (4). This shortfall was
added to the capacity to be constructed between 1985 and 2000.
II-C-22
-------
Table II-C-3
PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MW(E) IN THE FOUR STATES
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
1985
(Planned)
44,134
24,749
19,856
37,465
126,204
1985
(BOM)
49,480
30,505
24,236
54,119
158,340
2000
(BOM)
108,117
66,656
52,958
118,254
345,985
The fuel types and sites of the majority of the plants which are
planned for 1976-1985 have been selected. Consequently, it is assumed
that only the plants to be added between 1985 and 2000 will have the
designated fuel mix between coal and nuclear; that is, 80% coal-20%
nuclear or 50% coal-50% nuclear. It is also assumed that approximately
2% of the capacity existing in 1970 will be retired in any given year
between 1985 and 2000, and that the apportionment of the state's
projected capacity to the ORBES subregion within the state follows the
same principle as that used to apportion the national capacity of the
four states (3).
As a result of this analysis (and the Project Office's request
that only three 1000 MW(E) nuclear plants be located in Kentucky for the
BOM 80-20 scenario), the projected number of 1000 MW(E) plant units to
be sited in the ORBES subregions for the BOM scenario is distributed as
shown in Table II-C-4.
Table II-C-4
PROJECTED NUMBER OF 1000 MW(E) PLANT UNITS TO BE SITED
IN THE ORBES SUBREGIONS BETWEEN 1985 and 2000
Number of Units
ORBES
Subregions
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
50-50 Fuel Mix
Coal Nuclear Total
16 15 31
17 17 34
17 17 34
30 30 60
80 79 T59
80-20 Fuel Mix
Coal Nuclear Total
25 6 31
27 7 34
31 3 34
48 1 2 60
T3T 28 T39~
II-C-23
-------
The growth in total installed capacity for the two BOM scenarios
is shown graphically in Figure II-C-8.
Tables II-C-5 through 8 summarize the projected generating capacity
for the ORBES subregion in each state as a function of time (1985 vs. 2000)
and RTC (3).
3.2.2. REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS
Each mini-assessment team developed a list of candidate counties
within its own state(s) which .appear suitable for the installation of coal-
fired plants, nuclear-fueled plants or both. The criteria used in siting
included the availability of water, population density and distribution,
seismic activity, local environmental conditions and preexisting power
plants. The Illinois team followed site selection procedures used by
utility companies, with review by representatives of major utilities in
Illinois (5).
The final sites (counties) selected, by number and type of facility
for each fuel mix and ORBES subregion, are included in Appendix A.
Figures II-C-9 and id provide maps showing where power generating facili-
ties would be located, by county, under the two BOM scenarios.
• ' ' ' f m l
3.3. DESCRIPTION OF FORD TECH FIX SCENARIOS
the projections of future energy conversion facilities in the ORBES
region from early 1970 to 2000, based upon the Ford Tech Fix (2), pre-
sume an approximate annual growth rate of 1.9% in electrical energy con-
sumption. The major assumptions of the Ford Tech Fix scenario are:
1. Long-term energy prices and government policies will
encourage greater efficiency in energy consumption.
2. Between 1973 and 2000 the per capita net electrical con-
sumption is expected to grow from 30 million BTU to 43
million BTU; in the same period the per capita gross energy
consumption to generate electrical energy is expected to
increase from 90 million BTU to 117 million BTU.
3. The nation will benefit from direct energy savings result-
ing from the application of energy conservation technologies
at the point of energy use, and indirect energy savings in
the energy processing sector.
4. The existing apparent positive correlation between GNP and
energy consumption need not hold in the future and hence
it is possible to reduce energy needs without adversely
affecting the overall economy. As a result of energy
savings, the cumulative reduction in GNP will be small,
about 1.5% less in 1985 and 4% less in 2000.
II-C-24
-------
Figure II-C-8
GROWTH IN TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY - TWO BOM SCENARIOS
I-.
o
3
300
BUREAU OF MINES
/ 80-20
Coal plus
Misc.
50-50
Coal plus Misc.
1975
II-C-25
-------
ORBES-ILLINOIS
Table II-C-5
PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-ILLINOIS
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES
50-50 Fuel Mix
80-20 Fuel Mix
BOM
Fuel
Coal
• Nuclear
Oil
t •
Nat Gas
Hydro
Total
1985
Planned
13,899
6,243
1,043
88
6
21,279
ORBES-INDIANA
1985
Fuel Planned
Coal
Nuclear
Oil
Nat Gas
; Hydro
Total
17,001
2,260
633
26
87
20,007
Additions
1985-2000
15,573
15,573
1,605
674
___
33,425
Removals
1985-2000
2,148
—
383
45
_« «,
2,576
Table
Totals
for 2000
27,324
21,816
2,265
717
6
52,128
II-C-6
Additions Removals
1985-2000 1985-2000
24,917
6,229
1,605
674
_.._
33,425
PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-INDIANA
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES
50-50 Fuel Mix 80-20
Additions
1985-2000
17,155
17,155
1,496
743
36,549
Removals
1985-2000
2,466
---
154
52
2,672
Total s
for 2000
31 ,690
19,415
1,975
717
87_
53,884
2,148
—
383
45
...
2,576
Fuel Mix
Additions Removals
1985-2000 1985-2000
27,448
6,862
1,496
743
36,549
2,466
—
154
52
2,672
Totals
for 2000
36,668
12,472
2,265
717
6
52,128
BOM
Totals
for 2000
41 ,983
9,122
1,975
717
81
53,884
II-C-26
-------
Table II-C-7
PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-KENTUCKY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES
ORBES-KENTUCKY BOM
50-50 Fuel Mix 80-20 Fuel Mix
Fuel
Coal
Nuclear
Oil
Nat Gas
Hydro
Total
1985
Planned
18,570
0
341
130
815
19,856
Additions
1985-2000
16,771
16,770
1,447
726
_. .
35,714
Removals
1985-2000
2,425
—
136
51
. .— "
2,612
Totals
for 2000
32,916
16,770
1,652
805
815
52,958
Additions
1985-2000
30,541
3,000*
1,447
726
«*•
35,714
Removals
1985-2000
2,425
—
136
51
.«.«.
2,612
Totals
for 2000
46,686
3,000
1,652
805
815
52,958
*According to the Project Office, three 1000 MW(E) nuclear plants are pro-
jected for Kentucky.
Table II-C-8
PROJECTED POWER, IN MW(E), IN ORBES-OHIO
FOR THE YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT FUEL MIXES
ORBES-OHIO BOM
50-50 Fuel Mix 80-20 Fuel Mix
Fuel
Coal
Nuclear
Oil
Nat Gas
Hydro
Total
1985 Additions
Planned 1985-2000
25,495
875
921
2
42
27,335
29,402
29,401
2,618
1,275
• _.
62,696
Removals
1985-2000
3,396
—
284
72
...
3,752
Totals
for 2000
51,501
30,276
3,255
1,205
42
86,279
Additions
1985-2000
47,942
11,761
2,618
1,275
_._'
62,696
Removals
1985-2000
3,396
—
284
72
... .
3,752
Totals
for 2000
69,141
12,636
3,255
1,205
42
86,279
II-C-27
-------
*• (
**\
Figure II-C-9
ELECTRICAL GIE N E R A T -IU G * FAC I L I T I ES
BOM 80% COAL 20% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REG I ON
Northern
Boundary
ro
oo
Capacity in
MVV(E)
25-500 >500
-------
Northern
Boundary
"*)
e • [
* \
Figure II-C-10
ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
BOM 50% COAL 50% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000 -ORBES REGION
o
I
ro
vo
Copacity in
MW(E) '
25-500 >500
Coal
-------
5. Capital investment 1n energy savings technologies will be
less than that required to continue investing 1n new energy
conversion facilities at the present national rate of growth.
6. Electricity (and petroleum) will be expensive forms of
energy.
7. The U. S. population will be 236 million 1n 1985 and 265
million in 2000. (This population growth corresponds to
that assumed in the BOM scenario.)
:«3.3.1. THE PROCESS OF PROJECTING INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY BY ORBES
SUBREGION (FORD TECH FIX 1975-2000)
The Ford Tech Fix (FTF) is a more complicated scenario than the
BOM scenario. Many of the assumptions involved are not explicitly stated
and most are interrelated.
The selected energy conversion operating parameters for this
scenario are identical to those in the BOM scenario:
Annual Load Factor 47.8%
Conversion Efficiency 31% Nuclear
37% Coal
Reserve Capacity 15% of total Installed MW(E)
(same as 17.6% peak load)
These operational parameters, in conjunction with the national Ford Tech
Fix scenario are invoked to scale down first to the four state region and
then to the smaller ORBES region.
Other parameters, such as plant retirement rate and peak load capa-
city, used in developing the regional Ford Tech Fix scenario are the same
as in the BOM scenario. The method of apportioning the U. S. forecast
for capacity to the four states is Identical to that detailed in the BOM
scenario. Table II-C-9 shows the anticipated Installed capacity in the
four states using the Ford Tech Fix model.
i . . -
As can be seen from this table, the installed capacity for 1985
resulting from the currently planned additions and removals by utilities
from 1976 to 1985 is considerably in excess of Ford Tech Fix requirements
in the four states. A corresponding situation holds for the ORBES region
of the four states. Because of this, it has been proposed by the Illinois
group that delay factors be introduced into planned capacity additions
between 1976-1985. At the request of the ORBES Project Office, the
Illinois group developed a detailed plan for reprogrammlrig the on-line
activation of new installed electrical power capacity in order to more
closely track the power demand between 1985-2000 projected by the Ford
Tech Fix scenario.
II-C-30
-------
Table II-C-9
PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MW(E) IN THE FOUR STATES
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
1985
(Planned)
44,134 .
24,749
19,856
37,465
126,204
1985
(Ford Tech Fix)
29,300
18,064
14,352
32,047
93,763
2000
(Ford Tech Fix)
41,753
25,741
20,451
45,667
133,612
The procedure utilized was as follows:
a. The originally planned power plant capacity additions and
removals (1976-1985) for the ORBES region were noted from
the Task 1 report by year of planned activity and type of
fuel and listed by ORBES states in Table II-C-10.
b. Table II-C-11 shows the Ford Tech Fix projected installed
capacity required for the ORBES region for each year (1975-
2000). Also it lists the proposed installed capacity for
the years 1975 to 1994. By 1994, the net added capacity
originally planned for the period 1976-1985 meets the growth
requirement of the Ford Tech Fix scenario. The third column
shows the net capacity to be added to the ORBES region for
each year and the additional columns show the type of fuel
for the plants being added or removed. Note that for the
years 1986 through 1994 the prorated removal of capacity
equals 774 MW(E) per year. Also note that the "installed
capacity" on this table considerably exceeds the Ford Tech
Fix requirements at the present time (1977) and is then
linearized to meet requirements of the scenario in 1985.
This result is also apparent from the curves in
Figure II-C-11.
c. Table II-C-12 programs the additions of new 600 MW(E) coal-
fired plants or new 1000 MW(E) nuclear plants needed to meet
the Ford Tech Fix scenario to the year 2000. These 16
nuclear plants or 27 coal-fired plants equal the net addi-
tional capacity originally planned for addition between 1985
and 2000. Note the estimated removal of 774 MW(E) capacity
for each year from 1994 to 2000 on this table.
d. Table II-C-13 provides the proposed new time sequence by state
for the additions and removals for all originally scheduled
plant additions and removals (1976-1985) as detailed by
Task 1 for the ORBES region.
II-C-31
-------
Year
Table II-C-10
ORIGINAL PLANNED ADDITIONS AND REMOVALS (1976-1985)*
ORBES-Illinois
Coal Nuclear Oil Gas Hydro
Unknown
1976
1977
1978
1979
' 1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
400
550
178
450
173 1078
400 1078
550 -25,22
20 950 50
600
150
550,20
600 950 50
-50
+4641 4056 +122-75
ORBES-Indiana
650
477
532
668
265 668
527
490
490 -1
532 3.5
1130
350 1130
100
650
6399 2260 +3.5-1
42
42
2
2
*See Tables lg/h-2, 4, 6 and 8 in Task 1 Report.
II-C-32
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-10 (Continued)
ORBES-Kentucky
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total
Coal Nuclear Oil
300 65
500
425
495-59
200
500
500,669
495-130
500-71 65
500 200 800
495 669 -68
650 -111
+7898-439 1 30
ORBES-Ohio
375 -2
615
557
375
878
-64
661
375
661
375
615
4609-64 878 -2
Gas Hydro Unknown
-
-Ill 40
-108
-130
-53
-219 40 -183
II-C-33
-------
Table II-C-11
A PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR THE FORD TECH FIX PROJECTION
A System for Delaying Installation of Plants in Order to Meet the Ford tech Fix Projection
Ford Tech Total New
Fix Installed Capacity
Year Projection Capacity For Year Coal Nuc Oil Gas Hydro Unknown
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
l|98l
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
*vy 58,600
*J 53,400
Ay 60,200
r^ 61,000
/« 61,800
+s 62,500
•^63,200
A/ 64,000
A/ 64,800
*v 65,600
66,465
68,052
69,678
71,343
73,048
74,793
76,580
78,410
80,283
. 82,201
84,165
86,176
88,235
90,343
92,501
94,711
58,646
60,953
63,682
63,574
64,035
64,475
64,987
65,482
65,959
66,156
66,522
68,394
69,679
71,470
73,300
74,909
76,721
78,412
80,672
81,778
(See Table
2307
2729
461
440
512
495
477
197
366
2646-774*
2059-774
2565-774
2604-774
2383-774
2586-774
2465-774
3034-774
1880-774
II-C-12)
2202
2800
591
493
538
495
477
197 ;
416
1568 1078
1181 878
1415 1078
1654 950
1182 1130
1636 950
2465
2984
750 1130
63 42
-111
-108
-26
-50
72
69 2
50
40
-130
- 53
*For the ORBES region 11,610 MW(E) of capacity will be retired from 1985-2000. If
i-t is assumed to be done linearly, 774 Mtf(E) will be retired each year.
II-C-34
-------
Figure II-C-11
FORD TECH FIX PROJECTED INSTALLED CAPACITY
AND PROPOSED INSTALLED CAPACITY
50
CAPACITY
FORD TECH FIX
757677 78 79 8081 8283 848586 87 88899O91 9293 94 959697 98 99 20OO
YEAR
-------
to
o»
Table II-C-12
DATES FOR NEW PLANTS FOR FORD TECH FIX 1994 TO 20001
Year
1994
1995
1996
1!997
1998
1999
2000
Projected
Capacity
82,201
84,165
86,176
88,235
90,343
92,501
94,711
Installed
Capacity 2
81,778
81,004
80,230
79,456
78,682
77,908
77,134
New
Capacity
Needed
423
3,161
5,946
8,779
11,661
14,593
17,577
1001
New
Plants
1
3
2
3
3
2
1
Nuclear
Cumulative
New Plants
1
4
6
9
12
15
16
100%
New
Plants
1
5
4
5
5
5
2
Coal
Cumulative
New Plants
1
6
10
15
20
25
27
represent the plants beyond those originally planned for installation in the period
1976 to 1985.
2For the ORBES region 11,610 MV(E) of capacity will be retired from 1985-2000. If it is
assumed to be done linearly, 774 MW(E) will be retired each year.
-------
Table II-C-13
NEW MTES FOR BRINGING PLANTS ON-LINE: 1976-19941
ORBES ILLINOIS
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Coal Nuc Oil Gas
400 - - 42
550
178
450
- -25
173
-50
400 1078
20
550 1078 72
950
150
600 950
550 7n . rn
600
Hydro
These represent the plants to be added or removed under the new
time schedule in place of the original schedule (1976-1985).
H"C"37 (continued)
-------
Table II-C-13 (Continued)
NEW DATES FOR BRINGING PLANTS ON-LINE: 1976-19941
ORBES INDIANA
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Coal Nuc C
650
477
532
668 -
265
527
668
490
490
532 1130 i
350
650
100 1130
-1
3.5
iliese represent the plants to be added or removed under the new
time schedule in place of the original schedule (1976-1985).
H-C-38 (continued)
-------
Table II-C-13 (Continued)
NEW DATES FOR BRINGING PLANTS ON-LINE: 1976-19941
ORBES KENTUCKY
65
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Coal Nuc (
300
500
425
-59
200
-130
495
-71
-68
-111
500
500
669
495
500
1500
669
495
1994 650
65
represent the plants to be added or removed under the new
time schedule in place of the original schedule (1976-1985).
II-C-39 (continued)
-------
Table II-C-13 (Continued)
NEW DATES FOR BRINGING PLANTS ON-LINE: 1976-19941
ORBES OHIO
Year Coal Nuc Oil Gas Hydro Unknown
-2
-111 40
-108
-130
-53
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
375
615
-64
557
375
661 878
375
661
375
615
"These represent the plants to be added or removed under the new
time schedule in place" of the original schedule (1976-1985).
II-C-40
-------
e. Tables in Appendix A provide for each state the detailed
new schedule of plant additions and removals (including
name, location, capacity and fuel type) for the period
1976 to 1994 as well as a schedule and target county(s)
for the addition of either 600 MW(E) coal-fired plants
or 1000 MW(E) nuclear plants.
The above procedure and the resulting new schedule of plant addi-
tions avoid the substantial "overshoot" of installed capacity in 1985
which would have resulted from the originally planned schedule of plant
additions and removals (1976-1985) described in Task 1.
Figures II-C-12 and 13 provide maps of where power generating
facilities would be located, by county, under the two Ford Tech Fix
scenarios.
I
It must be recognized that more than the number of coal and
nuclear plants and their capacity is needed to do an impact assessment.
Some of the added considerations include:
a. The type of coal used, its specifications and its origin.
b. The utilization of S02 scrubbers by specific plants.
c. The use of strip mined or deep mined coal.
d. The utilization of coal gasification.
e. The identification of all the pollutants involved in nuclear
systems including the effects of having two major nuclear
enrichment plants in the ORBES region.
f. The times when various changes are expected to be made.
Since each state has a unique arrangement of plant deployment,
schedule and strategies, no attempt will be made to describe the scenarios
in detail here. They are treated more fully in Appendix B where the con-
sequences are also evaluated.
II-C-41
-------
Northern
Boundary
o
-fc»
rv)
**
I*
***'
*]
•(
Figure II-C-12
ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
FORD T EC H FIX 100% COAL .
YEAR 2000 - ORBES REGION
Copccity in
MW(E)
25-500 >500
-------
Figure II-C-13
Northern
Boundary
ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES
FORD TECH FIX 100% NUCLEAR
YEAR 2000- ORBES REGION
Capacity in
MW(E)
25-500 >500
j ' *
-------
REFERENCES
1. W. G. Dupree, Jr. and S. Corsentino. United States Energy Through
the Year 2000 (Revised). Washington, D. C. Bureau of Mines,
Department of the Interior, December 1975.
2. A Time to Choose America's Energy Future, Chapter 3, Final Report,
Ford Foundation.The Energy Policy Projects, Cambridge, MA,
Ballinger, 1974.
., 3. Forecasts of Electrical Power and Energy Requirements for the ORBES
States and ORBES Subregions Through the Year 2QOOIChicago, Energy
Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, December 10,
1976.
4. Electrical Generation Capability in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and
Ohio and in the ORBES Region -.1975 and 1985. Chicago, Energy
Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, October
1976.
. 5. Locations of Electrical Generation Units Anticipated to be Constructed
Within the Illinois Section of the ORBES Region - 1985-2000.Chicago,
Energy Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle,
November 1976.
II-C-44
-------
4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.1.1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF A MINI-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
A mini-technology assessment is intended to be a relatively brief,
low-budget study designed to identify, characterize, and briefly assess
both short- and long-term impacts of a particular technology or combination
of technologies over a particular time period. It should also select key
impact areas or interrelationships to be investigated in depth, identify
potential problems or areas of conflict and associated policy issues,
indicate the location and availability of existing data, assess the utility
of this data for the study, and determine the additional data required to
permit assessment in areas for which data is presently lacking.
The steps in a mini-technology assessment fall into two general
categories: identification and assessment. The following is a simplified
sequence of these steps:
1. Identification
a. Identification of the impacts in particular sectors
(such as environmental, economic, and public health).
b. Identification of the affected categories of individuals,
groups, or institutions (parties at interest).
c. Identification of key policy issues associated with the
impacts.
d. Identification of the policy options (means or actions)
that address these issues whose implementation would
ameliorate or eliminate the impacts.
e. Identification of the agencies or institutions capable
of structuring and implementing these options.
2. Assessment
a. Assessment of the impacts on the parties at interest.
b. Assessment of the effects of the implementation of various
policy options on the technology or combination of tech-
nologies, the parties at interest, and in general on the
particular sectors under consideration.
II-C-45
-------
4.1.2. DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE CONDUCTION OF MINI-TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENTS
Because of the short time frame and broad topical coverage of a
mini-technology assessment, estimations of effects and prediction of the
interrelated consequences of these effects in a number of areas must be
made quickly on the basis of existing data. However, an adequate data
base cannot be obtained for all areas under investigation; thus many
"apples and oranges" mixtures of data or misalignments of assumptions and
results occur when previous or presently-in-process studies are compared
with the structure and content of the mini-assessment. "Best judgment"
conclusions thus run the gamut from extrapolations from existing data
through "straw-in-the-wind" determinations of current trends to just
plain hunches. The misalignments.of data from various studies done for
different purposes, in different geographical areas, over different time
spans, at different levels of organization and complexity, or for different
combinations of technologies present, a. major problem of integration and
utility in essentially all areas of a mini-technology assessment. In
addition, the assumptions on which most existing studies are based, and
the methodologies by which the studies are conducted, are seldom presented
in sufficient detail (if they are presented at all) to permit the integration
of their results or even the determination of the appropriateness of the
results to the mini-assessment. Often seemingly conflicting data may
turn out on inspection to be collected for different years or in different
statistical or organizational units.
Given the amount and complexity of information to be collected,
organized, analyzed, and integrated in order to conduct Task 2 of the ORBES
project, the University of Illinois team developed the following framework
for the mini-assessment. This framework is an operational interpretation
of boxes 10 through 19 in the overall study methodology shown in Figure
II-C-3 in Chapter 1.
4.2. PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK
The Illinois team's mini-technology assessment was conducted at a
regional scale, with the county as the smallest geographical unit. Several
instruments were developed for the mini-assessment. These include a master
interaction matrix of energy functions and impact categories, two sequen-
tial impact tables for characterization of the impacts of the energy-related
functions on the parties at interest under the four scenarios, and a flow
diagram to aid in the identification of policy issues and options common
to a number of impacts. Each of these instruments and the specifics of
its use, is described in one of the following three sections.
4.2.1. MASTER INTERACTION MATRIX
At the initiation of the Task 2 mini-assessment, a matrix was con-
structed to facilitate the identification, categorization and characteri-
II-C-46
-------
zation of energy-related impacts. Five main energy functions were identi-
fied, from extraction of fuel resources through processing, transportation
and conversion of the fuel to disposal of the resulting waste material.
Impacts from construction of energy conversion facilities, including trans-
mission lines, and utilization of the energy produced in the various con-
suming sectors (industrial, commercial, residential, etc,) were also con-
sidered. The 16 impact categories, or sectors in which the impacts occurred,
range from land use through the various aspects of environmental quality
(air, water, and land) to the biological, economic, political, and public
health areas.
Each team member was assigned the responsibility of investigating
the potential impacts in one or more categories for all energy functions
and preparing a preliminary assessment of the probability of occurrence,
duration, intensity, and geographic scale of these impacts, The team as a
whole then reviewed the list of impacts and selected those considered
to be significant (primarily on the basis of probability of occurrence,
duration and/or intensity of impact). The information thus obtained was
then used to characterize the impacts in more detail and assess their
effects in each of the four scenarios by means of a set of tables.
4.2.2. IMPACT TABLES
Table A included a brief description of each impact (such as "in-
crease in acid drainage"), its characterization in the years 1985 and 2000
in each of the four RTCs, a comparison of severity between the two Bureau
of Mines RTCs and between the two Tech Fix RTCs, and an overall comparison
of severity between the two base scenarios, the Bureau of Mines and the
Tech Fix. Table B identified the parties at interest affected by the im-
pacts associated with each energy function, briefly characterized the se-
verity and effect on the parties, indicated the issues or problems associat-
ed with the impact, presented various policy options that might be taken
in response to these issues, and indicated the agencies or authorities
most likely to initiate or implement these policies under current institut-
ional arrangements. Some of these tables are included in this final report
at the ends of the assessment sections (Chapter 5,6,7 and 8) because the
level of detail of the content was considered to be significant; most
others were excluded because the assessment process in those particular
impact categories had progressed beyond the level of utility of the tables
and the information contained within them had been incorporated into the
narratives appropriate to those areas. Many of the impacts indicated in
Table A as occurring at a local scale have a cumulative regional or large-
scale impact and are discussed at both levels in the narratives.
The matrix and the set of impact tables provided a structural frame-
work for identification and organization of the major components of the
assessment. The integration and interpretation of the interrelationships
among impacts, policy issues, and policy options could then proceed.
II-C-47
-------
4.2.3. FLOW DIAGRAM
The third and final instrument used in the Illinois team's mini-
assessment was a flow diagram indicating the logical groupings of impact
areas into impact categories and the pattern of interrelationships between
these categories. This diagram, Figure II-C-14 , visually portrays the
overall structure of this final report and permits, in a general way, the
integration and assessment of the impacts in the order of their occurrence.
The major impact categories identified are: impacts on natural resources
and impacts on developed resources (both of which can be included under
the overall heading of resource impacts), environmental impacts, and socio-
economic impacts. Each of the four boxes incorporates the specific impact
areas that have been assessed during the study and corresponds to a par-
ticular impact assessment chapter in this report.
| The initial impacts resulting from the development or expansion of
a particular energy conversion technology are associated with the acquisition
and utilization of the land, materials, and equipment and capital and labor
required for the construction of an energy conversion facility and its
supporting structures, such as transmission lines, substations, or pipelines.
These are followed by the impacts associated with the extraction, process-
ing and transportation of the fuels, and other materials (such as limestone
for scrubbers) required for facility operations, the impacts resulting from
the conversion process, and the impacts related to the disposal of the
various waste or residual materials produced.
The utilization of natural resources (land, water, and minerals)
directly impacts the natural environment (land quality, appearance and
structure; water quality; noise; air quality and climate; and biological
and ecological systems). The utilization of developed resources (labor,
transportation systems and equipment, manufactured goods and capital) di-
rectly impacts the socioeconomic and cultural environment (public health,
population density and movement, economic milieu, and legal/institutional/
political framework and alignments). In addition, this impact category
is also directly affected by changes in the environment and in the quality
of its components, particularly air and water.
The public health sector is the interface through which these
environmental-socioeconomic relationships occur. Other less direct inter-
connections exist between the four categories, such as the impacts of the
utilization of developed resources upon the environment, of natural re-
sources upon the socioeconomic area, and of socioeconomic activities upon
th,e environment. Although not indicated in the flow diagram, these inter-
relationships are treated briefly in the four assessment chapters that
follow, and in the final summary chapter (Chapter 9). Each assessment
chapter begins with an overview of the category, goes on to examine the
specific impact areas comprising the category, and culminates with an in-
tegrated summary of the various policy issues and options associated with
the impacts discussed in the chapter. Relevant sets of impact tables A
and B and both cited and pertinent references conclude the chapter. The
chapter following the four assessment chapters summarizes the results of
II-C-48
-------
Figure II-C-14
FLOW OF ORBES ASSESSMENT PROCESS
o
*.
UD
CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF POWER
PLANTS TO SATISFY
A SCENARIO DEMAND
RESOURCE IMPACTS
NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND USE
WATER USE & HYDROLOGY
MINERAL RESOURCES
DEVELOPED RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
MANUFACTURED GOODS
CAPITAL
LABOR
J . _ J
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
LAND QUALITY,
GEOMORPHOLOGY
WATER QUALITY
NOISE ENVIRONMENT
AIR QUALITY, CLIMATOLOGY
BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
PUBLIC HEALTH
DEMOGRAPHIC
ECONOMIC
LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL,
POLITICAL
-------
the mini-assessment and integrates all of the previous summary sections
containing the policy issues and options. The concluding chapter of the
report contains the Illinois team's recommendations for the restructuring,
data collection, research needs, and more detailed investigations the team
members feel are required for Phase II, the full-scale assessment segment
of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study.
REFERENCES
The following bibliographic material was used in a general way in
the preparation of the narrative:
1. Sherry R. Arnstein and Alexander N. Christakis. Perspectives on Tech-
* nology Assessment. Jerusalem: Science and Technology Publishers, 1975.
2. Steven E. Plotkin. "Technology Assessment of Regional Energy Develop-
ment." Paper presented at the Second International Congress on Tech-
nology Assessments, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 24-28, 1976.
H-C-50
-------
5. IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
5.1. INTRODUCTION
The Ohio River Basin is rich in natural resources. It is a
part of that great midwestern land mass that makes up the heartland
of America. The upper basin is dominated by heavy and medium industry -
steel and chemicals - feeding upon an abundance of water and coal. The
lower basin is dominated by the enormous productivity of some of the
richest agricultural land in the world.
The richness of this land in the ORBES region accounts for one-
third of the nation's production of corn and soybeans. At the same
time, about 30% of the nation's deposits of bituminous coal also under-
lie some of that same land.
Binding this natural abundance together is the Ohio River which
is a source of water for the many competing water needs of the region,
as well as a national transportation route linking the east to the
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and to the rest of the world.
The following three sections dealing with land, water, and
mineral use in the ORBES region will attempt to assess the direct impact
upon these resources to the year 2000 under the differing assumptions of
the four scenarios.
Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 will all follow the pattern of an intro-
ductory statement followed by narratives on each of the elements in that
chapter followed by a concluding summary. In addition, references will
be included as well as tables characterizing a comparison of the impacts
flowing from each of the scenarios.
II-C-51
-------
5.2. LAND USE IMPACTS
The primary impacts of electrical energy production on land use
result from the temporary or permanent conversion of land from present
uses to energy-related uses. Land areas devoted to the full range of
energy-related activities including extraction, processing, conversion,
waste disposal, transportation, and the generation and transmission of
electricity are defined as primary impacts. In addition, land utilized
for other economic activities implied in the four futures being assessed
have significant direct land use impacts. Land utilized in this latter
way includes urban growth and the many functions associated with that
growth; i.e., suburbanization, industrialization, recreation areas, etc.
These impacts are summarized, characterized, and compared for each
Regional Technology Configuration (RTC) in Table II-C-26, page 96.
It is evident from these tables that the Bureau of Mines RTCs
will have more severe land use impacts than the Ford Tech Fix RTCs, The
differences are a direct result of the greater amount of electrical
power required under the BOM RTCs. A more detailed comparison of the
RTCs and selected constituent functions can be achieved by estimation of
the amount of land required. These estimates are presented in Table
II-C-14.
Only those functions for which quantification is possible with
readily available information and those likely to result in significant
long-term or short-term land use changes within the ORBES region are
calculated. Uranium extraction is not treated since it is extremely
unlikely that the low-grade uranium deposits in the region will be
developed before the year 2000. The land use implication of transpor-
tation support for energy-related functions has not been included
because the impact was judged to be negligible. For the most part,
existing transportation right-of-ways can accommodate road widening or
double-tracking in the case of railroads without disturbing additional
land. Barge terminals for the transhipment of coal, coal slurry pipe-
lines, and natural gas and oil pipelines will require only small amounts
of additional land.
Although the land use impact may be significant, limestone
extraction was not included because the amount needed for effective
scrubbers has not been specified and thus land requirements could not be
estimated at this time. Land use changes resulting from other economic
activities associated with consumption of electrical power have not been
included due to the difficulty involved in estimating their magnitude.
However, this will be discussed later in this report.
The values in the table represent the cumulative amount of land
which will have been devoted to several energy functions for each of
the four RTCs. The analysis at this point does not characterize
differences in severity and is not meant to imply comparability of impacts,
It is clear that there are qualitative differences in impacts. In
H-C-52
-------
Table II-C-14
SELECTED ESTIMATES OF LAND AREAS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO IMPACTS UNDER ORBES RTCS
(IN SQUARE MILES)
Functions
Coal
Extraction &
Processing*
Surface
Deep**
Conversion***
Coal****
Nuclear
Electrical
Transmission
TOTAL
BOM
1976-1985
112
32
80
53
36
17
113
278
1986-
80-20
643
89
554
286
224
62
604
1533
2000
50-50
452
64
388
315
141
174
604
1371
1976-
80-20
755
121
634
339
261
78
717
1811
2000
50-50
564
96
468
368
178
190
717
1649
Ford Tech Fix
1976-1985
99
29
70
12
12
0
30
141
1986-2000
100% 100%
Coal Nuclear
229
29
200
58
43
15
147
434
208
27
181
68
20
48
147
423
1976-2000
100% 100%.
Coal Nuclear
328
58
270
70
55
15
177
575
307
56
251
80
32
48
177
564
I
o
I
en
CO
*Includes coal for electrical generation and low-BTU gasification but not high-BTU gasification.
**Includes undermined area potentially subject to subsidence.
***Includes land required for disposal of wastes produced at the conversion site.
****Includes high- and low-BTU gasification sites.
-------
addition, some effects are reversible and others are not. The table
is intended only to characterize a common unit (square miles) of impact.
Figures on the right side of each column represent totals for functions
and figures on the left side of each column represent totals for sub-
functions. Meaningful interpretation of these figures is dependent upon
knowledge of the assumptions involved in each estimation. These
assumptions are given below:
Coal Extraction
Coal requirements, sources, and consumption for each RTC are
given in Appendix B.
50% surface, 50% underground extraction of ORBES coal in 1976
(agreed by IL Task 2 Team).
30% surface, 70% underground extraction of ORBES coal in 1985
(agreed by IL Task 2 Team).
15% surface, 85% underground extraction of ORBES coal in 2000
(agreed by IL Task 2 Team).
Surface Extraction
140 acres/10 tons coal - ORBES land area disturbed per million
tons of coal extracted by surface mining.
Specific density, 1770 tons/acre-foot.
Seam thickness, five feet.
Extraction efficiency, 80%.
(Personal communication with Illinois Geological Survey).
Underground Extraction
225 acres/10 tons coal - ORBES land area potentially subject to
subsidence per million tons of coal extracted by underground
mining.
Specific density, 1770 tons/acre-foot.
Seam thickness, five feet.
Extraction efficiency, 50%.
(Personal communication with Illinois Geological Survey).
II-C-54
-------
Uranium Extraction
Unlikely to occur in ORBES region before 2000.
Coal Processing
300 acres/1,000 MW(E) - One such site located at the mine and
capable of supplying a 1,000 MW(E) generating unit for the pro-
ductive period of the mine - included in extraction land
requirement - current cleaning practice involves removal of only
large waste rock at some mines but also fine pyrites at other
mines - cleaning yield is accounted for in the extraction
efficiencies given above (i.e., 80% surface extraction efficiency
would have been 90-95% if cleaning yield had not been included).
Conversion
Cooling
Electrical Generation
20% of the 1,000 MW(E) units will utilize cooling ponds.
40% will utilize natural-draft cooling towers.
40% will utilize mechanical-draft cooling towers.
(Agreed by Illinois Task 2 Team).
Gasification
50% will utilize cooling towers.
0
50% will utilize cooling ponds.
Coal Conversion
Electrical Generation
640 acres/1,000 MW(E) (exclusive of cooling pond).
(Personal communication with Commonwealth Edison).
2,000 acres/1,000 MW(E) (including cooling pond) (1).
Includes area required for cooling towers, fuel storage, on-site
waste disposal, and production facilities.
II-C-55
-------
Gasification
High-BTU
2
640 acres/250 MMCFD (exclusive of cooling pond) (1).
2,400 acres/250 MMCFD (including cooling pond) (1).
Low-BTU
2
640 acres/1,500 MMCFD (exclusive of cooling pond) (1).
1,200 acres/1,500 MMCFD (including cooling pond) (1).
Nuclear Conversion
2
980 acres/1,000 MW(E) (exclusive of cooling pond).
(Personal communication with Commonwealth Edison).
3,000 acres/1,000 MW(E) (including cooling pond) (1).
Electrical Transmission^
100 miles/1,000 MW(E) - Average total length of multiple grid
connections.
200 foot right-of-way.
Care should be exercised when interpreting the numbers contained
in Table II-C-14 . As mentioned above, only selected energy-related
impacts are shown. The following discussion is required in order to
bring out some of the nonquantified impacts and to distinguish between
those that are reversible and irreversible.
The list which follows is in descending order of land impact
severity and each element requires much greater study in order to develop
reliable quantification.
5.2.1. EXTRACTION
The estimated areas affected by surface extraction are reasonably
accurate and straightforward in interpretation. The land involved in
strip mining will be heavily impacted but can be returned to productive
use. The amount of time and money required for reclamation is a function
of the quality of the restoration. In the region as a whole, more strip
mined land is being reclaimed each year than is being disturbed by new
2
Includes area required for cooling towers, fuel storage, on-site
waste disposal, and production facilities.
II-C-56
-------
surface mining. This is true except in Kentucky where very little strip
land is reclaimed because it becomes economically feasible over time to
restrip already impacted land. The high cost of reclaiming the land
several times is thereby avoided. Much of Kentucky's coal land, there-
fore, remains unreclaimed.
Much greater land areas are predicted to be subjected to deep
mining. The figures are large due to the lower extraction efficiency
for deep mines, the increasing percentage of ORBES coal originating from
deep mines, and the inclusion of all land potentially subject to
subsidence. Historical information indicates that only a small portion
(perhaps five to ten percent) of the area potentially subject to sub-
sidence will actually subside during the period of 50 to 100 years after
the mining activity. However, it is virtually certain that over long
periods of time, geological processes will fill the voids created by deep
mining. Surface subsidence is one means of filling the voids. In most
instances, the surface damage from subsidence (e.g., damage to tile
drainage) can be readily repaired and the land returned to its previous
use. Assuming enforcement of current reclamation regulations, only a
very small portion of the land impacted by coal extraction will be
unavailable for productive use at any given time.
Limestone will be required in large quantities to remove sulfur
from stack gases from certain coal-fired generating stations. The
necessary limestone will be quarried from the gound and therefore result
in land use changes. Limestone strata are widely distributed in the
ORBES region and therefore mining will likely occur near the electric
generation sites in order to minimize costs incurred in transporting
the bulky material.
5.2.2. CONVERSION
Substantial amounts of land will be irreversibly impacted by
energy conversion facilities. The conversion function also includes
land required for cooling (either ponds or towers), fuel storage, and
on-site waste disposal. It is true that in some cases, cooling ponds
can also be used for recreation (e.g., boating and fishing) and coal
conversion waste disposal land can be reclaimed for some other use but
for the most part, power plant land is irreversibly impacted.
5.2.3. ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
Electrical transmission lines will traverse much of the ORBES
region. In areas where transmission lines cross prime agricultural
land, something on the order of 80 to 95% of the land initially impacted
by construction can be returned to agricultural^ use within a year.
Approximately 5 to 20% of the initially impacted land would be irreversibly
dedicated to substations, access roads, and support towers. In forested
II-C-57
-------
areas, the land use change would be somewhat greater since trees cannot
be grown beneath transmission lines as can agricultural crops. However,
transmission corridors through forests may provide additional wildlife
habitat and recreational space.
5.2.4. WASTE DISPOSAL
Land use requirements associated with waste disposal are judged
to be relatively minor in comparison with the areas treated above. More
waste will probably be generated in connection with energy utilization
than in connection with other energy-related functions. Coal conversion,
particularly plants using limestone scrubbers, will generate large
volumes of waste which will generally be stored on-site. This land
requirement has been included in the conversion function. Coal mining
will also generate a great deal of waste to be disposed of on-site.
These impacts 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 will produce small quantities of hazardous waste which
will likely be concentrated at regional waste disposal sites. The ORBES
region has a low-level waste disposal site and is a possible location for
a high-level waste repository. Nuclear waste disposal requires more land
than the amount of waste would seem to indicate due to need for large
buffer zones to protect the environment from possible contamination.
Lands devoted to nuclear waste disposal would be irreversibly impacted.
5.2.5. PROCESSING
Coal processing will affect small areas at the mining site. The
land can be reclaimed along with other mine-affected acreage. Nuclear
processing facilities currently occupy small amounts of land in the
ORBES region. Even the possibility of greatly increased enrichment
capacity in the region does not pose a serious land use conflict. This
land is irreversibly impacted.
Though not included in Table II-C-14, the RTCs will require
extensive amounts of land to accommodate the economic-energy-consuming
activities embedded in them. In fact, it would appear that the land
use implications to support such activities will be as great or greater
than those land uses dedicated to energy production. Thus, the following
discussion is intended to provide some perspective on the impacts of this
class of land use.
H-C-58
-------
5.2.6. UTILIZATION3
The BOM scenario is based on the premise that population and per
capita consumption of electrical energy will increase substantially.
Even after discounting for the substitution of electrical energy for oil
and natural gas, the scenario implies a greater population with a higher
standard of living. This indicates a substantial increase in land
utilized for industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation
uses. Only small and largely unpredictable differences in land utiliza-
tion impacts are expected between RTCs. The BOM scenario calls for a
5.8% growth rate in electrical energy. The Ford Tech Fix scenario
incorporates strict conservation measures and energy saving technology
but still "... can provide essentially the same kind of energy services
(miles of travel, quality of housing and levels of heating and cooling,
manufacturing output, etc.) as the Historical Growth scenario ..."
(2 p. 46). The Historical Growth scenario uses a six to seven percent
growth rate for electric generation (2, p. 29). Therefore, little
difference is expected if goods and services as well as population are
similar for all RTCs. Utilized land impacts are essentially irreversible
and will extend beyond the ORBES region, at least to the parts of
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio not in the region.
Utilization impacts may be greater than the combined impacts from
all direct energy functions. A crude estimate of the utilized land
impact can be obtained by apportioning the national historic urban con-
version rate to the ORBES region by population ratio and linearly extra-
polating to 2000. A first approximation calculation can be completed by
subtracting the amount of developed land already accounted for in
Table II-C-14. Clearly, such a figure does not take into account
regional differences in population or economic growth, or changes and
differences in standard of living. Based on a national land development
rate of 700,000 acres per year (3) and an 8.8% ORBES share of total U.S.
population, the amount of land converted to urban uses in the ORBES
region between 1976 and 2000 would be about 2,000 square miles. This is
greater than the combined impact of all energy-related functions for the
most intensive RTC — the BOM 80-20 - 1,800 square miles. The 2,000
square mile figure is probably conservatively low but it indicates that
the BOM scenario land requirements should be expanded by more than a
factor of two, and the Ford Tech Fix land requirements should be expanded
by nearly a factor of five to include utilization impacts.
In the remainder of this report the words "utilization" and
"utilized" shall be used as applying to those land use functions devoted
to industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation; i.e.,
functions which stem from the economic growth and energy consumption
activities predicted for the 4 RTCs.
II-C-59
-------
5.2.7. LAND USE CONFLICTS .
The major impact of the land use changes indicated above will
likely be on land which is currently used for agricultural purposes,
including privately owned forest'land (see the land use maps which
follow, as well as summarizing Table II-C-15). Comparison of the crop
land use map and the forest land use map (see Figures II-C-16,17) with
the coal reserve maps (see Figures II-C-19,20) clearly demonstrates the
potential conflict between coal development and agricultural development
in the Illinois Basin and between coal development and forestry in the
Appalachian portions of the ORBES region.
It is true that in the recent past, for the nation as a whole,
the amount of farm land brought into production is greater than the
amount lost to urban, suburban, industrial, and transportation uses (12).
However, it is also true that in order to maintain the same production,
the removal of prime agricultural land (like much of that in the ORBES
region) will lead to the bringing into production of an increment of
marginal land greater than the amount of prime land removed (13).
Further, it is not feasible to substitute marginal land to produce
commodities which require unique climate and soil (12). Much of the
ORBES region is within zones of unique climate and soils particularly
suitable to the production of corn, soybeans, and tobacco. It is also
becoming increasingly doubtful that additional energy-intensive inputs
to agriculture (e.g., further mechanization, fertilizers, chemical
herbicides and pesticides, etc.) can increase productivity much further
(14). Thus, increased demands (resulting from both rising population
and rising standard of living as implied in the RTCs) for specialized
ORBES region agricultural products, coupled with decreasing land
availability and the prospect of slowed growth in productivity are
likely to result in food prices which are higher than they otherwise
would have been without the land demands imposed by a high level of
energy development.
In addition to the potential for the food-energy land use con-
flict described above* there are also the serious conflicts that will
inevitably arise between energy development and its concomitant economic
development with historical and archeological sites. The ORBES region
is particularly rich in the cultural history of the American Indians
and in the 19th century industrial development of the United States.
These conflicts can be minimized by avoiding, or otherwise providing
for the preservation of, such sites during the plant siting process.
Aesthetic impacts of cooling towers, smoke stacks, and trans-
mission lines can be minimized by judicious siting of such facilities
out of the line of site of scenic rivers and highways and well away
from recreation areas.
II-C-60
-------
Table.II-C-15.
FOUR STATE LAND USE, 1967
Land Use Categories
1— 1
1
o
1
CTi
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
TOTAL
Total Land
Area Acres
35,765,625
23,131,759
25,510,881
26,205,600
110,613,865
Urban
Acres
2,450,674
1,487,319
834,858
2,759,612
7,532,463
%
7
6
3
11
7
Crop
Acres
24,361,000
13,880,801
6,586,739
12,741,873
57,570,413
%
68
60
26
49
52
Pasture
Acres
3,345,493
2,298,225
5,164,880
2,735,244
13,543,842
%
9
10
20
10
12
Forest
Acres
3,584,772
3,760,751
10,988,166
6,340,168
24,673,857
%
10
16
43
24
22
Other
Acres
2,023,686
1,704,663
1,936,238
1,628,703
7,293,290
%
6
8
8
6
7'
SOURCE: References 4, 5, 6 & 7.
-------
Figure II-C-15
I
o
0>
ro
SOURCE
: REFERENCES 4, 5, 6 & 7
-------
I
o
I
CTi
OJ
Figure II-C-16
CROP LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA)
90 - 100
80 - 90
70 - 80
60 - 70
50 - 60
40 - 50
- 40
UJ20 - 30
010 - 20
!_! 0 - 10
SOURCE: REFERENCES 4, 5, 6 & 7
-------
Figure II-C-17
FOREST LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA)
o
i
SOURCE: REFERENCES 4, 5, 6 & 7
-------
CTl
cn
Figure II-C-18
PASTURE LAND USE, 1967
(AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND AREA)
i
80 - 90
70 - 80
60 - 70
50 - 60
40 - 50
30 - 40
20 - 30
10 - 20
0-10
0
SOURCE: REFERENCES 4, 5, 6 & 7
-------
\
Figure II-C-19
DEEP MINEABLE COAL RESERVE BASE, 1975
(IN MILLIONS OF TONS)
o
CTl
cn
COAL
TONS
or greater
001 -
501 -
251 -
101 -
26 -
10 -
1 -
0.01 -
000
000
500
250
100
25
9
0.9
0
SOURCE: REFERENCE 8
-------
Figure II-C-20
STRIP MINEABLE COAL RESERVE BASE, 1975
(IN MILLIONS OF TONS)
STRIP COAL
x!06 TONS
1,001 or greater
261 - 1,000 •
260
101 - 150
100
50
25
10
.01 - 0.9
0
SOURCE: REFERENCE 8
-------
I
IT
Figure II-C-21 „ »
SURFACE MINING AFFECTED ACREAGE
(INCLUDES ONLY COAL AFFECTED ACREAGE EXCEPT IN INDIANA
WHERE ABOUT 90% OF THE AFFECTED ACREAGE IS
DUE TO SURFACE EXTRACTION OF COAL)
SURFACE MINING
AFFECTED LAND(ACRES)
50,001 or greater
40,001 - 50,000
20,001 - 40,000
• 20,000
• 10,000
• 5,000
- 1,000
100
9
0
SOURCE: REFERENCE 9, 10 & 11
-------
5.2.8. POLICY ISSUES
Some of the relevant land use questions are presented below:
1. What are the appropriate priorities for land use in the ORBES
region? Should energy development receive a higher priority than agri-
cultural development or recreation and open-space development?
2. Should the various levels of government continue or initiate
land use controls to promote or restrict energy development in selected
(e.g., less sensitive) areas? Should market mechanisms be allowed to
operate unconstrained so that energy development takes place in a least-
cost (e.g., narrowly defined as only economic cost) manner or should
social costs relating to land use also be considered?
3. Should the various levels of government continue or initiate
land restoration regulations which seek to ameliorate impacts from energy
development? How strict should such regulations be?
4. Should the various levels of government become involved in
encouraging the development of industrial and urban use of strip mined
land and thereby concentrate development in areas already impacted, thus
avoiding disturbance of additional land and avoiding the high cost of
returning agricultural land to production?
5.2.9. POLICY OPTIONS
5.2.9.1. ZONING
This option is usually promulgated at the local and county levels.
It is capable of providing local control over the allocation of land
resources. This method can reduce potential land use conflicts and can
restrict development to most suitable and least sensitive areas.
5.2.9.2. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING
This option is similar to zoning but broader in that it can be
promulgated at state or national levels to deal with land use conflicts
at larger scales. The structure of such planning implies the integra-
tion of local and county plans into statewide plans which are in turn
integrated into a national plan. The potential for such planning is
obvious in the case of energy which requires integrated effort at all
levels of government. The Illinois South Project has formulated some
recommendations which fit into the zoning and land use planning context
at the state level (15). They recommend a procedure by which counties
are classified according to agricultural production capability and coal
production capability. Certain counties with particularly high agri-
cultural potential would be protected against new energy development.
II-C-69
-------
Other counties would allow energy development only in areas of low
agricultural potential. Still other counties would place no restrictions
on energy development. This type of planning could reduce potential land
use conflicts while preserving prime agricultural land.
5.2.9.3. GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
This option would allow various levels of government to purchase
land outright or only certain rights to specified types of uses.
Historical, archeological, scenic, recreational, and other sensitive
areas could be protected in this way.
5.2.9.4. USE - VALUE - TAX ASSESSMENT
This option is particularly useful in preserving agricultural
land from urban encroachment. It allows farm land preservation by
reducing the financial necessity of farmers to sell to developers. By
this method farm land is taxed on the basis of its use-value rather than
its market value. This taxation method has been adopted by several
Illinois counties on the fringes of urban areas (16).
5.2.9.5. LAND RESTORATION AUTHORITY
This option includes state and federal strip mine bills. The
ORBES states have already enacted such legislation but federal legisla-
tion is pending. Such legislation requires mine operations to reclaim
strip mined land and to provide bond money for government restoration
if the operator fails to do so.
II-C-70
-------
5.3. WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY
- •• . ,• - •• •
The hydro!ogical and water quantity impacts of energy production
are of two major types: changes in temporal and spatial distribution
of flows as a result of surface mining, and reductions of flow quantities
due to water losses for evaporative cooling.
In the past, strip mining has left the land in ridges approximately
50-100 feet apart. These conditions could result in entrapment of rain-
fall and delay of the time at which the water reaches a watercourse,
thus reducing downstream flood peaks; or it could accelerate the water in
its travel to a watercourse and increase downstream flooding. The fact
that the land was without vegetation tended to decrease time of flow in
the early years after mining; later, after vegetation returned, the
ridge and valley pattern encouraged ponding and decreased flooding. In
recent years, regulation of strip mining practices has required mine
operators to return the land to more "natural" contours, thus minimizing
the hydrologic impact.
Evaporative cooling will cause reductions in flow quantities. It
is evident that there is sufficient water within the ORBES region to
supply all of the evaporative cooling needs reflected in any of the
scenarios; however, when one explores the needs on a smaller scale than
the whole region (at the single-county or few-county level), one finds
some locations where there is insufficient water. It is likely that
such difficulties may be resolved by the shipment of cooling water over
fairly short distances (perhaps up to 50 miles).
Since the need for evaporative cooling water is approximately 50%
greater with nuclear power than with fossil fuel generation, the impact
is obviously less with coal-fired plants than with nuclear generating
stations.
Preliminary data from a Task 4 special study indicate that the
total consumptive use of water (domestic, agricultural, industrial, and
power generation) may be of such a magnitude that it interferes with
other uses of the water, particularly the in-stream uses (recreation and
navigation). The 7-day, 10-year low flow is a measure frequently used
as a reasonable lower bound on flow in a river; it is that flow-rate,
measured over seven consecutive days, below which river flow falls no
more than once in ten years, on the average. The preliminary data
indicate that the consumptive usesl under the BOM 50-50 scenario will be
approximately 11% of the 7-day, 10-year low flow through the basin.
Since the 7-day 10-year low flow does not normally occur in all rivers
of the basin at the same time, this does not mean that the entire flow
out of the basin will be diminished by 11%. However, it should be
pointed out that the Mississippi River cannot sustain navigation when
For example, water not returned to the stream, as opposed to
withdrawal uses, in which the water is used and returned, undimished in
quantity though perhaps diminished in quality.
II-C-71
-------
it is flowing at the level of the 7-day, 10-year low flow. Thus, it is
possible that the large consumptive use of water could interfere with
navigation (and probably recreation) on occasion.2
In addition, it is important to recognize that a great deal of
the magnitude of the impact depends upon the developments and uses of
water in adjoining regions. If one considers only the surface water
flow which originates (as rainfall) within the Ohio River Basin, then
the consumptive use is significantly greater than 100% of the 7-day,
10-year low flow. This figure is cited simply to emphasize that,
although there is adequate water in the Ohio River Basin, a large
portion of that water enters the basin as river flow from other regions;
and the Ohio Basin is dependent upon the continuation of that flow. As
competing uses are developed (i.e., irrigation in the Missouri Basin),
the significance of consumptive withdrawal within the Ohio Basin
becomes greater.
5.3.1. POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS
It may be seen above that the major water quantity impact of the
various scenarios is on the "in-stream" uses of the water. A number of
policy options are available to affect a proper balance between these
two competing uses of the water:
Redistribution of water rights in such a way as to
facilitate the desired uses and inhibit the undesired uses.
Further improvement of river channels so as to permit
navigation (and possibly other in-stream uses) under low-flow
conditions.
Reconsideration of the policy prohibiting the use of
once-through cooling, and evaluating the trade off between the
consumptive use of evaporative cooling and the potential
ecological damages and benefits of thermal discharge.
Development and initiation of water conservation measures
relating to those consumptive uses of water which have lower
priority.
2 . . . . ' •.
This question is being more thoroughly investigated in a Task 4
study.
II-C-72
-------
5.4. IMPACTS ON MINERAL RESOURCES
This section deals with the direct impact of the four scenarios
upon two finite basic fuels: coal and uranium. In addition, the
mineral resource commitments to the construction of power plants under
the various futures is also considered.
5.4.1. COAL
The ORBES region is a tremendous producer and consumer of coal.
Presently coal is both imported into the ORBES region as well as exported.
To ascertain the impacts of each growth rate scenario, the current
reserve base will be defined, present ORBES coal production and consump-
tion will be examined, and future consumption through the year 2000 will
be estimated.
The terms "reserves" and "resources" are often confused and can
be very misleading. Coal resources refer to the total amount of coal in
the ground, expressed in tons or BTUs. Coal reserves refer to the total
amount that can be mined economically using present mining techniques.
Environmental restrictions, types of mining and economic consideration
determine the percentage of reserves which are recoverable for a given
mining operation. In the ORBES region there is an estimated coal
resource of approximately 455 billion tons (1972, U.S. Geological Survey).
Presently there exists an estimated reserve of about 123 billion tons in
the region. With the exception of eastern Kentucky, the majority of the
deposits in the ORBES region is high in sulfur content and, when burned,
creates emissions that violate current air quality standards. The
effective utilization of ORBES region high-sulfur coal is dependent upon
appropriate mixing with imported low-sulfur coal or treatment before,
during, or after utilizing a variety of developing technologies to reduce
air pollutants.
Western coal deposits (mostly Wyoming, Montana, Utah and
Colorado) and eastern deposits (mostly ORBES region) are significantly
different in many properties. The Illinois region of ORBES uses a
Western coal with slightly different specification than that used by
Indiana and Ohio. Where the difference may be important, the Indiana-
Ohio imported coal will be identified as Northwestern coal. For
convenience in the narrative, both will be called Western coal. The
major controlling parameters for a given coal deposit are the sulfur
content and the BTU/lb. Appendix B defines the sulfur content and the
BTU/pound values assumed for each type of coal used in this study. In
general, Western coal has a smaller BTU/pound rating than Eastern coal.
This frequently requires a modification in boiler design. The coals
are not readily interchangeable at a specific plant. More tonnage of
Western coal than Eastern coal, therefore, is needed for the same
kilowatt hours produced. The optimum coal would have a high BTU/pound
content and low sulfur concentration.
II-C-73
-------
Western coal is recovered primarily through open pit mining
operations with an extraction efficiency of 85% to 90%. Eastern coal
reserves are mined both by underground and strip mining techniques.
Coal deposits greater than 75 cm thick at depths less than 35 meters
are considered strippable coal reserves. Deposits greater than 85 cm
thick at depths more than 35 but less than 300 meters are counted as
deep mineable reserves. The average extraction efficiency of a strip
mine is about 80%. Extraction efficiencies of underground mines range
from 45% to 70% depending on the type of operation. In areas where
land subsidence can be tolerated, as much coal is removed as possible.
The mine is expected to collapse after the coal is removed, resulting
in planned land subsidence. The extraction efficiency of this type of
operation is 65%to 70%. In areas where land subsidence cannot be
tolerated, pillars of coal are left unmined to lessen land subsidence.
Extraction efficiencies of 45%to 50% result from this operation. One
million tons of coal recovered from a mine with 80% efficiency will
result in a reduction of the reserves by 1.25 million tons. The
remaining 25 million tons are thus considered unrecoverable.
The total amount of coal required per generating unit depends
on the BTU content. For comparative purposes, 37% overall plant
conversion efficiency and a 47.8% capacity factor are assumed in the
following table:
Table II-C-16
COAL REQUIRED FOR A BOM 1000 MW(E) UNIT
AND A FORD TECH FIX 600 MW(E) UNIT
IN MILLION TONS/YEAR
Western Coal ORBES Coal
Size of Unit
600 MW(E)
1000 MW(E)
8,500 BTU/ Ib
1.38
2.32
11,000 BTU/lb
1.06
1.76
If S02 removal equipment is used, the overall plant efficiency
may drop 1 to 2 percentage points, requiring about 4% more coal than
indicated in the chart. A cost effective method of coal combustion is
to burn a mixture of low-sulfur coal and high-sulfur coal. The mixture
would.be such that the maximum amount of high-sulfur ORBES coal is used
while still remaining within air standards. If a mixture of coal is
used, the coal requirements per year would be somewhere between the
values indicated for Western 8,500 BTU/pound coal and ORBES 11,000 BTU/
pound coal shown in Table II-C-16.
II-C-74
-------
Sulfur is found 1n three main forms 1n coal: organic combina-
tions, pyrites (inorganic), and as sulfates. Mechanical cleaning by
washing with water at the mine site can remove large portions of the
inorganic sulfur. This is presently a standard practice. However, the
organic sulfur compounds cannot be easily removed by washing. To meet
EPA air quality standards of. 1.2 pounds of SOg per million BTU, 10,000
BTU/pound coal would have an allowable maximum sulfur content of .6%,
without S02 emissions control equipment. The following graph illustrates
the relationship between BTU/pound and sulfur content necessary to meet
EPA standards. Coals with properties to the right of the line do not
comply. The overwhelming majority of ORBES coal (the exception being
some eastern Kentucky deposits) falls to the right of this line, even
after washing. Actually a somewhat higher sulfur content is allowed
since 100% of the sulfur does not leave the stacks as S02.
15,000
14,000
13.000
13,000
2 11.000
£D
< 10.000
I
-il
o
9.000
8,000
7,000 -
6,000 -
5.000
I
I
0.3 0.4 0.5 06 07 0.8 0.9
SULFUR CONTENT, weight-percent
1.0
Figure II-C-22
PLOT OF THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SULFUR CONTENT
VERSUS BTU CONTENT OF COAL COMMENSURATE
WITH EPA AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
II-C-75
-------
Table II-C-17 shows that each of the four ORBES states has
abundant coal reserves, the total estimated tonnage of coal reserves
contained in the ORBES region amounts to about 29% of the total U.S.
reserves. In the tables, the number shown on top refers to the deep
mineable reserves while the lower number refers to the surface mineable
reserves. For example, in the eastern Kentucky coal deposits (less
than 1% sulfur by weight), 5 billion tons of coal can be deep mined and
an additional 1.5 billion tons can be surface mined.
These reserves represent a tremendous energy source. They
currently supply coal to areas inside as well as outside the ORBES
region. The ORBES region supplies half of the coal consumed in the U.S.
In 1975, the electric utility industry consumed 66% of. the total U.S.
coal production. Coke for pig iron blast furnaces consumed 17% of the
U.S. product. The rest of the coal was used by industrial and manufac-
turing plants for process steam and space heating. The electric
utilities fractional share of coal consumption will continue to increase
as it has throughout the past two decades. The increase will be a
result of continual government and economic pressure on the utilities to
use coal instead of more precious and costly oil and gas. To get a good
perspective of what the current coal production level in the ORBES
region is, pertinent 1975 data is compiled in Table II-C-18. This table
shows 1975 coal production for U.S. electric utility use by ORBES states.
Table II-C-18
1975 ORBES PRODUCTION OF COAL FOR ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY IN MILLIONS OF TONS*
Millions of % Consumed
Tons Produced % of U.S. Total Within the % Consumed
Producing for Electric Electric Utility Same Pro- Within
State Generation Coal Produced ducing State ORBES States
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
ORBES Total
49.2
22.9
100.9
39.6
212.6
11.5
5.3
23.5
9.2
49.5
43
82
21
74
—
53
91
35
74
52
*This table was compiled from data presented in the May 1976 Staff
Report by the Bureau of Power* Federal Power Commission— "Annual
Summary of Cost'&.Quality of Steam Electric Plant Fuels, 1975."
II-C-76
-------
Table II-C-17
COAL RESERVES BY SULFUR CONTENT IN BILLIONS OF TONS (SHORT)*
Having a Sulfur Content - Weight %
•—4
1— 1
1
o
1
111.
Ind.
E. Ky.
W. Ky.
Ohio
Total ORBES
Total Eastern
Reserves**
N. Western
Reserves***
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
Deep
Strip
<1.0
1.00
.06
.44
.11
5.04
1.52
< .01
< .01
.12
.02
6.64
1.70
18.7
4.8
86.1
51.4
1.1-3.0
5.85
1.49
2.75
.56
2.39
.93
.39
.18
5.45
.99
16.8
4.15
34.1
6.3
7.88
12.45
>3.0
33.6
9.32
4.36
.91
.21
.87
7.23
2.02
10.1
2.52
55.6
14.9
65.7
15.4
1.73
.44
Undetermi ned
12.9
1.35
1.40
.10
1.81
.92
1.11
1.71
1.75
.12
19.0
4.2
25.4
4.8
3.41
2.32
Total
53.4
12.2
8.95
1.67
9.47
3.45
8.72
3.90
17.4
3.7
98.0
24.9
159.0
31.2
99.1
66.7
Deep plus Strip
65.6
10.6
12.9
12.6
21.1
123.0
186.0
166.0
*This table was compiled from data presented in the 1975 U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circulars
#IC 8680 and #IC 8693.
**Eastern reserves contained in 111., Ind., Ohio, Ky., Penn., and W.Va.
***N.Western reserves contained in Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
-------
Current coal consumption by utilities in the ORBES region, in
terms of coal origin, has developed into a complex matter. The total
tons of coal produced from the ORBES region in 1975 was enough to supply
all the electric utility needs within the region. But because regional
coal is predominatly high in sulfur, low-sulfur coal is imported from
the western states and from Appalachian mines to meet $03 emission
restrictions. Costs as well as local environmental restrictions dictate
the type of coal or mix of coal ultimately burned at a given generating
site.
In order to assess the impacts of the different growth scenarios
the present (1975) coal usage situation must be examined. The 1975
utility coal consumption in million tons in each of the ORBES states was
as follows: Illinois, 34; Indiana, 31; Kentucky, 25.5; and Ohio, 46.9.
These figures apply to the entire state and are not limited to the ORBES
region. Table II-C-19 provides more detail of the actual 1975 coal
deliveries to utilities in the ORBES states.
Table II-C-20 presents this same data in a more comprehensive
manner. Coal deliveries from Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming were
grouped into the "western import" category. Deliveries from Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia are included in the "eastern
import" group. It is very evident that in 1975, the ORBES utilities
relied heavily on ORBES coal.
Future coal usage by ORBES utilities (and the U.S. generally)
will depend on many factors. They are: air quality standards, relative
coal costs, and success of economic sulfur removal techniques. This
means that post-combustion SO? removal systems must be employed when
burning high-sulfur ORBES coal. Precombustion sulfur removal technology
is not presently commercial and may only effect the latter years of the
scenario study period. Converting coal to clean gas for utility com-
bustion is assumed to begin in the late 1990's. If S02 flue gas scrubbers
are not used, low-sulfur coal, primarily from western states, must be
burned. Strict adherence to emissions level restrictions could result in
a dramatic shift from the 1970 coal consumption pattern, particularly if
S02 scrubbers are not installed. The high-sulfur ORBES coal then could
simply not be burned. The assumed future coal used by types and origin
is detailed in Appendix B.
Table II-C-21 shows a comparison between 1975 ORBES coal consump-
tion and the predicted 1985 values. Two estimates of the 1985 coal
requirements are presented. The 1985 prediction based on the same coal
mixture as observed in 1975 is shown to contrast those developed under
the BOM scenarios. The assumptions, detailed in Appendix B, used to
predict BOM 1985 scenario requirements reflect an abrupt compliance with
sulfur emission requirements by using imported low-sulfur coal instead
of relying on post-combustion scrubbers together with high-sulfur ORBES
coal* A clear departure from 1975 practices is indicated for Indiana
and Ohio.
II-C-78
-------
Table II-C-19
1975 COAL CONSUMPTION IN THE ORBES STATES AND THE ORIGIN
OF THE COAL IN MILLIONS OF TONS*
State Where Coal was Produced
Consuming
»— i
o
1
vo
State
111.
Ind.
Ky.
Ohio
Colo. 111. Ind.
.01 21.22 .38
3.13 18.90
1.97 1.58
.03
Ky. Mont. Ohio Pa. Tenn.
1.18 9.31 .01
5.05 .82
21.66 .17 .10
7.15 29.11 2.17 .03
Utah Va. W.Va. Wy.
.02 1.87
.13 .02 .08 2.84
.36 .52 6.54 .94
Total
Utility
Use**
34.00
30.97
25.48
46.86
*This table was compiled from data presented in May 1976 Staff Report by the Bureau of Power, Federal Power
Commission "Annual Summary of Cost and Quality of Steam Electric Plant Fuels, 1975."
**The total figure is an accurate value. It does not necessarily agree with the sum of the state's contri-
bution, because of rounding and not including amounts <10,000 tons.
-------
Table II-C-20
1975 ORBES STATE ELECTRIC UTILITY COAL CONSUMPTION
AND GROUPED ORIGIN OF COAL
Coal Origin
Consuming
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total Coal
Consumed
(Million Tons)
34.00
30.97
25.48
46.86
A COMPARISON BETWEEN
PREDICTED
ORBES
Portion
of State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Total
1975
Consumption
(Million Tons)
22.9
24.1
25.5
37.6
110.1
% Produced
from Own % Western
State Imports
62.4 33.0
61.0 12.2
85.0 0.7
62.1 2.8
Table II-C-21
1975 COAL CONSUMPTION
IN THE BOM SCENARIOS TO
1985
Requirements Based
on Extrapolation
of 1975 Consumption
(Million Tons)
From ORBES
Imported Region
10.3 20.9
4.8 33.8
.4 41.8
10.0 35.9
25.5 132.4
% ORBES % Eastern
Region Imports
67.0 <0.1
87.4 0.4
98.9 0.4
77.6 19.8
WITH CONSUMPTION
1985
1985
Requirements According
to the BOM Scenario
(Million Tons)
From ORBES
Imported Region
11.5 17.4
37.4 0.0
0.0 25.3
55.6 0.0
104.5 42.7
II-C-80
-------
Coal requirements for the year 2000 to meet each of the scenarios
are shown in Table II-C-22. The appearance of ORBES coal being used in
Indiana and Ohio is a result of new generating facilities built after
1985 being equipped with effective SO? scrubbing systems. Again, refer
to Appendix B for the detailed assumptions used to calculate coal
requirements.
Table II-C-22
YEAR 2000 PROJECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY COAL CONSUMPTION
IN MILLIONS OF TONS/YEAR
Ford Tech Fix
100% Nuclear
State
111.
Ind.
Ky-
Ohio
Total
N.West
9.3
32.0
0.0
48.0
59.3
Eastern
15.3
0.0
23.3
0.0
38.6
Ford Tech Fix
100% Coal
N.West
9.3
33.2
0.0
53.4
95.9
Eastern
15.3
3.2
26.4
8.8
53.7
BOM
50-50
N.West
11.5
47.4
0.0
59.1
118.0
Eastern
40.1
17.1
47.2
38.9
103.3
BOM
80-20
N.West
11.5
47.4
0-0
65.7
124.6
Eastern
56.0
35.3
67.2
63.2
221.7
To examine the impact on our present estimated coal reserves, the
total cumulative tons consumed by ORBES utilities from 1975 through the
year 2000 for each scenario are shown in Table II-C-23.
With an assumed overall mining extraction efficiency of 70%,
ORBES electric utility coal consumption from 1975 through the year 2000
will account for only a 1.9% reduction in ORBES coal reserves (BOM 80-20).
The impact on depleting coal reserves is clearly very small in comparison
to the huge reserves.
Other impacts will be more significant. The near future coal
consumption predictions indicate a shift from high-sulfur coal produced
in the ORBES region to low-sulfur coal primarily (except eastern
Kentucky) produced in western United States. This shift is more apparent
in the Ford Tech Fix scenarios where only new replacement plants will be
equipped with S02 scrubbers. ORBES coal producers would be forced to
find other markets.
II-C-81
-------
Table II-C-23
TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTED COAL CONSUMPTION BY ORBES UTILITIES FROM 1975
THROUGH 2000 AND COMPARISON WITH RESERVE BASE
Consumption 1975 Estimated Reserves* % Reserves Consumed
(Billion Tons) (Billion Tons) by 2000
.»— t •
1
1
CO
ro
Scenario
Ford Tech Fix
100% Nuclear
100% Coal
BOM
50-50
80-20
N. Western
2.30
2.34
2.70
2.72
Eastern N. Western Eastern
.88
.94 166. 186.
1.82
2.48
N. Western Eastern
1.4 .5
1.4 .5
1.6 1.0
1.6 1.3
*Eastern reserves are from 111., Ind., Ky., Ohio, Penn., and W. Va. only (bituminous).
N.Western reserves are from Mont., Utah, and Wyoming only (subbituminous & bituminous)
Data taken from U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circulars #IC 8680 & #IC 8693 (1975).
-------
The BOM 80-20 scenario places the greatest demand on coal pro-
duction. About four times as much coal will be required in 2000 as
was used in 1975. Coal production will have to be increased signifi-
cantly to meet this demand, particularly low-sulfur coal production.
A greater portion of new mines in the ORBES region will be deep
underground operations. It takes about five years to develop a deep
mine to full production. The extraction efficiency increases for about
seven years after which a gradual decline is noted until final closure
of the mine. High capital costs for mining equipment and land acquisi-
tion will be required to achieve large yearly production from new mines.
New mines are expected to produce at least 3 million tons per year. The
actual number of mining operations has been steadily decreasing while
the total coal production has increased, indicating larger new mines.
The lead time for strip mines is about four years. Because of these
long lead times, any shift to western low-sulfur coal usage will have to
be gradual. A large new demand cannot be met without prior planning.
Coal rights for the ORBES region as well as for the entire
eastern deposits are held by private parties. Leasing this land for
coal production should present no significant problem, provided land
restoration laws are complied with. A large portion of the western
deposits, however, are located on federal and state owned land. Current
leasing policies should be reviewed to equitably develop these vast low-
sulfur coal reserves. However, it must be recognized that pressures are
building to protect the national lands of the west.
The main factor in the development of new mines within the ORBES
region is in meeting air quality standards when burning high-sulfur coal.
Present technology for practical mechanical washing can produce only a
small fraction of the coal (except eastern Kentucky coal) to satisfy the
current EPA compliance level. The technology for precombustion chemical
processing (different from mechanical washing) to remove sulfur has not
yet been developed to an acceptable level for full-scale industrial use.
Employing S02 flue gas scrubbers allows the use of hiqh-sulfur ORBES
coal. Utilities are currently experiencing numerous (but not insurmount-
able) operating difficulties, as well as sludge waste disposal problems
with present designs. Continued development of efficient and reliable
flue gas scrubbers is directly related to future use of ORBES high-sulfur
coal. If satisfactory SO? removal systems are not available, the
utilities will have to rely much more on low-sulfur coal from western and
eastern (Appalachian) mines. In the case of eastern low-sulfur mines,
the utilities will be in direct competition with metallurgical and
industrial needs for this high grade coal.
Suitable methods of sulfur removal must be developed so that the
ORBES region coal can be used as an economic and clean energy source for
the region. Federal policies encouraging the greater use of sulfur
removal equipment for ORBES utilities is an option. A policy to encourage
retrofitting existing facilities when it is deemed economic is another
option.
II-C-83
-------
The ORBES coal deposits represent an abundant energy source and
will continue to play a major part in the total U.S. energy conversion
industry.
Because of the great need to develop effective SO? scrubbing
technologies, there is a likely and fairly predictable direct impact
upon other mineral resources within the region: lime and limestone. If
SO? removal equipment which uses lime or limestone as the scrubbing
media becomes common, the demand for these resources would increase
enormously. Limestone is generally a plentiful material in the ORBES
region and is mostly obtained from open-pit mining operations. The
quantity of lime, limestone, or other carbonate material required for
flue-gas desulfurization for a particular plant would depend on the
sulfur content of the coal burned and, more significantly, on the
existing EPA emission standards.
4
Either crushed raw limestone or processed lime can be used in
the wet scrubbing process. The production of lime from limestone is a
very energy-intensive industry. Approximately 7.5 M BTU are required
to produce one ton of lime. About 2.2 tons of lime are used to remove
one ton of sulfur from the flue gas. If limestone is used, about 4.7
tons are needed to remove one tori of sulfur.
The total tonnages of limestone and other carbonate materials
required to meet the potential new demand, should S0£ scrubbers be
utilized* are quite large. However, on a national scale, the impact to
the overall limestone industry (800-900 million tons per year in 1974)
would be relatively small. This new demand would increase the existing
production by only 3-4 percent, the ORBES states would represent a
large portion of this new market.
If, however, because of economic and operation advantages, lime
is chosen as the reactarit in the wet scrubbers, the impact on the lime
industry would be very significant. To meet this new demand, the
national (and ORBES regional) supply of lime will have to be signifi-
cantly increased. The lime industry is currently operating near
capacity, so any new demand would necessitate opening new quarries and
the construction of new plants.The location of these new plants would
preferably be near the poWer units.
5.4.2. URANIUM
Most of the USA's uranium comes from sandstone and mudstone
deposits of the Colorado Plateau, the Wyoming Basins, and the Gu.lf Costal
Plains of Texas. Some low-grade uranium deposits are located in the
ORBES region in the Chattanooga Shale of Devonian and Mississippian age
and its Central Lowlands Equivalents and in the Illinois Basin which are
not currently mined because they are not considered economically
competitive.
• ••• ' ' II-C-84
-------
Exploration .for uranium requires core drilling of holes in the
earth's surface to identify and delineate economic uranium deposits in
order to establish known reserves for future recovery. The amount of
known reserves discovered is proportional to the amount of. feet drilled.
During the 1966-1974 period, domestic discovery rate has averaged 3.3
pounds of U^QQ per foot of drilling. The last two of those years, the
discovery rate has been only 2 Ib./ft. of drilling, indicating increased
cost in locating reserves. Present drilling rates will have to
increase 10 fold to meet domestic needs for the year 2000.
As a resource, uranium has been used mainly for its energy-
producing potential. Its use as a heavy metal has been limited; depleted
uranium, being stronger than lead, is used as a shielding material against
gamma rays.
The potential of uranium as an energy source depends upon its use
in nuclear reactors. The anticipated growth of nuclear power will con-
sume presently known reserves by the early 2000s if the uranium is used
strictly in light water reactors. Using plutonium in a self-generated
mixed oxide form will extend the energy available a few more years.
However, plutonium, utilized in breeder reactors, such as the liquid
metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR), could extend uranium as a resource
for several centuries.
The LMFBR makes use of the plutonium economy of uranium. Another
form of fission fuel, thorium, is also available. Thorium used in the
high-temperature gas-cooled breeder reactor or the light water breeder
reactor can breed U-233, which can approximately double the potential
energy available from uranium.
As far as uranium ore depletion is concerned, this study assumed
that if an ore deposit required underground mining because of depth,
only about 50% or less of the ore in the deposit would be recoverable
due to the mining method used. If surface mining is used, 80% or more
of the ore is assumed to be recoverable.
Considering a 60% capacity factor for nuclear units with no fuel
recycle, the yearly mining requirement for each 1000 MW(E) power plant
is about 110,000 tons of ore. Each reactor requires an initial load of
about 430 tons of natural 1)303. Typically, ore is transported less than
50 miles to a milling operation to yield about 190 tons of natural
uranium. The remaining material is solid tailings at the mill that
contains radioactive Ra"6 and Th"0 that has been unearthed so that
they are now a source of radioactivity. If the uranium came from an
open pit mine, as much as 2.5 x 10^ tons of overburden may also have
been moved.
The uranium (1^03 concentrate) requirement for each scenario is
listed in Table II-C-24. On the basis of the 47.8% capacity factor and
assumed starting dates, the uranium needs are expressed cumulatively to
II-C-35
-------
year 2000 and the forward commitment of fuel to operate these plants
beyond 2000 until their 30 years of operation terminates.
Table II-C-24
U30s CONCENTRATE IN TONS
FUEL NEEDS THROUGH YEAR 2000 AND COMMITMENT BEYOND 2000
FOR PLANT LIVES OF 30 YEARS EACH
Case
BOM 50-50
BOM 80-20
FTF 100% Nuclear
FTF 100% Coal
1st Load & Through 2000
165,000
82,000
35,000
23,000
Beyond 2000
623,000
232,000
154,000
45,000
Per an April 25, 1977 ERDA GRAND JUNCTION OFFICE Release #77-35,
the estimated uranium concentrate reserves are:
U.S. Uranium Resources
January
Tons
Reserves
250,000
160,000
410,000
270*000
680,000 1
1, 1977
U3°8
Probable
275,000
310,000
585,000
505,000
,090,000
Potential
Possible
115,000
375,000
490,000
630,000
1,120,000
Speculative
100,000
90,000
190,000
290,000
480,000
$/lb. U308
Cost Category
$10
$10-15 Increment
$15
$15-30 Increment
$30
NOTE: Uranium that could be produced as a by-product of phosphate and
copper production during the 1975-2000 period is estimated at
140,000 tons U308.
Estimated operating costs and those capital costs not yet incurred
are used in calculating reserves by cost categories. Costs already
incurred, such as expenditures for property acquisition, exploration arid
II-C-86 '
-------
mine development are nbt included, nor are taxes, cost of money, and
profit. Therefore, $10, $15, and $30 per pound do not represent the
prices at which the estimated reserves would be sold.
It is clear that the BOM 50-50 scenario will require much of the
potential uranium resources to be converted to reserves, which will
require a decided increase in exploratory and development drilling by
the uranium industry.
In assessing the uranium requirements by ORBES, several comments
may be appropriate:
1. The BOM 50-50 may be too great a nuclear commitment if
only LWRs are considered and the rest of the country is
also as eager for nuclear plants.
2. Reprocessing spent fuel for reuse of uranium and plutonium
may be a necessity and possibly be economic at the turn of
the century, hence easing the U000 requirement.
J O
3. The breeder reactor must be commercial and as far along as
the LWR by 2000 to 2010 if the country must further rely
on nuclear energy.
1 4. The thorium cycle of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors,
light water breeder reactors, and gas-cooled reactors may
need to be used to extend the energy calendar should fusion
be further off than presently thought.
The BOM 80-20 mix has, of course, a lesser impact on uranium ore
requirements, but it is greater than either of the Ford Tech Fix RTCs.
As a matter of fact, the 100% coal Ford Tech Fix case ends up with only
10% of the region capacity being nuclear. This is a lower percentage
than exists presently in the State of Illinois.
5.4.3. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Construction of the new power plants will have a short-term local
impact on the availability of material (crushed rock, gravel, cement,
lumber and road material) and large dirt-removing equipment. Site counties
could experience shortages of these things during the 3 to 4 year peak
construction period. Nuclear units being designed for greater seismic
loads use more material and have a longer construction period than coal
units.
An accurate estimate of construction materials is difficult to
obtain because they are all site specific and emphasize material needs
that may be 'in short supply in the area.
II-C-87
-------
The following table approximates the construction materials used
for a two unit PWR plant at Braidwood, IL totaling 2240 MW(E).
Table II-C-25
APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
FOR PWR PLANT AT BRAIDWOOD, ILLINOIS
Approximate Approximate
Quantity Quantity
Used in Plant « Used in Plant
Material
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Nickel
(Tons)
90
4,000
15
200
Material
Silver
Steel
Zinc
Other
(Tons)
2
20,000
200
400
Other includes asbestos (90 tons), chromium (300 tons), with small quan-
tities of beryllium, cadmium, gold, mercury, molybdemium, platinum, tin
and tungsten.
Construction of two 950 MW(E) BWRs at Clinton, IL indicates a
greater need for steel than is noted in the table above. Their literature
on construction shows a need of 43,000 tons of Rebar alone and 5214 tons
of structural steel.
The Clinton plant site requires a dam and spillway for cooling
water that may use some of the added steel. The rest of the difference
in steel requirement may be a typical difference between BWR and PWR
reactors.
A positive impact at the Clinton site should be noted. The
arterial roads have been improved to handle the heavier than usual truck
traffic during construction.
The concrete required at the Clinton plant is estimated at 461,000
cubic yards. This is equivalent to the concrete needed for a 50-mile
section of a four-lane interstate. If all nuclear units took the same
amount of concrete and coal units somewhat less, the BOM 50-50 mix
requires enough concrete to pave about 4000 miles of interstate. The
Ford Tech Fix RTC would need concrete equivalent to 900 miles of four-
lane interstate. Note that the 4000 miles is on the order of existing
interstates in the region. One would expect that local shortages of
good quality construction material will exist during the construction
phase of each plant site.
Hr OQ .
~v/-oo
-------
Construction material needs for a coal plant are for the most
part about one half those required for a nuclear plant. There are a
few exceptions such as structural and gird steel, and insulated and
uninsulated metal siding where the relationships are reversed.
Crushed rock and gravel are normally obtained locally because
it would be uneconomical to haul it a long distance by truck. This
drain may deplete several local sources of gravel and crushed rock.
This would provide an additional land-use impact locally which could
range from insignificant to severe depending on the site and local
terrain.
H-C-89
-------
5.5. SUMMARY - IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
There are adequate land, water and mineral resources in the ORBES
region or serving the ORBES region to accomplish even the high-growth
scenarios. Quite clearly both of the FTP futures are based on growth
rates that are quite easy to accommodate from the standpoint of natural
resource requirements.
The ORBES region has a total land mass of 152,000 square miles.
By the year 2000 under the high-coal-use BOM scenario, 1,800 square miles
will have been devoted permanently or temporarily to the full range of
energy activities. The basic problem in land use is not the relative
land commitment to energy but the conflict that those commitments repre-
sent to other present or potential uses. The conflict is most dramatic
in the ORBES region because it tends to be a conflict between food and
energy. Food surpluses ended as a national phenomenon in 1972. The
finiteness of our energy resources has only begun to be addressed since
1973. The "rediscovery" of coal as a prime energy source is as recent.
Little precedent exists for resolving effectively, with deference to
future generations, these fundamental and conflicting problems. Strict
land restoration laws have begun to emerge in the region. However, the
amount of time and capital necessary for complete restoration is not
clear. The science arid technology of land restoration is neither well
developed nor well understood.
Coal extraction is only one competitor for land use. The full
range of energy-related activities from extraction through distribution
and the supporting infra-structure tend to be land intensive. In addi-
tion, agricultural land is taken out of production for a wide variety of
other reasons, including urban growth, suburbanization, industrializa-
tion and commercialization, as well as increasing pressures for public
use of open space and recreational areas. The increase in these land
use functions will be greater and more permanent than coal extraction
activities. The aggregate of these pressures plus suspected or real
environmental impacts (to be discussed later) upon land productivity
are cause for some concern.
Policy issues concerning land use stem primarily from conflicts
which develop when the land is seriously disturbed, requiring extensive
restoration techniques, or when it has been converted permanently to
another use. Much more research is required to understand better the
economics and techniques of land restoration. At issue is whether mar-
ket mechanisms should be allowed to operate in an unconstrained way so
that only the direct and immediate economic benefits of coal and
agriculture are considered in determining the best uses of land. Local
and regional governments must become actively involved in placing priori-
ties upon local land use relative to a number of worthy competing
demands. This could involve zoning, comprehensive use planning and the
development and enforcement of land restoration standards. Within this
context plausible scenarios can be developed wherein land use, land
II-C-90
-------
restoration and regional planning are parts of a coordinated strategy
for reconciling current land use demands with the perceived future needs.
The not uncommon phenomenon of a western Illinois community surrounded
on three sides by fallow stripped land, with ground being broken on farm
land on the fourth side for the foundation of a new factory will hope-
fully become less and less common.
In the area of water resources, it seems clear that there is
adequate water to supply all the predicted economic and energy activities
in the ORBES region to the year 2000 even under the high growth rates pre-
sumed under the BOM scenarios. However, in these cases, the consumptive
uses may result in some interference with in-stream uses.
The policy issues related to water use and hydrology appear to be
relatively straightforward. Under the low activity characteristics of
the FTP futures, little more needs to be done concerning water than the
continued enforcement of current laws. Under the high activity scenarios,
the water supply is abundant enough that major change in water use policy
for the region probably need not be considered during the time horizon
of this study. An exception to this view may be the reconsideration of
the policy prohibiting the use of once-through cooling and the evaluation
of the trade off between the consumptive use of evaporative cooling and
the potential ecological damages and benefits of once-through thermal
discharge. There is evidence that once-through cooling is not harmful
environmentally, and it is conserving of water and capital.
There are signs, however, that toward the latter part of this
century some change in water use policy might have to come under consid-
eration. Preliminary calculations would indicate that though there is
adequate water in the Ohio River Basin, a large portion of that water
enters the Basin as river flow from other regions. This suggests that
if extraregional use becomes greater, the traditional riparian approach
to water use may have to be altered sometime in the next century to
assure a more equitable distribution of water.
For the remainder of this century, the primary issue related to
water is the river's attractiveness as a site for power plant location
and the impacts that this has upon the environment. This will be dis-
cussed more thoroughly in the chapter on environment.
Although this report deals with projected material requirements
for power plant construction and projected uranium needs for the nuclear
power plants in the several scenarios, the primary mineral issue is the
effective utilization of ORBES regional coal. In fact, in the time
horizon of this report the wise and environmentally compatible extrac-
tion and utilization of coal is the issue. Some nuclear options, such
as fusion, fall outside the time range of this report; and the number
of nuclear options are becoming more limited. The coal is there in
large quantity. Under the high-coal BOM scenario, it is estimated that
a 400 year supply of ORBES region coal will still be in the ground by
II-C-91
-------
2000. With scenarios that consume less coal the reserves in the year
2000 will range from a 500 year supply to a 2000 year supply. Utilities
will account for two-thirds of that use; other economic activities in
the region will account for the other third.
Coal can buy time - time to create and deploy alternate energy
producing and conserving systems. But expanded and extensive use of
coal burned as coal carries with it a plethora of costs.
The policy issues related to the use of coal are primarily environ-
mental ones. Consequently, the impacts of coal utilization and the policy
alternatives for controlling these impacts will be discussed more thor-
oughly in the chapter on environment. When viewing coal as a resource,
it is a study in enormities. It would appear that policies need not be
developed either on a state or regional basis that would either conserve
or protect coal as a resource. The fundamental policy in light of the
degrading impacts upon land, air and water is whether its use in the
first instance should in any way be restricted. Variations of that funda-
mental question are, of course, embedded in the four scenarios which have
been assessed. The summary section of this report will attempt to place
in some perspective what appear to be appropriate policies regarding
levels of use following the assessment of Impacts as we contrast the
four futures.
II-C-92
-------
REFERENCES
5. IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
5.?. LAND USE IMPACTS
1. D. MacFarland et al. Power Facility Siting in the State of
Illinois. Part II - Environmental Impacts of Large Energy Con-
version Facilities!Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute for Environ-
mental Quality, 1975.
2. A Time to Choose - America's Energy Future. Final Report, Ford
Foundation. The Energy Policy Project, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger,
1974.
3. M. K. Udall. Land Use: Why We Need Federal Legislation in No:
Land is An Island, Individual Rights and Government Control of
Land Use. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco,
1975.
4. University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Needs
Inventory, Urbana, 1970.
5. Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service, Indiana Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory, Lafayette, 1968.
6. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Kentucky Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, Lexington,
1970.
7. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Ohio
Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, Columbus, 1971.
8. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, The Reserve
Base of U. S. Coals by Sulfur Content. Part I, The Eastern States,
BOM Information Circular 8680, Washington, 1975.
9. Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, Division of Land Recla-
mation, 1975 Annual Coal, Oil and Gas Report, Springfield, 1976.
10. Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry, un-
published records, Indianapolis, 1974.
11. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation,
unpublished records, Columbus, 1976.
II-C-93
-------
12. G. Bowman, ed. Land Use: Issues and Research Needs for Plan-
ning, Policy and Allocation"! College of Agriculture, Washington
State University, 1976.
13. J. McCarron. "Developers Grabbing Rich Land." Chicago Tribune,
March 10, 1977.
14. J. Steinhart and C. Steinhart. "Energy Use in the U. S. Food
System." Science, April 19, 1974.
15. D. Ostendorf and J. Gibson. Illinois Land, The Emerging Conflict
Over the Use of Land for Agricultural Production and Coal Devel-
opment. Illinois South Project, Inc., Carterville, IL, 1976.
16. C. King. "Protecting Farmlands by Use-Value Assessment' in Illinois
Issues. Vol. Ill, No. 4, April, 1977.
5.4. IMPACTS ON MINERAL RESOURCES
The reader is referred to the following bibliographical material
which was used in a general way in preparation of the narrative.
1. U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1975 1C 8680. "The
Reserve Base of U. S. Coals by Sulfur Content Part 1. The
Eastern States."
2. U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1975 1C 8693. "The
Reserve Base of U. S. Coal by Sulfur Content Part 2. The Western
States."
3. "Changing Pattern of the Illinois Coal Market" Ramesh Malhotra.
Printed from Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coal
Utilization at the NCS/BCR Conference Expo 111, October 21-23,
1975, Louisville, Kentucky.
4. Illinois Minerals Note 57 "Electric Utility Plant Flue-Gas
Desulfurization" June 1974. Ramesh Malhotra and Robert L. Major.
5. "Annual Summary of Cost and Quality of Steam-Electric Plant
Fuels, 1975. Staff .Report by the Bureau of Power--Federal Power
Commission, May 1976.
6. Illinois Mineral Note 63 "Place of Coal in the Total Energy
Needs of the United States." Jack A. Simon and Ramesh Malhotra,
Jan. 1976.
7. Coal Traffic Annual 1976 Edition. Source: Replies of Electric
Utilities to NCA Questionnaire.
8. Illinois Minerals Note 65 "Illinois Coal: Development Potential."
Ramesh Malhotra and Jack A. Simon, Nov. 1976.
II-C-94
-------
II-C-95
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
o
LAND USE More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 1001 or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix).
EXTRACTION
COAL
Surface §
Underground
LIMESTONE
NUCLEAR
Exploration
Surface §
underground
PROCESSING
COAL
All Sub-
functions
NUCLEAR
Milling
Enriching
Fabricating
Reduced acreage in
agriculture § for-
est. Increased
acreage in dis-
turbed, rural non-
farm and urban/
industrial/suburb.
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
AC.CS,
L),SV,
LO
AC,L,
SV.LO
VU,S,I,
LO
VU,L,
SV,LO
AC.L,
MD,LO
VU,L,
MD,LO
AC.L,
MD.LO
P,L,
MD.LO
AC,S,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
VU,S,I,LO
VU,L,SV,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
AC,S,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,S,I,LO
P,L,SV,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
AC,S,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AI,S,I,LO
AI,L,SV,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AI,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,MD,LO
VU,S,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,S,I,LO
P,L,SV,LO
AC.L.MD.LO
P,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE Character-
ization Issues Potentially
Parties at of Impact or Responsive
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems Policy Options Agencies
EXTRACTION
GOAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
PROCESSING
COAL
All Sub-
functions
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
Reduced acreage
in agriculture
5 forest. In-
creased acreage
in disturbed,
rural non-farm
and urban/ indus-
trial/suburb.
As above
As above
Business
Farmers
Recreation
Landowners
Environmental-
ists
Real estate
industry
Ac hoc interest
groups
As above
As above
M, + or -
SV, -
M, + or -
SV,
SV, -
M, + or -
M, -
As above
As above
1-
Identification
of land areas
most appropriate
for conversion.
to energy-
related use
2-
Land restoration
As (1} above
As (1) above
Zoning, compre-
hensive land use
planning, strip
mine legislation,
bonding author-
ity for land
restoration,
Government pur-
chase of devel-
opment rights .
Zoning, compre-
hensive land use
planning, Govern-
ment purchase of
development
rights.
As above
Federal :
Bureau of ;
Mines, Courts
Congress
State: Courts
Legislature ,
State equiva-
lents^ of BOM
Local: Court
Planning §
Zoning Boards
As above
As above plus
Nuclear Regu-
latory Comm.
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-O26 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix).
CONVERSION
COAL
Electrical
Generation
Low § High
BTU Gasifi-
cation
NUCLEAR
Electrical
Generation
TRANSPORTATIOh
COAL
Processed §
Raw Material
Conversion
Products
(Syn-gas)
Electricity
NUCLEAR .
Raw Material
§ Fuel
(Continued)
Reduced acreage in
agriculture 5 for-
est. Increased
acreage in dis-
turbed, rural non-
farm and urban/
industrial/suburb .
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
AC,L,
SV.LO
AC,L,
SV.LO
P,L,I,
LO
NA
AC.L,
SV.MC
P.L.I,
LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AC L MD LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AC L MD LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,L.I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
P,L,I,LO
1
ND
2
1
ND
1
2
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,SV,MC
P,L,I,LO
.
ND
4
3
ND
3
4
•D/HM
UUM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
vo
oo
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
NA = Not Applicable; ND = No Difference. . . tfloc
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CONVERSION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
TRANSPORTATTO
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
,.
Reduced acreage
in agriculture
§ forest. In-,
creased acreage
in disturbed,
rural non-farm
and urban/ indus-
trial/suburb.
As above
Business
Farmers
Recreation
Landowners
Environmental-
ists
Real estate
industry
Ad hoc interest
groups
As above
M, + or -
SV, -
M, + or -
SV, -
sv, -
M, + or -
M, -
As above
Identification
of areas most
appropriate for
conversion to
energy- related
uses
Identification
of areas most
appropriate for
conversion to
energy- related
transportation
uses
Zoning, compre-
hensive land use
planning,
Government pur-
chase of devel-
opment rights.
Land use plan-
ning, Government
purchase of de-
velopment rights.
Review of power
of eminent domair
with view toward
expanding or
inhibiting its
use.
Federal :
Courts ,
Congress ,
Regulatory
Agencies --
BOM, NRC
State : Courts
Legislature ,
Regulatory
Agencies -'-
State equiva-
lents of BOM
Local : Courts
Planning §
Zoning Boards
As above
I
o
to
VO
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE . More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 1001 Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
TRANSPORTATION
(Continued)
NUCLEAR
Electricity
Wastes
r WASTE DISPOSAL
" COAL
£ Scrubber
o Sludge, Ash
§ No_n- energy
By- Products
NUCLEAR
Dilution §
On- Site
Storage
Permanent
Storage
Reproces-
sing
Reduced acreage in
agriculture § for-
est. Increased
acreage in dis-
turbed, rural non-
farm and urban/
industrial/suburb .
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
AC,L,
SV,MC
VU,L,
I.LO
AC.L,
SV,LO
AC,L,
I,LO
AC.L,
MD,LO
AI.L,
MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
2
2
1
2
2
2
VU,L,SV,LO
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AI,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,LO
P,L,I,LO
VL,L,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
4
•
4
3
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OP OCCURRENCE: • AC -almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios
LAND USE Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
WASTE fflSPOSAl
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
Reduced acreage
in agriculture
5 forest. In-
creased acreage
in disturbed,
rural non-farm,
and urban/ indus-
trial/ suburb.
,
Business
Farmers
Recreation
Landowners
Environmental -
ists
Real estate
industry
Ad hoc interest
groups
M, + or -
SV, -
M, + or -
SV, -
SV, -
M, + or -
M, -
Identification
of areas most
appropriate for
waste disposal
Zoning, land use
planning.
Federal :
Courts,
Congress ,
Regulatory
Agencies
State; Courts
Legislature,
Regulatory
Agencies
Local: Courts
Planning 5
Zoning Boards
I
o
I
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part A Continued)
i
o
o
ro
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE More More
severe (3) . (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix).
UTILIZATION
COAL
Electrical
Generation
(Low BTU
gas)
All other
Subfunctiong
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
Reduced acreage in
agriculture 5 for-
est. Increased
acreage in dis-
turbed, rural non-
f arm and urban/
industrial/suburb.
As above
As above
•NA
AC,L,
SV,N
As above
AC.L.I.LO
AC,L,SV,N
As above
AC.LJ.LO
AC,L,SV,N
As above
ND
ND
ND
AC,L,I,LO
VU,L,SV,N
As above
AC,L,I,LO
VU,L,SV,N
As above
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
NA = Not Applicable; ND = No Difference. . , .-„_
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-26 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
LAND USE Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
UTILIZATION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
Reduced acreage
in agriculture
§ forest. In-
creased acreage
in disturbed,
rural non-farm
and urban/ indus-
trial/suburb.
All parties are
potentially in-
terested be-
cause of in-
creasing compe-
tition for a
finite resource
.
Depends on
parties '
perception
of impacts
(SV to I) ,
0 to -)
Evaluation of
desirability of
regulation or
non- regulation
of development
resulting from
utilization of
electricity pro-
duced under
RTC's
Zoning, compre-
hensive land use
planning,
Government pur-
chase of de-
velopment rights
use- value
assessment.
Federal :
Courts ,
Congress
State:
Courts ,
Legislature
Local;
Courts ,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
I
o
o
CO
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-27 (Part A)
.Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES - WATER USE More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
EXTRACTION
Underground
. Coal Related
PROCESSING
Coal Cleaning
7 CONVERSION
V Electrical
o Generation
Coal § Nucleai
Related
WASTE DISPOSAL
Reprocessing
Nuclear
Water use
Acid in drainage
water
Water use
Black solid
waste
Cooling towe'r
evaporation
Slowdown- dis-
solved solids
Drift
Water use
Solids in water
Some radioactive
liquid
AC,L,I,
LO-R
AC.L.MD
LO
AC,L,MD
LO-R
AC,L,MD
LO-R
— — —
VU.L.I,
R-N
AC, L, I, LO-R
AC,L,ttD,LO-R
AC,L,SV,LO-R
AC,L,tiV,LO-R
""
VL,L,I,R-N
AC, L, I, LO-R
AC,L,MD,LO-R
AC,L,SV,LO-R
"".
VL,L,I,R-N
1
1
2
"
2
AC, L, I, LO-R
AC,L,MD,LO-R
AC,L,MD,LO-R
...
VL,L,I,R-N
AC, L, I, LO-R
AC,L,MD, LO-R
VL,L,I,R-N
3
3
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
I
o
I
o
wi
Table II-C-27 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES - WATER USE Character-
ization Issues Potentially
Parties at of Impact or Responsive
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems Policy Options Agencies
EXTRACTION
Underground
Coal Related
PROCESSING
Coal Cleaning
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
Coal § Nuclear
Related
WASTE DISPOSAL
Reprocessing
Nuclear
Water use
Acid in drain-
age water
Water use
Black solid
waste
Cooling tower
evaporation
Slowdown- dis-
solved solids
Drift
Water use
Solids in water
Some radio-
active liquid
Farmers
Real estate
Industry
As above
Farmers
Industry
People
Real estate
Envi ronment al -
ists
Real estate
Neighbors
I
I to M
I to SV
I
—
BOM, EPA
BOM, EPA
EPA, NRC
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-27 (Part A Continued)
Sumnary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL .RESOURCES - WATER USE More -
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
COMBINED
WATER USE
Entire Electric
Power Generation
System
Coal § Nuclear
Related
TRANSPORTATION
Agriculture
Water may be
withdrawn from
usage and use of
remaining water
may be degraded
Water withdrawn
from industrial
usage
Drinking water
supplies dimin-
ished
Low level in
navigable
waters
VU,M,I,
LO-R
VU,M,I,
LO-R
VU.M.I,
LO-R
VU,S,MD
R
P.M.I-MD,
LO-R
•
P.M.I-MD,
LO-R
P,M,I-MD,
LO-R
VL,S,MD,R .
P,M,I-MD,
LO-R
P,M,I-MD,
LO-R
P,M,I-MD,
LO-R
VL.S.MD.R
2
2
2
2
VU,L,I-MD,
LO-R
VU,M,I,LO-R
VU,M,I,LO-R
VU,S,MD,R
VU,L,I-MD,
LO-R
VU,M,I,LO-R
VU,M,I,LO-R
VU,S,MD,R
4
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
r>
o
o»
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-27 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios
NATURAL RESOURCES - WATER USE Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Potentially
Responsive
Policy Options Agencies
COMBINED
WATER USE
Entire Electric
Power Generation
Coal S Nuclear
Related
I
o
I
TRANSPORTATION
Agriculture
Water may be
withdrawn from
usage and use
of remaining
water may be
degraded
Water with-
drawn from
industrial use
Drinking water
supplies dimin-
ished
Low level in
navigable
waters
Grain § live-
stock farmers
Real estate
Industry
Real estate
People
Communities
Real estate
Industry
Cities
All river
traffic
Priority of
water usage
As above
As above
As above
Establish land
use priorities
EPA.BQM, DOA
Corps of
Engineers
As above
As above
BOM, EPA
Corps of
Engineers
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: -»-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-28 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES - HYDROLOGY . More _ More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
. EXTRACTION
Surface
7 CONVERSION
? Electrical
o Generation
CO
Low 5 High BTL
Gasification
UTILIZATION
Changes in runoff
pattern, probably
by entrapping run-
off, increasing
time of concentra-
tion and decreas-
ing flood peaks.
Lack of vegetation
probably overcomes
this gain for
short term.
Reduced flow due
to evaporative
cooling. Reduced
and increased flow
due to diversion.
Reduced flow due
to consumption
Increased imperv-
ious area result-
ing from urbaniza-
tion and indus-
trialization
AC,L,
I-MD.MC
AC,L,
I-MD.SR
AC,L,I,
MC
AC,L,MD,
SR
AC,L,MD,MC
AC,L,I-MD,SR
AC,L,I-MD,MC
AC,L,MD,SR
•
AC,L,I-MD,MC
AC,L,I-MD,SR
AC,L,I-MD,MC
AC,L,MD,SR
1
1
2
1
AC,L,I-MD,
MC
AC,L,I-MD,
SR
None
AC,L,MD,SR
AC,L,I-MD,MC
AC,L,I-MD,SR
None
AC,L,MD,SR
3
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
Li/Jl-XD: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DiI:l\T[OX: S-shbrt term: M-medium term; .L-long term.
INTEXSI1Y: SV-severe; > ID-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
"Art insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-28 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES - HYDROLOGY
Function
Impact
Parties at
Interest
Character-
ization
of Impact
on Parties
Issues
or
Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION
Surface
*-H
t—<
i
r>
L CONVERSION
§ Electrical
Generation
Low 5 HighBTU
Gasification
UTILIZATION
Changes in run-
off pattern
Reduced flow
Reduced flow
Increased imper
vious area
Business groups,
especially real
estate,
Farmers ,
Landowners ,
Ad hoc groups ,
Chamber of Comm,
Environ . groups ,
Recreation ind.,
General public
As above
As above
As above
I-SV
?
•-
-
?
Quality irpacts,
navigation
Reclamation regu-
lation
Active mining
regulation
Once -through
cooling
Federal: Corps
of Engineers;
Council on
Environmental
Quality; En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency; BOM;
Nuc. Reg. Comn.
State: Dept.
of Mines §
Minerals; En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency
As above
As above
As above
LEGEND: SL-VLRITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-29 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES (COAL) More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 1003 Fix 1001
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
COAL
EXTRACTION
WET SCRUBBING
S02 REMOVAL
PLANT
CONSTRUCTION
Reduction in
reserves
Land use- -overbur-
den removal from
strip mines
Land use- -subsid-
ence from under-
ground mines
Increase number of
mines
Limestone used--
Increase limestone
production
Lime(CaO)used--
increase lime pro-
duction industry
Land use- -ash §
sludge disposal
(on site)
Create shortage of
material § equip-
ment
AC,L,MD,
(R-N)
AC.M.MD,
LO
AC,L,I,
LO
AC,M,I,
MC
AC,L,I,
(R-N)
AC,L,MD,
(R-N)
AC.L.MD,
LO
AC,S,MD,
LO
AC,L,MD,(R-N)
AC,M,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,M,MD,MC
AC, L, I, (R-N)
AC,L,SV,(R-N)
AC,L,SV,LO
AC.S.MD.LO
AC,L,MD,(R-N)
AC,M,SV,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,M,MD,MC
AC,L,I,(R-N)
AC,L,SV,(R-N)
AC,L,SV,LO
AC,S,MD,LO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
AC,L,MD,
(R-N)
AC,M,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,M,I,MC
AC, L, I, (R-N)
AC,L,MD,
(R-N)
AC,L,SV,LO
AC,S,MD,LO
AC, L, I, (R-N)
AC,M,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,M,I,MC
AC,L,I,(R-N)
AC,L,MD,(R-N)
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,S,MD,LO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
_______
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
-
o
: J \ \ I I I I 1 L
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible..
D'ulUlTOX: S-short tern; M-medium term; .L-long term.
INTliXSITY: SV-severe; MU-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-29 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES (COAL) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
COAL
EXTRACTION
WET SCRUBBING
SO, REMOVAL
£ . •'
PLANT
CONSTRUCTION
(Reduction in
reserves
Land use—over-
burden removal
from strip mines
Land use- -subsi-
dence from un-
derground mining
Increase number
of mines
Limestone used--
Increase lime-
stone production
Lime (CaO) used- -
increase lime
production ind.
Land use- -ash §
sludge disposal
(on site)
Create shortage
of material §
equipment
BOM, FEA, Geo-
logical surveys
Landowners ,
Farmers ,
Real estate
As above
As above
Landowners , Real
estate, Farmers
Drinking public
Current lime
users
Landowners , Real
estate, Farmery
Drinking public
Other than util
ity contractors;
Local industry
M,-
M-SV,-
M-SV,-
M-SV,~
M,-
sv,-
M,-
M,-
M-SVV
-
Degradation of
area
Can the area be
restored?
Impact -not im-
mediate-who pays
for reclamation?
Priorities of
land usage
Creates shortage
of production
Land usage -
seepage prob-
lems
Material priorit)
Increase produc-
tion available
after construc-
tion is complete
Continual or dis
crete restora-
tion or under-
ground mining
BOM, state
agencies
BOM, EPA
BOM, EPA
BOM, EPA
EPA
I
o
I
LCGEVD:
SLVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-30 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES (URANIUM) More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
NUCLEAR RELATED
EXTRACTION
Exploration
Surface
Underground
PROCESSING
Milling
Enrichment
Fabricating
CONVERSION
Electric
Generation
Core drilling
1- Reduction in
uranium reserves
2 -Overburden
Reduction in
uranium reserves
Solid tailings §
radioactive waste
discharge
1-Specific nuclear
material safeguards
2 -Depleted uranium
§ radioactive waste
3- Lack of enrich-
ment capacity
Radioactive waste
AC,L,I,
(LO-N)
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,S,MD,
G
AC,L,I,N
VU,M,I,
(ST-R)
AC,L,I,
LO
Spent fuel storage JAC.L, I,
r
1
AC, L, I, (LO-N)
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,S,MD,G
AC,L,I,N
P,M,MD,(ST-R)
AC.L.I.LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC, L, I, (LO-N)
AC,L,SV,N
AC,L,MD,N
AC,L,SV,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,S,MD,G
AC,L,I,N
VL,M,MD, (ST-R)
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,I,LO
2
2
2
2
2
2
.2
2
2
2
AC, L, I, (LO-N)
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,S,MD,G
AC,L,I,N
VU,M,I,(ST-R)
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC, L, I, (LO-N)
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,L,I,N
AC,S,MD,G
AC,L,I,N
P,M,MD,(ST-R)
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,I,LO
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
o
I
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-shcrt term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; ,^-D-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region;. N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-30 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios
NATURAL RESOURCES (URANIUM) Character-'
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
NUCLEAR RELATED
EXTRACTION
Exploration
Surface
_ Underground
V PROCESSING
^ Milling
CO
Enrichment
Fabricating
CONVERSION
Electric
Generation
Core drilling
1-Reduc. in res.
2 -Overburden
Reduc. in res.
1-SNM safegiards
2-Dep.U § waste
3-Enr. capacity
Radioactive
waste
Spent fuel
storage
Landowners ,
underground
storage
Landowners ,
Environment-
alists, Farmers
As above
Utilities
Utilities
(M-D,?
(I-SV),-
(I-SV),?
As above
I,--
M,- .
(I-SV),+
I, 0
I,-
+
Holes left
uncapped
Should the over-
burden be put
back?
Normal safeguards
Who builds en-
richment plant?
Leakage or gas
emission
Fear of spent
fuel
BOM, NRC, ERDA
NRC, ERDA
BOM, NRC
IAEA, NRC, ERDA
NRC, ERDA, BON
NRC, ERDA, IAEA
NRC
NRC, ERDA
LEGliNID: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: -(-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-30 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES (URANIUM)
Function
Impact
CD (2)
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM
(BOM) 80-20 50-50
More
severe (3)
(1) 2000 Tech
or Fix 100%
(2) Coal
(4)
2000 Tech
Fix 100%
Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
TRANSPORTATION
Raw Materials
Fuel-New
Fuel-Spent
WASTE DISPOSAL
Dilution § on
Site Storage
Permanent
Storage
Reprocessing
Possible road build
ing or R.R.
Diversion of SNM
Accident during
transit
Storage tank
leakage
Accident in
transit
Gas. liquid § solid
Radioactive waste
Plutonium
Storage
Use
Safeguards
P,M,I,MC
VU.S.MD,
RorN
VU.S.I,
RorN
VU.L.I,
LO
VU.S.I,
RorN
VU.L.I,
ST
VU,M,I,R
VU,L,I,R
VU,L,I,G
P,M,I,MC
VU.S.MD.RorN
VU.S.I.RorN
VU,L,I,LO
'
VU,S,I,RorN
AC.L.I.ST
VL.M.I.R
VL.L.MD.R
VL,L,I,G
P.M.MD.MC
VU.S.MD.RorN
VU.S.I.RorN
VU.L.I.LO
VU,S,I,RorN
AC,L,I,ST
VL,M,I,R
VL.L.MD.R
VL.L.I.G
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P,M,I,MC
VU.S.MD.RorN
VU.S.I.RorN
VU,L,I,LO
VU,S,I,RorN
AC.L.I.ST
VL.M.I.R
VL,L,MD,R
VL,L,I,G
P,M,I,MC .
VU,S,MD,RorN
VU.S.I.RorN
VU.L.I.LO
VU.S.I.RorN
AC,L,I,ST
VL.M.I.R
VL,L,MD,R
Vl.L.I.G
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DUiUTION": S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*Aii insisnificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-30 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
NATURAL RESOURCES (URANIUM)
Function
Impact
Parties at
Interest
Character-
ization
of Impact
on Parties
Issues
or
Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
TRANSPORTATION
Raw Materials
Fuel -New
Fuel -Spent
WASTE DISPOSAL
Dilution § on
Site Storage
Permanent
Storage
Reprocessing
Roads or R.R.
Div. of SNM
Accident during
transit
Storage tank
leakage
Accident in
transit
Gas, liquid 5 soli(
Radioactive
waste
Plutonium
Storage
Use
Safeguards
St. Highway,
County
Landowner
Public
Adjacent land-
owners
Highway § local
authorities
Land neighbors
•Downwind land-
owners
Anti-pollution
groups, utili-
ties
CI-M),-
0
I
1,0
(I-M),-
(I-M),-
(I-M),-
(I-M),-
(M-SV),+
d-M),-
Right
Normal safeguards
Fear of leakage
Transportation
routes
Seepage of
liquid, fear of
radioactivity
Fear of toxic
material , loss of
energy resource
Moral issues
Material can be
used as threat
Burn pu § reduce
resource of this
material
NRC, IAEA, DOT
DOT, NRC
NRC
NRC.DOT
EPA
NRC, IAEA
NRC, ERJQA
IAEA, NRC
o
I
UTinND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
II-C-116
-------
6. IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES
6.1. INTRODUCTION
The Ohio River Basin has a well developed Infra-structure to
support and serve Us Industrial and agricultural economic base.
Institutions for capital generation exist, rnultlmodal transportation
systems are 1n place and a labor force possessing a wide spectrum
of skills exists. These characteristics of the region are the result
of Its early Industrialization 1n the 1850s. The region contributes to
and draws upon national markets which produce the manufactured systems
needed for large-scale energy extraction, conversion and distribution.
This chapter attempts to put Into perspective the Impacts the
various scenarios will have upon transportation systems, capital
requirements, manufactured goods for the energy systems and labor
needs.
II-C-117
-------
6.2 IMPACTS UPON TRANSPORTATION1
6.2.1. TRANSPORTATION OF COAL AND LIMESTONE
There are four primary methods of coal and limestone transporta-
tion: conveyors, trucks, barges, and rail. For trips of less than 20
miles, any of the four modes could be economical. It is unlikely that
conveyors will be used for trips of more than 20 miles, and trucks are
rarely used for trips of 50 miles or more. Occasionally, if no rail is
available or only a small amount of coal must be shipped, trucks may be
used for distances up to 200 miles. Primarily, the longer distance
shipping (over 50 miles) is by barge or rail, depending upon the parti-
cular location of the origins and destinations. Nationally, for 1985,
projected coal transportation shares for rail ranged from 63.7 percent
to 72.3 percent, and for river, from 8.8 percent to 16.4 percent. It
is expected that truck and conveyor transportation of coal will
continue at about their current levels of 12 and 7 percent respectively
(1). The transportation of lime and limestone will increase dramatically
if scrubbers are used extensively after 1985, since about 2.2 tons of
lime are used to remove one ton of sulfur. If limestone is used, about
4.7 tons are needed to remove one ton of sulfur. The limestone deposits
within the region are sufficient to support even the BOM 80-20 scenario
if chemical grade limestone is not required. Transportation of limestone
will be primarily by truck (75%), rail (10%), and barge (10%) (2).
6.2.1.1. BARGE PRACTICE
In 1972 over three-quarters of the total national barge shipments
of coal originated on the Ohio River System, including the Ohio, Green,
Allegheny, Kanawha, and Monogahela Rivers; and most of the shipping
destinations were within the Ohio River System as well. By 1985, the
Ohio River System will be carrying a reduced share of the increasing
total of coal shipments (all modes), partially because of the increased
rail transportation in the west and partially because of capacity
limitations (3,4). In order to get past dams on waterways, tows must
pass through locks; and there may be many such locks to pass through
between origin and destination. Currently the average waiting time for
a lockage is around three hours, a strong indication that the practical
(if not the theoretical) capacities of the waterways are being reached.
As congestion occurs, increasing environmental damage due to spills and
leakage of coal dust and increasing accident rates (due to crowding) can
be expected. Current practice in barge transport is to tie multiple
barges and a towboat together. On the smaller rivers, the average tow
is formed by using four to six standard barges (900 tons, 175 feet by 26
The transportation aspects of this technological impact assess-
ment were the subject of a Task 4 study. Additional details should be
sought from that study report.
II-C-118
-------
feet). The average length of haul for coal by barge was 341 miles 1n
1972. From 1969 to 1973 there has been a slow growth 1n the average
number of barges per tow (from 5.4 to 6.5), and there is an Increasing
use of Integrated/dedicated tows (with 15 or 30 barges per tow) (5).
However, the capacity of the barge transportation system Is very
dependent upon a number of factors other than the number of barges per
tow. These Include the passage times through the Individual locks, the
locks' maintenance times, the proportion of time the rivers are navi-
gable, the number of pleasure crafts that also seek lockage, the
proportion of barges that are not fully loaded, the number of barges
that must return empty, the proportion of tows that are integrated and
dedicated, and the maneuvering room around the locks that is needed to
break up the tows before locking, if necessary, and to reassemble them
afterwards (6).
6.2.1.2. RAIL PRACTICE
The use of unit trains is increasing, and is seven times as
efficient for the transportation of coal as the use of individual
hopper trains. Although the use of unit trains requires dedicated
equipment and rapid loading/unloading facilities of the type that can
only economically be associated with medium to large coal mining
operations, a greatly increased use of unit cars 1s expected in the
future. Because there is currently a wide gap 1n efficiency between
the rail industry's average and best practice, there is significant
potential for fairly large scale efficiency improvement in the
relatively near future, certainly before the year 2000 (7). Until 1985
the forecasted increase of use in western coal is far greater than the
forecasted increase in eastern coal, and because the western coal must
be transported at least as far as the Mississippi River by rail, the
railroads will necessarily be carrying an increased share of the
transportation of coal.
According to industry spokesmen, it will be possible to meet
the increased demand for cars and locomotives, and the existing
western road beds and track are in better condition than those 1n the
east. In the eastern half of the United States, therefore, the poorer
quality of the road beds and tracks will delay a massive increase in
the use of unit trains until the rail ways can be repaired or replaced
(8). There may also be congestion problems on rail ways during peak
harvest time when unit trains shipping grain will also be using the
rail system. Depending on the relative economics and the capacity of
the eastern rail lines, there may be mixed mode shipments from the west,
using rail as transport to the Mississippi and then using barge trans-
port to points further east. If this occurs, there may be congestion on
the upper Illinois River System since the current locks may not be able
to handle the increased load. If, in order to avoid these potential
congestion effects, many rail lines need to be replaced or extended,
the resulting use of timber in the manufacture of wooden ties must be
II-C-119
-------
considered. The use of concrete ties in place of wooden ties has its
own impact in indirect fuel consumption. Although the use of steel in
additional tracks may be extensive, it can be recycled in the long run
(as opposed to that used in pipelines which is not recyclable). There
are also some land use, noise, and aesthetic implications of increased
railroad trackage. Spillage of coal, however, should be less than .1%.
6.2.1.3. OTHER MODES
Nationally, over 11.5% of total coal shipments in 1973 were by
truck (1). Near coal mining areas, there will be a significant impact
due to the increased truck traffic on local township and county roads.
Existing rural bridges may not be rated as strong enough to carry the
heavier trucks associated with the transportation of coal and will
need to be bypassed or replaced. Also the maintenance requirements for
the roads will be greatly increased. The resulting impact on the
already limited rural road and bridge funds available to the counties
and townships could be severe.
Another method of shipping coal is the use of short-haul
conveyors (9). These are often used in mine-mouth operations and also
used to convey coal from the mine to nearby rivers or rail.
Coal slurry pipelines may also be used in the future (4),
although difficulties in obtaining land passage rights and water rights
may delay the use of such pipelines, even in situations where they
would be the first choice on economic grounds. There is only one
successful coal slurry line (273 miles; currently operating in the
United States. Another has been proposed (1036 miles) from Wyoming to
Arkansas and has been the subject of great controversy. Among the
issues have been the required usage of water, nonrenewable consumption
of steel, and the possibility of pipeline failure. Failure due to
pipeline breakage or power outages to the pumps could result in massive
amounts of lost slurry that cannot be recovered and must be disposed of.
Another transportation option is the mine-mouth generation of
coal and the transmission of electricity to the areas of demand (4). AC
transmission seems to be suitable for distances up to approximately 600
miles. For greater distances, the use of DC high voltage transmission
appears to be the most economic. Difficulties in the increased use of
mine-mouth generation of electricity in the west include the necessity
to have extensive amounts of water available and the land use required
for the construction of long distance transmission lines. An advantage
may be a reduced public health impact due to having the power generation
occur away from heavily populated regions.
Il-C-120
-------
6.2.2. TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL
The primary modes of transport for nuclear material are truck and
rail. It is projected nationally that by 1980 there will be twice as
much nuclear material transported by rail as by truck; and that by 2000
four times as much (10). Uranium is mined and milled in the west. The
resulting yellow cake is sent to one of two conversion facilities in
Illinois or Oklahoma to be converted. The converted material is
currently transported to one of three enrichment facilities In Tennessee,
Kentucky, or Ohio. More enrichment facilities are scheduled to be ready
for operation before 1990. The enriched material is next sent to one of
nine fuel fabrication facilities in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Connecticut, Washington, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, or South
Carolina, and finally the fabricated fuel is shipped to the nuclear
reactors. Spent fuel may be shipped to be reprocessed or to waste
storage and disposal (11).
6.2.3. BOM VERSUS FORD TECH FIX
Under the BOM scenarios there will be a greatly increased demand
for coal and limestone transport, particularly in the rail and barge
modes. Under the Ford Tech Fix scenarios, only a modest increase in
transportation requirements will occur. But the same policy issues
that will be described next can be used to improve the system efficiency
and/or reduce the relative cost of transportation. A major issue is how
to increase the capacities of the transportation system. There are a
variety of policy options available to accomplish this: investing in
basic research in order to improve barge, rail, pipeline, and conveyor
technology; creating tax incentives for road bed and track improvements
in order to promote the use of unit trains; improving utilization of
existing equipment; increasing capacities by developing wider channels
and more efficient locks and by updating and/or extending the current
railroad track system; developing regional coal loading facilities
similar to the use of grain elevators so that medium-to-small scale
mining operations can utilize the unit train economies of scale;
developing reimbursement mechanisms for local townships and county road
districts for the wear and tear on roads and bridges near mining
operations; providing tax incentives for power companies to invest in
mine-mouth generation of coal where water is available; developing
better technology for the rapid loading and unloading of coal from
barges and for the rapid disassembly-assembly of barges during lockage;
and altering the rate structure for railroads.
Although there is an assumption that after 1985 extensive use
will be made of scrubbers, the transportation needs associated with the
resulting sludge and fly ash are assumed to be minimal in all of the
scenarios. Current practice is for them to be deposited on site, and
large scale transportation of fly ash and scrubber sludge will occur
only if it becomes uneconomical (or physically or legally impossible)
U-C-121
-------
to continue the current practice. Current practice represents much
more of a land use or land quality question and is discussed more
thoroughly in those sections of this report.
Because the bulk of uranium ore is first processed and reduced
near the mine mouth, the impact of increased numbers of nuclear
reactors, even under the 50-50 BOM scenarios, will not severely impact
the transportation system.
The major issue in the transportation of nuclear material is
security with respect to both accidents and sabotage. The BOM
scenarios will have relatively greater security problems because of
the larger amount of nuclear material which must be transported. If
many local communities decide not to permit the passage of nuclear
shipments through their midst, then the flexibility available for
routing trucks may increase their relative use and the earlier trans-
portation projections might have to be changed.
H-C-122
-------
6.3. IMPACTS UPON MANUFACTURED GOODS1
Modern electrical generating facilities require many specialized
pieces of equipment, ranging from huge industrial components to highly
technical items. Supportive industries to the electric utilities (fuel
mining, transportation, fuel fabricating and processing) also require
very specialized equipment. The growth of these supportive industries
is directly coupled with the growth of power stations.
The special equipment for the actual generating units and the
supportive industries usually have long lead times between purchase agree-
ment date and delivery date. Generally the larger and more technical
equipment have the longest lead times.
A special study was conducted in an attempt to determine the impact
of a large power station growth rate on the availability of certain special-
ized manufactured goods. Representatives from various major manufacturers
were contacted in a general information survey. Current production levels,
lead times and future production capacity were discussed for each type of
manufactured equipment.
In the early 70' s there were strong indications of a sharp increase
in power plant construction. Related industries increased capacity in
anticipation of this new growth surge. The dramatic growth that was pre-
dicted has not developed as yet. Several new units, particularly nuclear,
that were on order have been delayed indefinitely. The result is that
manufacturers have an increased capacity. Current orders are being com-
pleted with few new orders in hand.
The two prime turbine generator manufacturers in the U. S. are
both heavily involved in the world market. Lead times for turbines
or generators are around three years. Since these manufacturers are
into the world market, fluctuations in domestic requirements can be
absorbed into their program without much difficulty.
Other main station equipment are boilers, S02 emission control
scrubbers, coal conveyor systems, electrical equipment, tanks, valves,
piping and large pumps. The availability of these items is generally
dependent on the steel industry's ability to produce. Large electrical
transformers, conveyor systems and S02 scrubbers have one to two year
lead times because they are fabricated to specific design criterion.
Complicated nuclear steam supply systems, including reactor vessels, have
very long lead times, about four to five years.
Coal mining equipment, off road trucks, shovels, drag lines,
tinuous deep mining machines and shuttle cars are generally very large
and need to be assembled at the mine sites. Lead times of two and
This narrative was developed as a result of a telephone survey of
manufacturers which in part included boilers, turbine generators, barges,
mining equipment, piping, belting, railway cars and locomotives.
H-C-123
-------
one-half years are common. The manufacturing capacity for most mining
equipment was increased during the Arab oil embargo of 1972. This embargo
resulted in new orders for coal in an effort to become less dependent on
foreign oil.
Fabrication of nuclear fuel rods is generally dependent on the
availability of enriched uranium fuel. In an effort to eliminate the need
for smaller nations (non-nuclear weapon capability) to develop reprocessing
plants, the U. S. intends to assume the position of fuel rod supplier.
It is hoped that by supplying fuel rods to smaller nations the world supply
of plutonium recovered during spent rod reprocessing will be kept to a
minimum. Enrichment facilities and technology will have to be increased
to supply enriched fuel for domestic and foreign needs.
Railroad cars, engines, barges and other transportation equipment
have present lead times of a few months at most. Optimism was expressed
by this segment of manufacturers as to their ability to supply key equip-
ment to meet any new growth. In most cases a present "slow-down" was
reported here and new business would be encouraged.
In general, no backlog of any particular equipment is expected,
thus causing no foreseeable problems in obtaining fuel, transporting it
or burning it. If a situation were to develop where the U. S. demand for
specific items could not be met by U. S. supplies, foreign industry would
certainly fill 1n the gap. It was felt that any growth rate could be
easily accommodated by every segment of the power industry and would,
in fact, be welcomed.
II-C-124
-------
6.4. CAPITAL IMPACTS OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS
Over the past twenty years, many forces have affected the costs
of generating electricity. Interfile! competition oscillates back and
forth; environmental controls affect significantly the cost of coal-fired
plants; and, in turn, redundant safety systems affect the investment in
nuclear plants. Clearly these types of forces will continue into the
future, making predictions of the next 20 years exceedingly difficult.
However, using historic costs blended with recent trends, specific cost
estimates of power plant construction, pollution control, transmission,
distribution, mining, etc. were attempted. Irrespective of the diffi-
culties of prediction, the calculations contained in this section can
provide an order of magnitude perspective of impacts upon regional and
national money markets. Costs presented in Table II-C-31 were extended
to ORBES from a current study that involved information gathered by four
large electric utilities in Illinois ( 1 ). The study spanned the same
time period as the RTCs, 1975-2000, and the fuel mix approached the
50/50 ratio of BOM. As a check on this study, electric power plant con-
struction costs estimated by a large Architectural Engineering (A-E)
firm that specialized in utility construction (2,3,4) were adapted to
the scenarios. Power plant construction capital investment requirements
agreed closely for the two sources of data (less than 3% difference) for
the most capital intensive case. Agreement was most striking when it is
noted that power plant costs have increased over five fold since early
1969, resulting in a 23.6% yearly compounding rate (4). The A-E based
results are shown in Table II-C-32 . It shows a cumulative total invest-
ment cost for each case at year 2000. Discounted at a 6% rate to 1976,
the present worth of these cumulative costs is also shown for comparison.
A seven year lead time for construction and prepayment cash flow was
assumed for coal plants and a ten year lead time for nuclear. Curves in
Figure II-C-23 illustrate the prepayment cash flow schedule that is
typical for an Illinois-based electric utility.
Table II-C-33 , adapted from Ref. 4, indicates the breakdown of
power plant costs for a 1986 startup date of three types of power plants.
It is known that the indirect cost and allowance for funds during .
construction (AFDC) for the nuclear plant is made up of $104/kw and $236/kw
respectively, to total the $340/kw indicated. The indirect costs include
the utilities' own engineering, site development and the architect's and
engineering designers' fees. Each company handles construction costs
differently so the breakdowns will vary from source to source for this
sort of data. The breakdown of the costs was verified using standard
engineering economy calculations (5 ) and found to be in agreement.
In addition to power plant costs described above, one must also
consider the financial impacts and commitments necessary to mine the
basic fuels necessary for each of the scenarios. Thus, an attempt was
made to determine the magnitude of coal and uranium mining capitalization
required to meet ORBES needs. Helpful data on coal was available from
Ref. 6. About 60% of the price of coal is material which can be translated
H-C-125
-------
Table II-C-31
FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IMPACT
BOM
(Billions of Current Dollars)
Cost Function
Power Plant Construction
Pollution Control
Transmission & Substation
Distribution & Substation
General Expenses
ORBES Region
Capacity Additions MW(E)
Cost Function
Power Plant Construction
Pollution Control
Transmission & Substation
Distribution & Substation
General Expenses
ORBES Region
Capacity Additions MW(E)
1985
50/50 80/20
34.1 34.1
4.4 4.4
7.9 7.9
6 6
1.5 1.5
53.8 53.8
29,829
Ford Tech Fix
1985
12.6
1.6
2.9
2.2
.6
19.8
11,000
2000
50/50 80/20
226.6 206
20 30
49.4 49.4
37.5 37.5
9.4 9.4
342.9 332.3
186,602
2000
100% Coal 100%
40.2 45
5.7 2
9.5 9
7.2 7
1.8 1
55 66
35,800 35,
% 1985
50/50 only
63
8
15
11
3
100
(Task I)
Nuclear
.6
.5
.5
.2
.8
.6
600
II-C-126
-------
Table H-C-32
FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IMPACT
(USING UTILITY A-E DATA [REF.4])
POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION
Present Worth - 1976
RTC Cumulative Total (6% Discount Rate)
(In Billions of Dollars)
BOM 50/50 220 94
BOM 80/20 203 85
FTP 100% Coal 50 21
FTP 100% Nuclear 59 24
Table II-C-33
COMPARISON OF POWER PLANT COSTS—1986 STARTUP
Nuclear Low-Sulfur Coal High-Sulfur Coal
$/kw $/kw $/kw
Direct Cost 452 314 388
Indirect & AFDC 340 155 186
Escalation 440 327 409
Coal Pile - 34 30
TOTAL 1232 830 1013
II-C-127
-------
*
I
Q.
CD
/oon
80
6Q_
.> 40
|
o
Figure II-C-23
payment schedule for
coal and nuclear power plants
1977
.8 2.3 5 8.1 12.8 15.8 14.8 15.4 14.8 10.2
0 0 .73 8.3 26L6 4Q/ 2/.3
incremental prepayments-in %
prepayment estimate
from
Illinois Power Company
noo
.8 3.1 8.1
10
0
years p/onV
J operation
I6J2 29 44.8 59.6 75 89JB K)0 NUCLEAR
0 .7 37 12 386 78.7 100 COAL
cumulative % of payments
II-C-128
-------
to capital Investment or a near equivalence of that. An average mine
size of 3 million tons/year of product was assumed requiring about $20/
ton of production for investment capital (6). All coal mines, deep or
surface, eastern or western, were figured to have the same average cost.
Also assumed was a 5-year lead time to develop new mines using capital
in a linear manner. The cumulative estimated capital for coal mines is
noted in Table II-C-34.
Table II-C-34
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS - COAL MINES
TO SERVE THE ORBES REGION - CUMULATIVE CAPITAL
TO THE YEAR 2000 IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Cumulative Investment P.W. of 1975-2000
RTC
BOM 80-20
BOM 50-50
FTF 100% Coal
FTF 100% Nuclear
to Year 2000
$9.7
6.7
1.8
1.4
Investment
$4.8
3.1
.9
.6
The intensity of this investment is, of course, proportional to
production needs. The investment required for coal mining is much less
than that needed for pollution abatement items.
Uranium investment capital requirement is a function of many
variables. To name a few, they involve open pit mining, underground
mining, the depth to vein thickness ratio (D/T) of ore, ore grade in
% UoOg, ore production rate, exploration and developmental drilling,
hauling distance, milling operation, and above all, current or expected
yellow cake prices. The investment capital needed for the RTCs was
determined by averaging underground and open pit mining costs for a
moderate-size mine of 3,000 tons of 0.1% UoOg ore per day. The D/T
ratio was assumed as 24 and 76 for open pit and underground mines,
respectively. Table II-C-35 lists the estimated financial impact of
uranium mining for ORBES needs (data from Ref. 7).
It is expected that UgOo mining costs will increase from now to
2000 for several reasons. Exploratory drilling is discovering less
uranium reserves per foot of drilling. Ore grade being mined has
decreased from .25% to .1 and .05% U^OQ level in the past 20 years. The
depth of ore to thickness ratio for underground mines is on the increase
II-C-129
-------
and mines are getting smaller in net output but increasing in ore
production as the less economic deposits are being utilized. The cost
distribution between capital and operation for an open pit mine is
about 60% to 40%, respectively; whereas for underground, it is more
like 33% to 67%. The capital required for each is about the same;
the operating cost is greater for the underground mine.
Table II-C-35
INVESTMENT CAPITAL NEEDED FOR URANIUM MINES -
CUMULATIVE TO YEAR 2000 IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Cumulative Investment P.W. of 1975-2000
RTC
BOM 50-50
BOM 80-20
FTF 100% Nuclear
FTF 100% Coal
to Year 2000
$7.6
3.5
1.6
1.0
Investment
$2.5
1.2
.53
.36
As might have been expected because of the concentration of energy
in uranium ore, uranium mining capital requirements are less than for coal
mining. In terms of capital requirements, mining for coal and uranium
combined is less than that needed for pollution control and only about
10% of that required for power plant construction.
At first glance, the cumulative capital requirements for mining
and plant construction to the year 2000 appear to be enormous. It must
be remembered, however, that the BOM RTCs assume that the economy, all
phases of it, requires the energy production capacity. It should also be
noted that the higher cost per kw of capacity that we are now experiencing
will by 1985 have increased the electric utility rates to the extent that
the lead time of construction prepayments can be better absorbed in the
later years than now. If construction work in progress (CWIP) is allowed
in the utilities' rate base, this would reduce the utilities' need for
investment capital by about 25%. It shifts the burden of higher energy
cost to the consumer sooner, but does it more gradually. CWIP is not
attractive to the consumer who expects an after-tax rate of return on
investment money that is greater than the discount rate of the utility.
This serious financial problem is just beginning to be addressed by
public rate-making bodies and it is unclear at this point how the
question will be resolved.
II-C-130
-------
The BOM 80/20 shows about $10 billion less cumulative first cost
than the BOM 50/50 case. Irrespective of this, the 50/50 mix of coal
and nuclear is a plausible scenario because the expected savings in
nuclear fuel cost over coal more than offsets the higher initial invest-
ment for nuclear. If this fuel savings was not reasonably assured to
the utility at the time it made its choice, it would choose the plant
(coal) with the lowest first-cost investment. This is the basic
economic difference between the BOM scenarios.
To compare the energy cost of the scenarios, some estimate of
fuel cost needs to be made for the present and then the year 2000 for
coal and nuclear plants. The region average capacity factor of 47.8%
will be used for nuclear and coal plants alike; however, this assumption
actually favors the coal plant. Utilities usually dispatch power incre-
mentally.base loading with the lowest fuel cost units first. Nuclear
units, with their lower fuel costs, would be used for base load any time
it was available for operation, thus would tend to average a higher
capacity factor. Newer and more efficient coal units would be held for
base load, of course, in states such as Kentucky since they expect very
few nuclear plants. Other exceptions to the loading pattern would be
for conditions of system reliability and stability which take priority
over economic consideration. . ;
Fuel costs for present-day nuclear and fossil plants can be best
expressed by an article by G. R. Corey, Vice Chairman of Commonwealth
Edison Co. (8 ). They are in 1974 dollars and only reflect the start
of rising costs for uranium, enrichment, coal, and oil. Data are shown
in Table II-C-36 , and they no longer represent current prices but are
shown as a base line.
The referenced analysis used current replacement costs in the 1974
period. If one includes levelized fuel costs for plants that may be in
the planning horizon or already in the construction pipeline, a series
of three articles by Brandfon shows an interesting trend in projected
15-year levelized costs for plants expected to operate beginning 1984,
1985, 1986 (2,3,4). These data are presented in Table II-C-37.
Escalation of costs for these calculations were at 6% per year
with an 18% fixed charge rate.
Some fuel cost components that changed with the year of estimate
(expressed in $/kwe) are:
1969 1974 1975 1977 1984 1985 1986
Fabrication 7 . 12.75 15 16 100 140 160
Uranium Ore Concentrate 7.5 18 45 65 76
Enrichment 6.8 27 31 34
Back End Service (in $/kgU) $35 $40 $65 Not
Avail.
(Shipping, ship & reprocessing)
II-C-131
-------
Table II-C-36
FUEL (REPLACEMENT COSTS)
MILLS/kwh - 1974 DOLLARS
Nuclear
High-
Sulfur
Coal
Low-
Sulfur
Coal
Scrubbers on
Oil High-Sulfur
Fuel (Replacement Costs) 5Jj-6
10
16
23
13
This is based on the following assumptions:
Nuclear
$25-$35/# U308
$65-$75/SWU 0.3% tails assay
33,000 MWD/tonne burnup - PWR
29,000 MWD/tonne burnup - BWR
Fossil
High-sulfur coal
Low-sulfur coal
#6 oil
$1.00 per MBTU)
$1.67 per MBTU) Delivery in Chicago
$2.38 per MBTU)
Table II-C-37
15 YEAR LEVELIZED FUEL COST FOR A 1100 MW(E)
PLANT IN MILLS/kwh
Year of
Estimate
1969
1975
1976
1977
First Year
of Operation
1975
1984
1985
1986
Month's
to Complete
Nuclear Plant Nuclear
72
111
111
114
1.7
12
18.4
18.8
Low-Sulfur
Coal
29
30.8
31.6
High-Sulfur
Coal with
Scrubbers
25.2
26.7
27.4
Expressing these fuel costs in $/MBTU using the ORBES efficiences for
the plants yields:
$/MBTU
1975
1984
1985
1986
$ .18
1.24
1.90
1.94
2.67
2.84
2.91
2.39
2.53
2.60
II-C-132
-------
The price for l^Os presently is in the $40/1b. range and will be
above $50/1b. by 1980 with no firm bids available beyond that date.
Brandfon presents an unbiased view with reference to coal or nuclear plant
costs since the A-E firm involved handles both types of designs. With the
nuclear fuel costs being so volatile, there has been a slowdown in recent
nuclear plant orders.
The coal plants in the previous table were for Illinois high-
sulfur coal and for western low-sulfur coal. Escalation of costs were
also at a 6%/year rate.
Comparing fuel costs for the 1984 startup of plants (Table II-C-38),
the BOM 80-20 fuel cost is about 21% greater than BOM 50-50 mix; however,
for plants starting in 1986 the estimate shows the 80-20 mix only 11%
greater. This shows that the scenarios are sensitive to fuel cost changes.
Even where the fuel cost difference is the least, the 1986 levelized
value, it only takes 8 years of operation after which the BOM 50-50 is
more economic than the 80-20 case. Since the plants have about a 30-year
life, the BOM 80-20 might have a higher overall financial impact.
Table II-C-38
FUEL COSTS PER YEAR OF THE BOM RTCS AT YEAR 2000
USING FUEL COSTS 15 YEARS LEVELIZED FOR STARTUP
IN 1984 AND 1986 (REF.2,4)
Generation BOM 50-50 BOM 80-20
Nuclear
Coal
TOTAL
1984
$ 4.3 x 109
9.1 x 109
$13.4 x 109
1986
6.8 x 109
9.9 x 109
16.6 x 109
1984
$ 1.7 x 109
14.5 x 109
$16.2 x 109
1986
2.7 x 109
15.8 x 109
18.5 x 109
6.4.1. INVESTMENT VS. FUEL COST TRADE OFF - NUCLEAR VS. COAL PLANTS
To indicate the relative size of fuel cost differential that is
needed to offset a first-cost price differential, consider the following:
an investor-owned electric utility finds it has to pay $100/kw more in
first cost for a nuclear plant than for a coal plant. The extra invest-
ment charge expressed in cents/cwh is
$100/kw x Pn x 100
CI = 8760 x cf
II-C-133
-------
where Pn is the depreciable fixed charge rate for the nuclear plant
investment and cf is the unit's capacity factor and Cj is the investment
cost component of energy in cents/ kwh. For our present study, the load
factor of 47.8% is also assumed to be the plant capacity factor and Pn
has a value of 0.134 for the following utility economic parameters: bond
interest rate 8%, equity return rate 14%, debt ratio 50%, income tax
rate 50%, 30 year book life, 16 year tax life with sum of the years
digits tax depreciation and a zero salvage for tax and book. This yields
a 9%/year time valuing rate and an 18% nondepreciable fixed charge
rate ( 5 ) .
Then an extra $100/kw of capacity would cost
r _ 100 (.134) (1000) _ o
CI -- (8760) (.478) / - 3.
more for a nuclear plant. In order to overcome this extra investment
cost, the nuclear fuel cost must be less by that same amount. It also
means that the coal fuel cost could be higher by this amount. Converted
to thermal energy cost, the nuclear fuel must be less by 35tf/MBTU.
Because of the higher efficiency of coal plants, this converts to a
higher coal cost of 38^/MBTU to show equivalence.
Recent fuel cost estimates for the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant
in Illinois, scheduled for 1981 operation, indicates a lifetime levelized
nuclear fuel cost of about 50<£/MBTU. Comparing this fuel cost to Illinois
coal at a similar site and using today's prices, it would amount to about
$1.25/MBTU without scrubbers. An additional 30^/MBTU is required for
limestone. Comparing 50^/MBTU, more than a $250/kw differential in
nuclear and coal plant investment cost can be tolerated before the over-
all electric energy cost favors the coal plants. These figures compare
the near- term difference in fuel cost between coal and nuclear. Using
the latest data for 1986 startup, the difference in fuel cost between
coal and nuclear is 2.60-1.94 = $66/MBTU. This represents an equivalent
differential of $170/kw between nuclear and coal plant first cost.
6.4.2. RELEVANCE OF LOAD FACTOR AND CAPACITY FACTOR
An attempt was made to see if electric utilities could live with
each of the four RTCs from the capacity factor standpoint. It was
assumed that the utilities would attempt to have a higher capacity factor
on the nuclear units, following load with the coal units (within limits)
and then using peakers for the short daily peak requirements. The
region capacity factor was maintained at 47.8% and capacity factors of
60% and 65% were assumed for nuclear units. Table II-C-39 shows
corresponding results for coal plants. Whether the utility can tolerate
the resulting coal capacity factor remains to be discussed.
II-C-134
-------
Table II-C-39
COAL AND NUCLEAR CAPACITY FACTORS FOR FOUR RTCS
RTC
BOM 50-50
BOM 80-20
FTF 100% Coal
FTF 100% Nuclear
Nuclear
<*n
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Coal
cfc
.41
.46
.47
.43
Nuclear
cfn
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
Coal
cfc
.38
.45
.46
.41
Since the coal capacity factor cfc included the peaking units
that are vital to electric utility systems, the actual capacity factors
for coal plants are higher than indicated. Since peak power usually
covers 4 to 5 hours each day, the capacity factor of the coal units does
increase a reasonable amount except perhaps for the BOM 50-50 case. The
coal capacity factor may be too low. Considering the overall load factor
of 47.8%, the nuclear portion of the mix results in too low a capacity
factor for the coal plants. All too often the coal plants would have to
operate in the unstable flame-out region or else nuclear plants cannot
be maintained at the capacity factors indicated. Neither case would have
been allowed to occur by electric utility management.
In the previous section on trade offs, it might have occurred to
some that the nuclear plant capacity factor should have been a higher
value, perhaps the 60% used in this section rather than using the load
factor of 47.8%. Actually, neither value gives the true picture.
Electric utilities with a fixed rate structure will attempt to base load
the power units that exhibit the lowest incremental fuel cost that is
consistent with system reliability and transmission losses. In most
cases, this would favor the low-fuel-cost nuclear units. There are other
criteria to consider. Coal plants are often unstable in operation when
the boiler load drops below some minimum value, such as 1/3 load. Then,
if the load is insufficient, even nuclear units must reduce power and
load follow. In reality then, the coal plant, being the higher incremen-
tal cost unit, will have a lower capacity factor than the nuclear unit.
To more accurately assess the first-cost difference of coal and nuclear,
the investment cost difference in <£/kwh is:
100
8760
CnPn"
cf_
C P'
_cn
cf _
II-C-135
-------
where the subscripts n & c refer to nuclear and coal respectively and
Cn'Cc refer to total plant first costs in $/kw. Since cfn > cfr1 the
cost difference is lessened between coal and nuclear. Pnn,and Pnc'»
the nuclear and coal fixed charge rates, may be different because of
the tax breaks given in accelerated tax depreciation and investment tax
credit. The tax break usually favors the nuclear unit such as Pnn < Pnc'
but that situation may change in the case of tax breaks for pollution
control devices added to coal plants that may actually reverse the
inequality noted. This is due to the incentive tax breaks given pollution
control devices to offset the nonrevenue producing investments that the
utilities are making.
At the very beginning of this section, it was mentioned that
capital requirements for electric energy production for the next 25
years are extremely difficult. Many forces will affect electric utility
decision makers and, in turn, capital formation and costs. Some of the
critical questions which will impact upon fuel mix decisions to the year
2000 are as follows:
1. Prospects for relatively higher uranium ore prices in
comparison to coal (9).
2. Rapidly advancing fabrication costs.
3. Prospects for a wider differential in first cost of
nuclear versus coal plants.
4. Continued indecision of reprocessing spent fuel and
the reuse of uranium and its by-product plutonium (10).
5. Prospects for large increases in the cost of spent fuel
reprocessing and an unresolved radioactive waste disposal
policy (11).
6. Continued speculation of prospects of future coal prices
and the related costs of transportation and sulfur removal
equipment.
7. Prospects for a commercially reliable S02 removal technology (12),
Finally, it seems quite clear that if either of the BOM scenarios
were to prevail, the utilities would be even more active participants
than they are today in the very competitive debt and equity money markets
of the nation. Questions related to the availability of capital and the
competitive demands for this resource are discussed in Chapter 10.
H-C-136
-------
6.5. IMPACTS ON LABOR
Skilled labor requirements and availability for energy-related
development in the ORBES region could constitute a significant developed
resource impact. This section explores the question of general labor
availability in terms of changes in the historical share of the labor
force allocated to production, transmission, and distribution of
electricity. The availability of laborers with specific occupational
skills is also addressed.
The large growth rates of installed electrical generating capacity
as reflected in the BOM scenario suggest the possibility of construction
labor shortages through the year 2000. For the purpose of this analysis,
it was assumed that these shortages would manifest themselves by causing
the future electrical construction share of ORBES total construction
employment to rise relative to its historic share. Complete substituta-
bility among the various construction occupational subcategories was
assumed. Thus, if ORBES total construction employment grows at the same
rate as the ORBES labor force, but electrical construction employment
grows at a greater rate, then some labor shortages may develop.
This possibility was examined for the most severe BOM 50-50
scenario under the following assumptions:
1. Construction employment is 2600 person years per 1000 megawatt
installed capacity for coal-fired plants and 4400 person years
for nuclear plants. This represents the conversion facility
employment only.
2. Construction employment for transmission and distribution is
1800 person years per 1000 megawatt installed capacity. This
figure is based on the 1974 allocation of electrical construc-
tion employment among production, transmission, and distribu-
tion activities.
3. New installed capacity through the year 2000 is 158,000
megawatts. This averages 6.32 thousand megawatts per year,
1975-2000, for an annual electrical construction employment
requirement of 33,500.
4. In 1973, electrical construction employment constituted
0.12% of the national labor force. This percentage share
was assumed to be the same for the ORBES labor force of 7
million.
5. The 1973 electrical construction employment share of the ORBES
construction labor force was approximately 2%.
The analysis suggests that by 1990, electrical construction employ-
ment will have risen from 2% to 7% of the ORBES construction labor force.
The figure would be higher were it not for the fact that the construction
II-C-137
-------
labor force was assumed to grow at historical rates with population
growth. The requisite increase in electrical construction personnel
could be achieved by a 0.3% increase in the ORBES total labor force
by 1990. These results are based on the assumption that new capacity
is brought on line in smooth, equal increments over the time period of
the study. Therefore, any bunching of new plants in time could worsen
the labor force impacts. Under the other regional technology configura-
tions, impacts will be somewhat less. Construction employment in total
person years required for nuclear facilities is approximately 60-70%
greater than for coal facilities of comparable megawattage. Some
expansion of the ORBES construction labor force may be achieved at the
present time since many apprenticeship programs in the ORBES states
are operating at less than capacity. A more comprehensive analysis of
general labor market problems in ORBES is required to address these
issues in greater depth.
Although no serious problems are anticipated in terms of the
number of construction personnel required, there remains the possibility
that shortages will develop in particular occupational specialties.
Precision welders, for example, require 2 to 3 years of specialized
training beyond ordinary welding skill levels. Moreover, technical and
vocational school curricula currently are not aimed at the development
of precision welding skills. The problem is especially severe in the
case of nuclear facilities where maintenance welders may accumulate
rapidly their maximum radiation dose allowance, with a resulting
decrease in effective labor supply for the nuclear industry. These
facts suggest possible 1 to 2 year short-term shortages until a
sufficient number of precision welders is available. Most of this
supply will probably come about through the upgrading of skill levels.
Additional questions arise in the case of underground coal miner
availability. Clearly, present numbers of ORBES miners are inadequate
to satisfy projected coal demands and vocational programs are not as
common as with construction trades. After several decades of produc-
tivity increases, coal mining productivity has declined by an average
annual rate of 4.6% between 1969 and 1974. If this trend persists,
demand for miners may increase more rapidly than the demand for coal (1).
Further difficulties may arise as a result of reluctance on the part of
younger work force entrants to pursue jobs as underground miners.
One of the salient characteristics of a labor market is its
demonstrated flexibility. There is often considerable cross training
in related occupational specialties. Further, within a trade, the
hierarchical structure of skill categories permits rapid advancement of
tradespeople in times of need. During slack periods, there is often
underemployment. Rising relative wage levels for critical skills tend
to alleviate shortages in the short run by drawing on reserves of labor
in other specialties and in other regions. In the long run, other
measures are required. As suggested in other sections of this report,
appropriate long-range planning by utilities and other employers can
II-C-138
-------
significantly ameliorate the severity of future impacts. There is
ample evidence that such planning is in fact being undertaken, both
with respect to future labor requirements and labor supplies. A need
exists, however, to address such problems on a regional scale to avoid
cumulative labor market impacts stemming from the simultaneous construc-
tion of numerous large-scale conversion facilities.
U-C-139
-------
6.6. SUMMARY - IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES
The Ford Tech Fix scenarios would not represent a major perturba-
tion to the developed resources of the region. Because the Ohio River
Basin has a long history of industrialization dating back to the mid-
19th century, all elements of its infra-structure could adjust quite
easily to the gentle incremental growths in energy-generating facilities
under the Ford Tech Fix configurations. The BOM scenarios, on the other
hand, would put strain upon transportation systems, capital formation,
and labor availability.
In the area of manufactured capital goods needed to implement the
planned generating capacity of the BOM scenarios, it would appear that
the support industries are tooled-up with an excess capacity and they
are anxious to serve an expanded demand. One must use caution, however,
in interpreting the results of our relatively small survey of the energy
industry. Perhaps the safest point to be made is that manufactured goods
will fulfill the needs of currently planned capacity to 1985. Support
industries could expand to meet a part of the BOM growth beyond that
point, but it is predicted that lead times would lengthen considerably.
Under the FTF predictions, current manufacturing excess capacity would
be more than adequate to satisfy the needs.
The BOM scenarios would make extensive and expanded use of
railway, barge, and to some extent, rural road and highway systems. Any
scenario which calls for the increased use of coal will have a direct
impact upon the primary systems of transportation upon which coal must
rely. Unit trains will become more in evidence. Road beds and right-of-
ways must be improved considerably. Congestion may occur during peak
periods, such as harvest time. The capacity of the barge systems along
the Ohio River may already be reaching its limit because of a
necessarily complicated dam and lock system. Given time, money, plus
public and private commitment, the ORBES transportation system can
fulfill the BOM scenarios but in order to do so these commitments are
necessary.
The differences between the BOM scenarios and the FTF scenarios
are graphically expressed in the differences in the amount of capital
that would be required to open the mines and build the power plants
projected under the two basic scenarios. The cumulative investment
ranges all the way from approximately $58 billion for the FTF 100% coal
to $357 billion for the BOM 50-50. It is quite clear that under the
BOM scenarios, capital formation would be an ever increasing preoccupation
with the utilities as they enter regional and national money markets for
both debt and equity capital. Generating that amount of capital would
represent an enormous undertaking within a 25-year period. The amount
of economic activities presumed in the BOM scenarios implies that
capital of this magnitude could be generated, but it also implies a
highly competitive money market resulting in high interest costs.
II-C-140
-------
In the area of labor availability, we were able only to make a
short analysis of some of the problems which might arise under the high
growth presumed under the BOM scenarios. Obviously the rate of plant
construction starts would be considerably greater than current pro-
jections. This would result in some initial shortages of skilled
construction workers but this presumably would correct itself through
both market mechanisms and the capacity within the region to train
skilled labor. It is not at all clear, however, that miners can be
recruited in sufficient numbers required for the deep mining needed to
fulfill the BOM 80-20 scenario.
II-C-141
-------
6. IMPACTS ON DEVELOPED RESOURCES
6.2 IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION
1. Bureau of Mines, Coal Transportation Practices and Equipment Re-
quirements to 1985. Bureau of Mines Information. Cir 1C 8796,
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1976.
2. O'Donnell, J. J. and A. G. Sliger, "Availability of Limestone and
Dolomites," Research and Engineering Development, The M. W. Kellogg
Company, Piscataway, N. J., 1971.
3. Bureau of Mines, Comparative Transportation Costs of Supplying
Low Sulfur Fuels to Midwestern and Eastern Domestic Energy Markets.
Bureau of Mines Information Cir, 1C 8614, U. S. Department of the
Interior, 1973.
4. Rieber, M. and S. L. Soo, "Route Specific Cost Comparisons: Unit
Trains, Coal Slurry Pipelines and Extra High Voltage Transmission,"
Center for Advanced Computation, CAC Document No. 190, University
of Illinois, Urbana, May 1976.
5. Howe, C. W., J. L. Carroll, A. P. Hurter, Jr., W. J. Leininger,
S. G. Ramsey, N. L. Schwartz, E. Silberberg, and R. M. Steinberg,
"Inland Waterway Transportation," The Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, 1969.
6. Bottoms, E. E. "Practical Tonnage Capacity of Canalized Water-
ways ," ASCE Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division. WW1,
Feb., 1966, pp 33-46.
7. Bureau of Mines, Unit Train Transportation of Coal. Bureau of
Mines Information Cir 1C 8444, U. S. Department of the Interior,
1970.
8. Electric Power Research Institute, .Coal Transportation Capability
of the Existing Rail and Barge Network. 1985 and Beyond, 1976.
9.. Greene, R. W., IHand I. M. Thomson, "Conveying Inland Coal,
Then Barging It," fining Engineering. December, 1971, pp 50-54.
10. Blomeke, J. 0., C. W. Kee, and R. Salmon, "Shipments in the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Projected to the Year 2000," Nuclear News.
June, 1975, pp 62-65.
II-C-142
-------
6.4 IMPACTS ON CAPITAL OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS
1. Report of the Electric Utilities Panel to the Illinois Energy
Resource Commission.Springfield, Illinois, March 1977.
2. Brandfon, W. W. "The Economics of Power Generation," Presented
to AIF Central Regional Advisory Council, Chicago, IL June 24,
1976.
3. Brandfon, W. W. "An Analysis of Power Generation Costs: 1985-
2000," Electric Light and Power Sept. 20, 1976. Cahrers Publish-
ing Co., 1976.
4. Brandfon, W. W. "The Nuclear Vs. Coal Decision" Presented to
Bosworth Sullivan Instructional Investor Conference, Vail,
Colorado, Mar. 8, 1977.
5. "Fuel Cycle Economics," Chap. IV by D. F. Hang, Education and
Research in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Edited by Elliott and Weaver
Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1972 pp 64-83.
6. "Factors Responsible for Variation in Productivity of Illinois
Coal Mines," 111. Mineral Note 60, 111 State Geo. Survey,
Aug., 1975.
7. Uranium Industry Seminar. USAEC Grand Junction, Colo. GJO-108
(74), P &II, Nov. 1974.
8. Corey, Gordon R. A Comparison of the Cost of Nuclear vs. Con-
ventional Electric Generation. Commonwealth Edison Company. A
talk presented at MIT, November 17, 1975.
9. "Uranium Supply," John F. Hogerton. Proceedings of the American
Power Conference, Vol. 38, 1976, pp 110-115.
10. "Plutonium Recycle and The Impact of Indecision," A. E. Schubert.
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Vol. 38, 1976,
pp 116-120.
11. Colby, Jr., L. J. Fuel Reprocessing in the United States: A
Review of Problems and Some Solutions. Nuclear News, January 1976,
pp 8-73.
12. "Summary Report. Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems." Sept.
October 1976. Prepared by PED Co—Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio prepared for USEPA Contract #68-02-1321.
II-C-143
-------
6.5 IMPACTS ON LABOR
1. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bui #1890,
1976.
II-C-144
-------
II-C-145
-------
Table II-C-40 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
TRANSPORTATION More
severe (3) " (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix).
TRANSPORTATION
COAL
Raw or
processed
Ash
NUCLEAR
Milled ura-
nium to a
conversion
facility;
Converted
uranium to
an enrich-
ment facili-
ty; Enrichec
uranium to i
fabrication
facility;
Fuel to re-
actors ;
Waste to
permanent
storage
Increased demand
for unit trains,
freight trains and
barges, new rail
lines
Increased demand
for freight trains,
trucks § barges if
not deposited on
site
Increased demand
for freight trains
and trucks de-
signed with appro-
priate safeguards
against the spread
of radioactivity
AC,(S,
M,L),
SV.N
VU,(S,
M,L),
MD,N
AC, (S,
M.L),
MD,N
AC,(S,M,L),
SV,N
VU,(S,M,L),
MD.N
AC,(S,M,L),
MD,N
AC,(S,M,L),SV,
N
VU,(S,M,L),MD,
N
AC,(S,M,L),MD,
N
1
1
2
.
AC,(S,M,L),
SV.N
VU,(S,M,L),
MD,N
AC,(S,M,L),
MD,N
AC,(S,M,L),SV,
N
VU,(S,M,L),MD,
N
•
AC,(S,M,L),MD,
N
3
3
4 .
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-40 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios
TRANSPORTATION Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
TRANSPORTATION
COAL
Raw or
Processed
ftcrli p
>\sn Q
scrubber
sludge
NUCLEAR
Milled ura-
nium ore;
Converted
ore;
Enriched
ore; Fuel to
reactors ;
Waste to
permanent
storage
Increased de-
mand for trans-
portation
Almost none ,
due to on site
disposal
Increased
demand
Transportation
industries
Transportation
industries
SV,+
M,+
Capacity
restrictions
Security
Multiple trans-
portation stages
Invest in basic
research
Tax incentives
for improving
eguigment
Improve
utilization
Increase
capacity
Combine proces-
sing facilities
DOT
U.S. Congress
Transporta-
tion industry
Corps of En-
gineers j DOT
Nuclear Regu-
latory Comm.
Nuclear Regu-
latory Comm.
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
II-C-148
-------
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
7.1. INTRODUCTION
The Ohio River Basin, much like the rest of the country, has had
a history of abuse and exploitation of the natural environment. More
recently the region has attempted to ameliorate both the level of abuse
and its effects through a wiser management of the air, water, land and
ecological system within the area (i.e., ORSANCO).
The Ohio River Basin is an extensively productive industrial and
agricultural region. As in similar regions, these characteristics bring
tensions between the desire to achieve improved environmental quality
and the need for continued economic productivity. Its land can produce
food and energy. But assurance of the high quality land essential for
agricultural purposes requires that the short-term satisfaction of one
need must be kept in balance with the long-term satisfaction of the other.
While there is a clear abundance of water to meet expanding con-
sumptive needs, depletion of total quantity may affect in-stream uses.
In addition the quality of the water must also be considered and protected.
Air quality and biological systems have been impacted because of
the extent of industrial and energy producing activities in the region.
The following sections will attempt to assess the full range of environ-
mental impacts upon the region for the four scenarios.
II-C-149
-------
7.2. LAND QUALITY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
Land quality, as used herein, is limited to consideration of land
areas used for waste disposal and land areas affected by the by-products
of conversion processes. Land quality considerations from the per-
spective of geomorphology and land use are treated in separate sections.
Solid waste will be produced in association with virtually every energy-
related function.
Conversion of coal into electricity will produce large quantities
of waste. Surface mining will generate about 1.2 tons of overburden
waste for every ton of coal recovered from the ground (1 ). Underground
mining will produce about 0.036 tons of solid waste for every ton of
coal produced (1 ). Coal cleaning produces up to about 0.30 tons of
solid waste per ton of washed coal (1 ). A steam-electric generating
plant will produce about 0.12 tons of ash (recovered fly ash and bottom
ash) per ton of coal burned (1 ). If wet lime scrubbing is used as the
means of stack gas cleaning, about 0.25 tons of dry scrubber waste
(including ash) will be produced for every ton of coal converted to
electricity (2 ). This amounts to about 1.75 tons of waste per ton of
coal if the coal comes from strip mines and scrubbers are used. The
comparable figure for underground coal is 0.91 tons of solid waste per
ton of coal.
In most cases, these wastes will be permanently stored near the
site where they are produced. Mining and cleaning wastes can generally
be graded back into the mined areas or otherwise treated and stored near
the mining site. Scrubber sludge disposal requires a specially con-
structed pond near the generation station. A 1,000 MW(E) plant requires
a 30-foot deep disposal area covering about 80 acres to store the
scrubber sludge produced over a 30-year period of plant generation (2,
p. ld-24). Procedures for returning these areas to productive uses are
available.
Land quality may also be degraded over large areas surrounding
coal-fired generating stations as airborne pollutants settle to the
ground. The process is fully described in the section on Air Quality.
The manifestation of this impact is in the form of reduced productivity
of agricultural land (see Biological/Ecological Impact section). This
type of impact has already occurred in the ORBES region. Some power
companies have adopted a policy of making reparation for crop damage
caused by emissions from coal-fired generating stations. Impacts of
this sort can be ameliorated by control of stack gas emissions. This
is discussed more thoroughly in the section on air quality.
The amount of solid waste resulting from the nuclear fuel cycle
affecting land quality in the ORBES region is much less than that
expected from coal. It is highly unlikely that uranium ore will be
mined in the region by the year 2000; therefore, extraction is not
considered. Nuclear fuel is fabricated in the region but the amount of
II-C-150
-------
waste is small. Long-term storage of irradiated wastes, especially in
the absence of reprocessing capability, poses substantially greater
problems. Long-term storage will be accomplished by concentrating these
wastes at regional disposal sites.
The ORBES region already has a storage facility for low-level
wastes, and the region is being investigated as a candidate for a high-
level waste repository. Although the amount of waste is small, the
potential for land quality degradation is serious if confinement is
incomplete. Accidental releases of radioactive material at the genera-
ting site or in transport also pose a serious threat to land quality.
However, as Table II-C-48, page 204, indicates, these events have a low
probability of occurrence.
Definite conclusions about the relative severity of land quality
impacts from the high-nuclear RTCs and the high-coal RTCs are not
possible. Coal development within the region is certain to result in
widespread degradation of land quality. It is just as certain that land
quality degradation from coal development can be kept within acceptable
limits through application of existing technology. Land quality impacts
from nuclear development are not as certain. If existing technology is
applied correctly to nuclear development, the land quality impacts will
be localized and relatively insignificant. However, the potential for
land quality degradation is immense if some unforeseen natural or man-
induced hazard intervenes to negate the safety precautions built into
the nuclear program. The BOM RTCs have much more serious land quality
implications than the Ford Tech Fix RTCs.
Geomorphological impacts will result from all coal- and nuclear-
related functions. The impacts considered here are those associated
with reshaping the landscape and attendant disruption of drainage
patterns, sedimentation rates, and erosion rates. Land areas directly
subject to these impacts are the same as those areas subject to land
use changes (see Table II-C-26). For the functions of conversion,
transportation and utilization, geomorphological impacts will be most
obvious and severe during the construction phase of development.
Assuming the application of generally accepted civil engineering
practices, impacts resulting from these functions should be reduced to
acceptable levels during the operational phase.
Geomorphological impacts from extraction, processing, and waste
disposal are of greater concern. For these functions, production of
waste materials and direct modification of the shape of the land will
occur on a continuing basis. Surface extraction of coal will certainly
result in at least temporary piles of unstable waste materials and
disruption of surface drainage, and possibly disturbance of local
aquifer flow. Data from Kentucky showed erosion from unreclaimed surface-
mined land to be a thousand times greater than erosion from comparable
forested land (3 ). In addition to these impacts, subsidence must be
listed as an impact of underground mining. Beyond the obvious
II-C-151
-------
deformation of surface features resulting from subsidence, the
possibility of disruption, of drainage systems, including tile drainage
on agricultural land, must be considered. It should be emphasized that
current regulations, when enforced, are capable of controlling these
impacts as they occur. Siltation basins, diversion ditches, prompt
regrading, revegetation, and repair of tile drainage systems are among
the practices called for in existing regulations which reduce
geomorphological impacts to acceptable levels.
Possible off-site impacts of these geomorphological changes are
additional sources of concern. Disruption of surface and underground
flows of water affecting downstream users has already been noted.
Increased drainage density, reduced surface permeability and reduced
vegetative cover resulting from increased paved-over areas (i.e.,
conversion and utilization functions) could cause changes in surface
flow intensity which could in turn affect erosion and deposition rates
at downstream locations.
A comparison of geomorphological impacts between RTCs is given
in Table II-C-49, page 208. In general, these impacts will be greater
for the RTCs having more coal-fired generating stations. The BOM RTCs
will clearly have more severe geomorphological impacts than the Ford
Tech Fix RTCs.
7.2.1. POLICY ISSUES
Some of the policy issues related to land quality and geomorphology
are the following:
1. How effective, comprehensive, and enforceable are emission
standards, land reclamation regulations, and waste control regulations?
Should they be tightened or relaxed?
2. Should government become involved in directing energy develop-
ment to areas least sensitive to the impacts discussed in this section?
7.2.2. POLICY OPTIONS
1. Create, tighten, or enforce reclamation laws, emission
standards, and waste control regulations.
2. Land use legislation and zoning to direct development to least
sensitive areas.
II-C-152
-------
7.3. WATER QUALITY
The increased activity projected by the four RTCs will affect
water quality in two distinct fashions. Chemical and thermal releases
into the water will, of course, cause changes in its quality. In
addition, the decreased flow rates (discussed previously) which result
from evaporative cooling will provide less water for the dilution of
discharges and thus lead to higher concentrations of pollutants.
Surface mining may leave the land barren of vegetation for a
short period, perhaps one season. Rainfall and surface runoff can
carry quantities of the surface material as sediment into watercourses,
where it contributes to the turbidity of rivers and streams, and
results in the filling of lakes and reservoirs. Soluble materials may
be leached into the ground water. A major impact results from the
oxidation of sulfur which, prior to mining, had been beneath the water
table; ultimately this leads to the production of sulfuric acid, and
acidic conditions in nearby rivers and streams. Underground mining
produces far less material which can be carried as a portion of the
sediment load, but underground mines must be kept dry, and the water
which is pumped out of them is another source of acid mine drainage.
Even after the mine is abandoned and pumping ceases, water which.
seeps through the mine will carry sulfuric acid with it into rivers,
lakes, and wells.
The generation of electrical power by means of the steam cycle
(whether nuclear- or fossil-fueled) has been responsible for a major
water quality change through thermal discharge. The condensation of
steam, once it has passed through the generating turbines, requires a
large quantity of cool water, which is then returned to the waterbody
at a significantly elevated temperature. In many cases, this discharge
has been poorly dispersed and has taken place at locations in a river
which are particularly sensitive, and has, therefore, resulted in
considerable ecological damage. In recent years, concern over this
sort of damage has lead to the recirculation of cooling water through
cooling ponds (which may be either impoundments of natural streams,
or totally artificial waterbodies) and the use of atmospheric cooling
towers, in which most of the heat is carried into the atmosphere in
the form of water vapor. Both of these forms of recirculative cooling
result in increased water consumption through evaporation, and there-
fore in the reduction of available water for dilution. This, of course,
leads to a decrease in water quality.
In addition to the direct consumption of water, evaporative
cooling has an added impact in the concentration of impurities. Since
impurities in the cooling water (as well as chemical additives to it)
will not be evaporated, these materials are carried out of the cooling
tower in concentrated form in a small quantity of flow ("blowdown").
If not adequately treated, this material can have a significant water
quality impact.
II-C-153
-------
Many biologists and others regard the heated discharge of once-
through cooling, if properly designed and controlled, as a boon to the
live of the receiving water rather than a detriment.
Since nuclear power generation results in approximately 30% more
heat discharged by means of water, the thermal or consumptive impacts
of nuclear generation are greater than those of fossil-fuel generation.
Nuclear technology also has the potential for the discharge of
radioactivity to the environment. The principal points of impact with
water quality are: at extraction (particularly if surface-mined),
where runoff and leaching may carry radioactive materials (principally
radium 226) into surface waterbodies or underground aquifers; during
transportation, where an accident could discharge radioactive matter
to the environment and ultimately into water supplies; and during
discharge, reprocessing, or permanent storage of spent fuels and
collected waste matter from the reactor.
Coal conversion into gaseous forms is carried out principally
to remove some of the more noxious pollutants in coal (sulfur) and to
produce a fuel which is convenient to transport and use. Since gasi-
fication uses a significant amount of water for the production of
hydrogen to combine with the carbon in coal, and some additional water
for evaporative cooling of the chemical reactions in the process which
give off heat, its major impact on water quality is the reduction of
flow for dilution. Gasification also produces a number of impurities,
principally sulfur, ammonia, cyanide, trace metals, and hydrocarbons,
which may be discharged into the water if hot adequately treated.
7.3.1. POLICY
Policy options with regard to water quality revolve principally
around the desired level of quality and the trade off between quality,
energy generation, and cost.
To the extent that quality is impacted by reduced dilution
through evaporative cooling, the options discussed previously should be
considered to be quality-related as well as quantity-related.
Most of the direct quality impacts from the discharge of
pollutants are controllable through adequate treatment, and, for the most
part, that treatment is technologically feasible. The principal issue,
then, is the degree to which the quality obtained is worth the cost,
whether it be cost of providing treatment or cost of doing without
energy. Once these major trade offs have been evaluated, a large
number of policy instruments are available for implementing the
decisions.
II-C-154
-------
7.4. IMPACTS UPON THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT1
This section characterizes some of the noise emitting activities
associated with energy production. The impact of excessive noise can
be of two types. If noise is intense enough it can cause permanent or
temporary damage to the cochlea of the ear. Less intense noise can still
be a major environmental annoyance. Noise from energy activities tends .
to fall predominantly into the latter category.
The primary sources of noise are associated with coal extraction,
processing, distribution and conversion. In addition, the production of
electricity and its distribution may also serve as a source of noise.
The surface mining of coal usually involves the explosive blasting
of the overburden to permit mechanical extraction of the coal. Blasting,
will take place once or twice a day, normally during the daylight hours.
Blasting noise has its primary impact limited to a range of two to three .
thousand feet. Both noise and vibration are limited to a range of a few
hundred feet. In isolated areas, neither of these problems is serious.
However, small urban and rural settlements are being increasingly affected.
as the pressures to increase coal production climb. This would be par-
ticularly true under both the BOM scenarios. There is little available
control technology for limiting the impact of blasting noise and vibrations.
Drag lines, bulldozers and other heavy equipment associated with
strip mining also generate mechanical noise. Control technologies are
available to attenuate this noise. The hauling and processing of coal
also involve mechanical noise, but again, control technologies are
available.
Strip mining is often conducted on a round-the-clock basis and
mechanical noise impacts frequently on the surrounding residential areas
during leisure time or during the nighttime hours.
The noise problems associated with deep mining are distinctly dif-
ferent from those of strip mining. Here the noise problems are associated
with exhaust fan life support systems which are required for the health
and safety of miners. Eight- to twelve-foot exhaust fans operating
twenty-four hours a day can prove to be annoying as far as a half mile
away. Effective control technologies to suppress this noise are avail-
able but costly to maintain.
In electrical generation, the major problems are associated with .
steam blowoff and blowdown, and the screaming noise of peaking units.
The blowoff and blowdown problems tend to be safety measures but their
impact could be technologically controlled. Peaking units are tradi-
tionally located in very isolated areas but even in close proximity
This material was developed from private communications with
staff of the Noise Control Division of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
II-C-155
-------
to residential areas they can be architecturally screened from the
surrounding area.
The distribution of electricity causes some problems, particu-
larly distribution transformers. The transformers tend to hum at about
120 Hz. Cooling fans must also be used to control the heating of the
transformers. Unfortunately, distribution transformers tend to be
located very close to urban settlements. Finally, high-tension dis-
tribution tends to cause a snapping corona noise during humid weather.
While one must acknowledge some noise problems in energy produc-
ing activities, most of the problems have a technological solution.
However, the blasting problem associated with strip mining 1s particu-
larly annoying and still awaits cost/effective solutions. Environmental
standards for noise emissions from energy related activities are being
developed by a fairly large number of states, including Illinois within
the ORBES region. The fundamental policy which requires elaboration is
the prevention of permanent land use incompatibilities due to noise.
Blasting as a cheap but annoying method of removing overburden may
decrease as higher standards of land restoration are developed and
enforced.
II-C-156
-------
7.5. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
7.5.1. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
This section will discuss the primary impacts of the four scenarios
upon the air quality within the ORBES region. Since the atmosphere offers
a dynamic medium for the transport of gaseous and particulate pollutants,
it can be expected that the environmental air quality has a significant
impact upon the other areas of concern covered in this report such as land
quality, biology, and public health.
The impacts upon air quality are analyzed as a function of three
main energy activities: extraction, processing, and conversion. The
impacts from mining and processing are very similar and less significant
than those of conversion. This difference arises primarily from the way
the pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere. This is delineated in
Table II-C-41.
Table II-C-41
A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS AND ENERGY FUNCTIONS
Functions
Characteristics
Extraction
Processing
Transportation
Conversion
1. Source-Type
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Emission Level
Emission Intensity
Type of Emissions
Available Control
Area Affected by
Primary Impact '
Area (not easily
containable)
Ground-Level
Low-Moderate
Particulate
Restoration of
Disturbed Lands
Improved Handling
Procedures to
Reduce Escaping
Particulate
Local
Stack (containable)
Elevated Height
Can be Intense
Gaseous/Parti culate
I. Particulate:
1. Precipitators
a. Electrostatic
b. Cyclone or
Bag House
II. S02
1. Low-Sulfur Coal
2. Scrubbers
III. NOX, Oxidants
1. Improved Combus-
tion Control
Local-Regional
II-C-157
-------
7.5.1.1. EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING
The extraction function of coal will give rise to particulate
emissions which contain trace contaminants. In the case of surface
mining, these emissions arise from the open pits and earthen piles
created in the mining process. For the underground mining, the emissions
could emanate from the tailings pile.
To make an accurate estimate of the amount of particulates emitted
would be difficult. In fact, the modeling in this area is currently
under considerable investigation. There are many parameters to be con-
sidered. First, in looking at the mass emitted, at least three variables
appear to be significant -- in the land area exposed, the soil type, and
the velocity of the wind. A secondary consideration would include the
amount of excavating activity at the mine. The duration of emissions
from mining would depend primarily on the reclamation at the site, parti-
cularly the planting of a soil cover.
Knowledge of the amount of particulate emitted is not the sole
concern to the modeler. Another important consideration is characteri-
zation of the size of the particulate being emitted, particularly in
the terms of the vertical drift velocity of the particle. This depends
upon soil type, soil moisture, and other soil characteristics. In
general, the impact characteristics can be delineated by the vertical
drift velocity in the manner shown in Table II-C-42.
Table II-C-42
DESCRIPTION OF PARTICULATE BEHAVIOR
Large Vertical
Drift Velocity
Small Vertical
Drift Velocity
Ability to be
Transported
Area Impacted
Effects
Primary
Secondary
Low
Local to Source
Increased Atmospheric
Concentration of
Particulates
Deposition of Particu-
late in near Vicinity
Stable
Local to Regional
Increased Atmospheric
Concentration of
Particulates
Less Deposition in Near
Vicinity Climatological
Effects Including Pre-
cipitation Downwind
II-C-158
-------
Using the best models available, some of which are under active
development, the modeler should be able to predict within approximately
20 km of the source at a given location:
1. Average concentration of particulates in the atmosphere.
2. Average deposition of particulates upon the earth's surface
(1,2).
Looking at the primary impacts of increased particulate loading
of the atmosphere and subsequent deposition of the particulates on the
earth's surface, these impacts will probably be localized to within
10-20 km of the mine. Lacking the capacity of quantifying the other
parameters for a given scenario, the primary parameter to be used in
assessing a scenario's impact is the amount of disturbed land area
arising from its implementation. For example, the BOM 80-20 will result
in the surface mining of more than 600 sq. miles of land between the
years 1976 and 2000. Two points should be noted, however. Not all this
land will be subjected to wind erosion throughout the period of the
scenario. It is assumed that some form of restoration will follow
shortly after extraction has taken place. Second, compared to the
number of acres that are disturbed annually by farming in the region,
600 sq. miles appears to be relatively insignificant in terms of its
contribution to air quality degradation resulting from disturbed land.
Based upon these observations, the order of the scenarios in
relation to their impact upon the ORBES region from greatest to least
are as follows:
BOM 80-20
BOM 50-50
FTF (100% Coal)
FTF (100% Nuclear)
Similar impacts arise in the nuclear-ore crushing and concentration
processes. Due to the higher radioactivity of particulates resulting from
this process, there is a substantial effort to control their airborne
emission (3). Indeed, most authorities recognize milling wastes as the
major environmental (nonoccupational) hazard in the uranium procurement
process. To minimize the hazard of shipping large quantities of
unprocessed ore, this report shall assume that most of the uranium ore
concentration will occur near the mining site.
7.5.1.2. 'THE CONVERSION PROCESS
The burning of coal generates three major pollutants: fly ash,
oxides of sulfur, particularly S02» and oxides of nitrogen, NOX- Carbon
monoxide may also be emitted and there exists a trade off between CO and
NOv to be discussed later. Also hydrocarbon chains are present in coal
and may only be partially oxidized and subsequently emitted to the atmos-
phere.
II-C-159
-------
Of the three primary emissions, fly ash, S02 and NOX, the first
two are dependent upon the coal properties, while the latter depends on
the combustion process utilized. Coal in itself is predominately carbon
which when oxidized in the presence of sufficient oxygen yields carbon
dioxide, C02- The coal, however, contains many other materials including
a noncombustible matrix, sulfur (1% to 5% by weight), hydrocarbon chains
and various trace elements such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, zinc, etc.
Before the coal is burned, it is usually pulverized to a very
fine dust. The dust is subsequently blown into the boiler's flame where
it is oxidized. As noted, the primary reaction which generates heat is
the oxidation of carbon to C02- Many other processes occur, however.
First, the noncombustible matrix material is not burned. It remains as
fine dust which exits the boiler as fly ash. Many of the trace elements
cited earlier are also oxidized ((if not already oxidized in the original
coal) and may undergo a phase change. However, once they leave the
combustion chamber, the temperature drop is usually sufficient to allow
them to return to their original phase where they may attach themselves
'to the matrix fly ash or form participates through condensation or
solidification. The hydrocarbon chains also may only be partially
oxidized and then emitted to the atmosphere.
The sulfur, on the other hand, is usually oxidized to SO;? or $03
(>98% oxidized), provided sufficient oxygen is available. SOg is a gas
at usual temperature range and thus exits to the environment if it is
not removed. The entire oxidation process is implemented using air as
a source of oxygen. Unfortunately, air consists of over 70% nitrogen by
weight. It is here that the dilemma arises. To facilitate the complete
combustion of carbon in coal to carbon dioxide instead of carbon monoxide,
a highly toxic pollutant, two properties for the combustion process are
required: abundant oxygen and high temperatures. These are also the
conditions that tend to facilitate the formation of the oxides of
nitrogen, NOX. From an economic standpoint, it is also undesirable only
to partially oxidize the carbon to carbon monoxide since considerable
energy is released when the additional oxygen atom is added to the carbon
monoxide molecule to form carbon dioxide. Thus, it appears that the only
way of totally abating the formation of NOX is to remove the nitrogen
from the air. This is technically feasible but quite costly. Thus, there
is an economic trade off between the emissions of carbon monoxide and the
oxides of nitrogen, and the present practice is to control the combustion
process so as to minimize the product of NOX while maintaining nearly
- total oxidation of carbon to (X^.
The significance of the above emission problem arises from the
fact that a single 1000 MW(E) coal plant will use approximately 1.5
million tons of coal per year operating at average capacity factor of
'47.8%. If compliance western coal is used, which contains approximately
1% sulfur by weight, a plant would emit an average of 30,000 tons of SOj?
per year or 82 tons of S02/day. Depending upon which washing technologies
are used, coal, in general, consists of approximately 5-10% noncombustible
II-C-160
-------
matrix which would generate 200 to 400 tons of fly ash per day. Assuming
present standards are implemented, NOX emissions would be approximately
18 to 26 tons/day depending on combustion control. The EPA has published
information to enable one to estimate the above emissions (4,5).
7.5.1.3. EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
Two control strategies will be discussed: precombustion and post-
combustion techniques.
Precombustion abatement procedures attempt to remove the constit-
uents of coal from the fuel before they can be oxidized. Perhaps the most
used current precombustion procedure is the burning of low-sulfur coal
(typically less than 1% by weight sulfur). When low-sulfur coal is
burned, about 98% of the sulfur is oxidized. The emitted oxides of sulfur,
typically S02 and SOs, are usually within the specified New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Usually no post-combustion abatement
procedures will be attempted for low-sulfur coal although some states, such
as Colorado, are requiring it. This, however, is not presently true in
the ORBES states.
A second precombustion control procedure is the washing of coal.
At present, practically all coal is washed. This serves two purposes.
First, it removes a substantial amount of the loose matrix material which
would likely give rise to increased particulate emission upon combustion.
Second, some removal of the sulfur in the coal is accomplished. Washing
processes have been investigated as a means to produce compliance coal
from high-sulfur coal. The washing process effectiveness is enhanced in
two manners: crushing the coal to a small size (exposing more matrix
material), and increasing the intensity of the washing. This combined
process has been termed "benefication of coal" and it is believed that
through this process NSPS compliant coal (1.2 pound S02/million BTU)
could be produced economically (6). The water used in such processes is
typically cleaned and recycled to prevent water pollution.
The third precombustion procedure is the chemical processing of
coal, commonly termed coal gasification or liquefaction. There are many
of these processes under development. These technologies could produce
a compliant fuel which could subsequently be used in a power plant
operation. At this point only one such process which produces a
desulfurized coal will be discussed as an example. The coal is first
solubized (dissolved in a chemical solvent) after initial washing and
crushing. The solution of coal is then filtered to remove much of the
matrix material, sulfur, and longer hydrocarbon chains. The resulting
product is a NSPS compliant fuel termed as Solvent Refined Coal (7).
The technology to implement the above procedure is still under develop-
ment. c •
II-C-161
-------
"Scrubbing" is the primary postcombustion technique for removing
S02- Briefly, scrubbing is the process by which the S0£ is washed from
the flue gas and subsequently reacted with limestone (CaC03) or ^ime
(Ca(OH)2) to form CaS04. The CaStty is a chalky precipitate which is
later usually buried in large earthen pits. It should be noted that
lime is also formed from CaC03 requiring substantial amounts of energy.
A 1000 MW(E) plant operating at a .478 capacity factor will generate
approximately 250 to 400 tons of S02 (S03)/day using high-sulfur coal.
To meet the NSPS, the emitted S02 must be reduced to approximately 80
tons/day. There has been continual debate over the technical feasibility
of scrubbers. This report assumes, however, that scrubbers will be
technically feasible and will be utilized by all plants built after 1985
to allow usage of high-sulfur ORBES coals. As suggested earlier, some
states, e.g. Colorado, presently require all new plants to burn low-
sulfur coal and utilize scrubbers as a postcombustion treatment of flue
gas. By so doing, Colorado has implemented a portion of an ultimate
control strategy commonly referred to as Strictest Precursor Control
(SPC), i.e. application of all available abatement technologies. This
requirement is more stringent than the current NSPS.
To remove particulates from flue gas, the most common current
technology is the electrostatic precipitator. These devices can generally
effect 95 to 99% removal of the particulates present in the flue gas.
The efficiency of these devices, however, is influenced by the particle
size; the larger the particle, the more likely it will be removed from
the flue gas stream. Thus, the particles that escape the precipitator
tend to be of small diameter (submicron range) with a corresponding low
vertical drift velocity (typically less than .1 cm/sec). This enhances
the particle's capacity to remain airborne when emitted to the atmosphere.
Other technologies are available to remove particulate from the flue gas.
Cyclonic and bag house precipitators are usually only used in industrial
processes and do not have wide acceptance in electrical conversion
industry. Scrubbers can also be used, but the scrubbing column length
used for removal of particulates is not ideal for the removal of S02-
Thus, two separate columns would be required to remove both S02 and
particulates to maximum efficiency.
7.5.1.4. ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT OF POLLUTANTS
The result of both precombustion and postcombustion abatement
procedures will allow some of the pollutants to remain in the flue gas
which will subsequently be released to the atmosphere as it exits the
stack. The subsequent phenomena of atmospheric transport is very
complicated (1). In order to understand the process better, a brief
discussion of the process will be included. The first step is to
determine the effective height at which the pollutant is released. This
depends on several parameters, including the following:
II-C-162
-------
1. Stack height
2. Diameter of stack bore
3. Velocity of flue gas emission
4. Temperature of emitted flue gas
5. Downwind velocity of the,atmosphere
6. Temperature of the atmosphere
7. Atmospheric pressure
8. Atmospheric stability (mixing) condition
The relationship of the variables is very complex. The most accepted
equation to predict the effective height of plume rise is Brigg's
equation (8). Under certain atmospheric conditions, the actual height
of the stack becomes almost insignificant, particularly as the wind
speed approaches zero. As the wind speed becomes higher and the mixing
condition becomes more stable (neutral), the physical stack height plays
an important role.
There exists at some distance above the earth's surface, a mixing
layer due to the adiabatic inversion of the atmosphere, usually 700 to
1,200 meters but may be much lower under some meteorological conditions.
This mixing layer is very important in that very little mass is trans-
ported across the boundary. However, under certain meteorological
conditions, the momentum of the emitted plume will carry above the mixing
layer.
Typically on a local scale (less than 100 km) the plume will
remain on either side of the mixing layer. In either case, the plume
will begin to diffuse as it is transported downwind by the prevailing
winds. Assuming the plume remains under the mixing layers, the Gaussian
plume model is usually used to compute the average ground-level concen-
tration of the pollutant due to a particular source. Several computer
codes are currently available incorporating this Gaussian plume model
including the following:
Climatological Dispersion Model (9)
Air Quality Display Model (10,11)
Atmospheric Transport Model (2,12)
Continuous Source Reflection Model (13)
Usually these models are used to compute average concentration over a
period of time of one month or more. Under persistent meteorological
f"V
II-C-163
-------
conditions, the Gaussian plume model may be used directly to predict
the downwind effects of a particular source (1). Under fluctuating
wind conditions, short-term predictions of downwind effects are
extremely difficult.
Thus, clearly, the meteorological conditions influence the
downwind effects of a plume. Typically a slow-to-moderate wind speed
coupled with an unstable atmospheric mixing condition tends to raise
the concentration of pollutants significantly at local points downwind,
up to 10 km. Meanwhile a high velocity and very stable atmosphere will
cause more pronounced effects further downwind and have a much lesser
effect on local downwind points. Usually the effects under the first
meteorological condition are significantly more pronounced than the
latter condition. For this reason, the general tendency has been to
build taller stacks (500 to 1,000 feet) to mitigate the local effects
under the first meteorological conditions.
7.5.1.4.1. PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS IN THE PLUME
Another problem associated with the dispersion of the plume
downwind is the deposition of pollutants upon the earth's surface,
especially for particulate pollutants. This deposition phenomena is
enhanced by the particle's terminal vertical drift velocity in the
atmosphere. The larger the velocity the more deposition can occur.
Most of the Gaussian plume models cited earlier can predict or can be
modified to predict the average particulate deposition rate at a given
point that is associated with a given source (1,2,13,14). The use of
abatement devices for particulates at the source tends to reduce this
problem in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of particulate emitted
to the atmosphere by 95 to 99%. Second, the particles that escape the
abatement device tend to be characterized by a small vertical drift
velocity, thus increasing their ability to remain suspended in the
atmosphere. Still the amount of particulates produced in a 1000 MW(E)
plant operating at .478 capacity with coal consisting of 5 to 10% non-
combustible matrix material would be approximately 200 to 400 tons/day.
Using an abatement procedure that is 99% effective, the plant would still
emit 2 to 4 tons of particulate/day. Thus, it is expected that deposition
of particulate over an extended period of time will be significant.
The impacts arising from deposition of particulates are many.
First as discussed earlier the particles are often laden with trace
contaminants, such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, zinc, uranium, etc. The
long-term deposition of this particulate upon rural agricultural land
could allow these contaminants to become incorporated into the soil,
changing the soil's chemical composition. This long-term impact could
lead to reduced crop production since some of the trace contaminants
are toxic to plant growth. Another impact is the deposition of
particulates on hard surfaces, such as streets, sidewalks, roofs, etc.
associated with urban areas. During subsequent winds or from passing
II-O164
-------
traffic, the particles may become airborne again, a process called
resuspension. It would be extremely difficult to estimate the contri-
bution of this phenomena due to particulates from a coal-fired conversion
plant due to the many sources of particulates in an urban area. Further,
it is difficult to estimate what percentage of the airborne particulate
has been resuspended. This would depend upon how much particulate had
been allowed to collect on the surfaces. The most effective abatement
procedure against resuspension is the regular sweeping of the streets,
sidewalks, and parking lots. This abatement procedure should not be
construed as an alternative to abatement at the source. For example,
this procedure would not mitigate the problems associated with deposition
on farm land.
Another impact arising from depositon of particulates on hard
surfaces arises during rains. Here the particulates are washed from the
surface into the storm sewers. Usually this runoff through the storm
sewers receives little or no treatment before it is dumped into the sink
(river, stream, lake, etc.). Thus, an impact upon the water quality of
the stream could evolve. Estimates of this impact have not been made.
7.5.1.4.2. LONG-RANGE TRANSPORT AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS
The pollutants in the plume should not be looked upon as inert
entities. Indeed, quite the contrary is true. That is, the pollutants
in the plume often react in very complex fashion with the other
pollutants both in the plume and also present in the atmosphere. The
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons react often causing the formation
of photochemicals and oxidants, particularly ozone, downwind from the
source. The former leads to reduced visibility. The latter is known
to create respiratory difficulties in biological species including man
(see the section on Public Health). Further, oxidants, particularly
ozone, can oxidize S02 to SOs. The $03 is subsequently hydrolyzed with
water vapor in the atmosphere to form ^$04 or sulfuric acid.
Thus far, the discussion has mainly reflected the dispersion of
pollutants below the mixing layer. Under certain meteorological
conditions the plume can penetrate this mixing layer and diffuse down-
wind. Under normal conditions there is minimal transfer of mass
(including pollutants) across this boundary. Certain conditions can,
however, cause a transfer of mass. For example, a changing in the
mixing layer's height due to changing meteorological conditions, or a
disruption in the mixing layer due to a large body of water (15,16),
or perhaps a strong up-draft created by wind deflected off the side of
a mountain.
Thus, under normal situations a plume rising above the mixing
layer will have minimal influence upon the atmospheric concentrations
at local points downwind from the source. In general, the time to
impact a'nd the distance from the source is much longer for a plume above
II-C-165
-------
the mixing layer. The dispersion characteristics differ due to
different meteorological conditions above the mixing layer although
the same diffusion equations apply. To model the process, the scale
of the model must be changed to account for long-range transport and
longer durations of residence in the atmosphere. The longer residence
times in the atmosphere places an increased emphasis upon the
reactions of the pollutants in the plume. One particular concern is
the incorporation of ^$04 into the clouds which leads to subsequent
rainfall of lower pH (acidic) (see Climatological and Biological Impact
sections). Another is the interaction of particulates with clouds of
water vapor, thereby providing a seed for water droplet formation which
subsequently leads to increased precipitation downwind (see Climatological
Impact section).
The above discussion was made without reference to the impact of
the interaction of a number of plumes. Consider Figure II-C-24 which
shows the county apportionment of new sites for electrical conversion in
the BOM (80-20) scenario. In the siting of the plants in this scenario,
and others as well, there has been heavy concentration of plants along
the major rivers, particularly the Ohio and Illinois Rivers. This is
displayed by the shaded regions on Figure II-C-24. A hypothetical model
was implemented to determine what level of atmospheric concentrations
would be created if a persistent wind blew along any of these "corridors."
First, the apportioned plants were located within the respective counties
outlined in Figure II-C-25,' using the following rules:
1. If the county was bordered by a river, then the plants
were located along the river at approximately an equal
distance apart.
2. For the counties not bordered by a major river, the
plants were located randomly within the county..
3. No two plants were given the same site.
There were a total of 58 plants sited. Each plant was assumed
to be 1000 MW(E) unit operating at a capacity factor of .478 using 1%
sulfur coal by weight which was completely converted to SOg giving an
emission rate of 82.2 tons of S02 per day per plant. Each plant was
assumed to be characterized by the following stack parameters:
Stack height 500 ft. or 152.4 meters
Stack diameter 20 ft. or 6.1 meters
Emission velocity 70 ft/sec or 21.3 m/sec
Emission Temperature 350°F or 450°K
hypothetical model considered a corridor approximately 500 KM
long and 150 KM wide running from Evansville, Indiana to Cincinnati, Ohio.
II-C-166
-------
Northern
Boundary
*•
*
Figure II-C-24
HIGH DENSITY CORRIDORS RESULTING FROM SITING ALONG RIVERS
o
en
(.opacity In
MW(E)
25-500 >500
-------
o
I
oo
Figure II-C-25
ORBES COUNTIES COMPRISING LOWER OHIO RIVER CORRIDOR
NOTE: Some shaded counties do not contain coal-fired power plants under the BOM (80-20) scenario.
-------
The effective stack height of the plume was compiled using Brlggs'
equation(S). The wind direction was assumed to be uniformly distributed
along a compass heading of 67.5 +_ 11.25 . Four receptors were located
downwind from each source along a line with a 67.5° compass heading from
the source at distances of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0 km from the source.
Seven different wind speed and stability conditions were investigated
and summarized below:
Mean
Atmospheric Wind Speed
Case* Stability (m/sec) Comment
A Unstable 9.6
B Neutral 4.5
C Unstable 4.5
D Neutral 6.9
E Unstable 2.5 Maximize Short-Range Dispersion
F Neutral 9.6 Maximize Long-Range Dispersion
6 Unstable .67 Approximate Anticyclonic Conditions
*In all mixing depth set to 700 m (2300 ft.) for neutral cases and 1050 m
(3450 ft.) for unstable cases.
The above cases represent a variety of wind conditions which effect
the downwind dispersion of the plume in differing manners. The results of
the corridor model for cases A through F are summarized in Table II-C-43.
This table summarizes the following data for the receptors at 1.5 km, 3.0
km, and 7.0 km separately, giving:
1. The minimum predicted concentration among the receptors at
the given distance from a source in pg/cubic meter. These
data correspond to the prediction at the given distance from
the source with no cascading effect.
2. The maximum predicted concentration among the receptors at
the given distance from a source represents maximum cascading
effects.
3. Amount of the predicted concentration due to cascading effects
for the receptor described in Item 2.
4. Percentage of total concentration due to cascading effects for
the receptor described in Item 2.
II-C-169
-------
Table II-C-43
PREDICTED DOWNWIND DISPERSION OF SOg UNDER DIFFERING
ATMOSPHERIC AND WIND CONDITIONS—WIND FROM THE SOUTHWEST
Receptors - Distance from Source
Case A
,' Minimum Predicted
Concentration
I Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
1.5 KM
136.7
178.3
41.6
3.0 KM
Vig/cubic
72.4
114.0
41.6
5.0 KM
meter
43.5
84.6
41.0
7.0 KM
31.1
71.6
40.6
Percentage Contri-
bution Due to
Cascading
23.4
36.5
48.5
56.6
Case B
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Contri-
bution Due to
Cascading
0.0
50.3
50.3
0.0
50.5
50.5
0.0
50.8
50.8
0.0
51.1
51.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Case C
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Contri-
bution Due to
Cascading
276.5
365.6
89.1
24.4
155.6
245.1
89.5
36.5
93.6
181.8
88.2
48.5
66.8
154.0
87.2
56.6
II-C-170
-------
Table II-C-43 (Continued)
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
Receptors - Distance from Source
Case D
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
1.5 KM
0.0
78.3
78.3
3.0 KM
ug/ cubic
0.0
78.2
78.2
5.0 KM
meter
0.0
78.0
78.0
7.0 KM
0:2
78.0
77.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.7
Case E
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
436.9
597.7
160.8
283.0
445.7
162.7
170.2
330.5
160.3
121.4
280.0
158.6
26.9
36.5
48.5
56.6
Case F
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
0.0
58.6
58.6
100.0
0.0
58.4
58.4
100.0
.3
58.5
58.2
99.4
1.8
59.6
57.8
97.0
II-C-171
-------
The maximum predicted concentration among the cases occurred
for Case E (as shown in Table II-C-43) among the receptor 1.5 km from
a source. The predicted value was 598 yg/rn3 of which 161 yg/m3 of the
total was due to cascading effects. The prediction could have been
further increased by moving the receptors closer to its associated
source, but this was not pursued. It is also interesting to note that
in some cases, the total contribution at a receptor is due to cascading
effects alone. That is, the meteorological conditions are such that a
given source makes no contribution to its associated downwind receptors.
It should be noted that the results of Case G were not tabularized
because the adapted version of AQDM predicted no ground level concentra-
tion at any receptor. This resulted because under the imposed meteorol-
ogical conditions the Brigg's Plume Rise equation predicted the plume
would penetrate the mixing layer and thus not disperse to ground level.
This case was selected originally because the Teknekron Report (17)
showed considerable anticyclonic occurrence in the ORBES region, often
with tracks following the Ohio River.
These numbers can be better brought into perspective by observing
the current standards for S02 given below:
Concentration (yg/m )
Primary Standard Secondary Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Average 80 None
Maximum 24-hour 365 None
Maximum 3-hour None 1300
The 24-hour and 3-hour are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
The primary standards were established to protect the public health with
an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards were established
to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects.
Several points of caution should be raised. First, no attempt
was made to ascertain contributions to ground-level concentrations due
to presently existing sources or sources that are likely to exist in the
year 2000. Thus, these predictions represent the incremental contribu-
tions due to the siting of coal-fired conversion units after 1985 for the
BOM (80-20) scenario only. The generating capacity represented by the
above conversion units will constitute approximately 2/3 of the generating
capacity for the corridor in year 2000. Thus, assuming that the conversion
units built before 1985 have been sited uniformly throughout the region, it
would appear that multiplying the cascading effect by 1.5 would be
II-C-172
-------
2
realistic giving a maximum of
437 + 1.5(161) = 678 yg/m3
No attempt will be made at estimating the contribution of SCL from other
sources.
The Teknekfon Corporation (17) has made an extensive survey of
air quality throughout the ORBES region based on 1974 data. Within the
lower Ohio River corridor are portions of two Air Quality Control Regions
which are presently violating primary and/or secondary SO? standards3while
having rural monitors measuring over 10 yg of sulfate/cubic meter.
Portions of two other AQCRs are included which do not violate current
primary or secondary S02 standards but presently have urban monitors
measuring over 10 yg of sulfates per cubic meter. Many of these same
Air Quality Control Regions are experiencing presently elevated concen-
trations of either ML, oxidants, hydrocarbons, particulates or
combinations of the aforementioned. Estimates for these pollutants were
not made using the corridor.
Further, the predictions for the corridor model have been made
assuming the plants were operating at 47.8% of capacity. If they were
operating at 95% capacity, the predictions would approximately double.
This would give a prediction under meteorological Case E of 874 yg/m3
with no cascading, 1196 yg/m3/units added after 1985 and approximately
1400 yg/m3 with cascading effects from all conversion units.
Also the Gaussian plume model assumes a flat terrain. The Ohio
River Basin, itself, is very hilly. Some of the hills rise several
hundred feet. To model such a hilly terrain using the Gaussian Plume
model, a terrain penalty is often assessed which amounts to shortening
the source's stack. For the current set of meteorological conditions
for Case E and the specified stack parameters, Briggs equation predicts
a plume rise (at 1.5 km from the source) of 720 M above the top stack or
effective stack height of 870 M. Thus, any realistic terrain penalty
will have little effect on the predicted concentration. For increased
wind velocities, however, the predicted plume rise will be less and
terrain penalties will play a more significant role.
Since most of the plants built before 1985 did not use compliance
coal and had no scrubbers, they released more S02 than the later plants.
Thus, the factor might be as big as 2 or 3 rather than 1.5.
primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides
measured as sulfur dioxides are: (a) an annual arithmetic mean, concen-
tration of 80 micrograms per cubic meter (0.03 ppm); and (b) a maximum
24-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year of 365
micrograms per cubic meter (0.14 ppm).
The secondary ambient air quality standard for sulfur oxides
measured as sulfur dioxide is a maximum 3-hour concentration not to be
exceeded more than once per year of 1,300 micrograms per cubic meter
(0.5 ppm).
II-C-173
-------
In any respect, the predictions made under Case E (and Case C)
merit concern. All the predictions under these cases substantially
exceed the average allowable concentration of 80 yg/m3. The prediction
of 1400 yg/m3 for Case E, assuming all plants are operating at 95%
capacity and making estimates for cascading effects from all the
electrical-generating conversion units, exceeds the maximum 3-hour
standard of 1300 yg/m3. Note no attempt has been made to estimate con-
tributions from other sources of S02-
Unfortunately, time did not permit an analysis of the period of
time the wind would need to persist to allow full development of the
cascading effect throughout the corridor. Nor was the meteorological
data available to substantiate the persistence time for a particular
case's wind conditions. Thus, this corridor model should be viewed as
hypothetical. The Teknekron Corporation (17) has summarized that
the prevailing wind would be out of the south at the western end of the
corridor and rotates clockwise until, at Huntington, W.Va., the prevail-
ing wind is from the southwest. The persistence sector shows that at
the western end of the corridor, wind of ± 15 degrees from the prevailing
direction (from the south) could persist over 10 hours at 1.4% of a
given period. At Huntington, W.Va., the persistence is within approxi-
mately 0 to 30 degrees of the prevailing wind (from the southwest) with
persistence of greater than 10 hours occurring 1% of the time and
persistence of greater than 18 hours occurring .2% of the time.
Thus, it appears to be plausible that a wind could persist from
the south for an extended period of time throughout most of the lower
Ohio River Corridor. On this basis, the corridor model was rerun for
cases A' through F1, but assumed a uniform distribution of direction from
the south ± 11.25°. Note that such a wind is nearly perpendicular to
the outlined corridor in Figure II-C-25. The receptors for this run
were placed north of each source at distances of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0, and 7.0
kilometers. The results of each case of the corridor model are summa-
rized in Table II-C-44. As with the earlier modeling effort, the
highest predictions occurred for Case E ,with the highest prediction
being 554 yg/m3. This represents a cascading effect of 113 yg/m3.
Further, several of the other cases also show considerable cascading
effects.
Recall that with the winds blowing along the corridor, the
maximum predicted concentration was 598 yg/m3. With a nearly crosswind
situation, a maximum prediction of 554 yg/m3 was observed or 93% of the
above value. Thus, it appears that cascading effects may be significant
if winds persist from any direction throughout the corridor. Assuming
that for Case E' the plume is moving at 2.5 m/sec downwind, during 10 hours
the plume would advance 90 km which is nearly the width of the corridor.
Thus, it appears possible that the predicted cascading effects could
fully develop.
II-C-174
-------
Table II-C-44
PREDICTED DOWNWIND DISPERSION OF SO? UNDER DIFFERING
ATMOSPHERIC AND WIND CONDITIONS-WIND FROM THE SOUTH
Receptors - Distance from Source
Case A1*
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
Case B1
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
Case C '
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
1.5 KM
138.3
166.9
28.6
17.2
0.0
16.1
16.1
100.0
279.6
341.2
61.6
18.1
3.0 KM
ug/cubic
72.7
96.6
23.9
24.8
0.0
16.6
16.6
100.0
156.3
207.8
51.5
24.8
5.0 KM
meter
43.6
65.0
21.4
32.9
0.0
17.2
17.2
100.0
93.8
. 139.7
49.9
32.9
7.0 KM
31.2
51.8
.20.6
39.8
0.0
17.8
17.8
100. 0
67.0
103.3
36.3
35.2
*The atmospheric conditions remain the same for Cases A'-F' as in Table
II-C-43, however, the wind direction has been changed to be from the south,
II-C-175
-------
Table II-C-44 (Continued)
Receptors - Distance from Source
Case D '
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
Case E '
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
Case F '
Minimum Predicted
Concentration
Maximum Predicted
Concentration
Contribution Due
to Cascading
Percentage Con-
tribution Due
to Cascading
1.5 KM
0.0
36.0
36.0
100.0
441.2
553.3
112.1
20.2
0.0
31.3
31.3
100.0
3.0 KM
yg/cubic
0.0
36.0
36.0
100.0
284.2
377.8
93.6
24.8
0.0
31.6
31.6
100.0
5.0 KM
meter
0.0
35.9
35.9
100.0
170.5
254.0
83.5
32.9
0.3
32.0
31.7
99.0
7.0 KM
0.2
36.5
36.3
99.4
121.8
202.6
80.8
39.9
1.8
33.5
31.7
94.7
II-C-176
-------
The above result confirms a rather Intuitive observation. The
BOM (80-20) scenario would appear to have placed too many coal-fired
conversion units along the river corridors. Thus, the cascading effects
have evolved; in fact, the cascading effects may be worse for the
corridor along the southeastern border of Ohio for two reasons:
1. The density of coal-fired conversion units appears to
be greater.
2. The prevailing winds and persistent wind sector at
Huntington, W.Va. (at southwest end of this corridor)
point toward the northeast along the corridor.
In determining the impact intensity of the given scenarios, three
considerations must be taken into account: first, the local concentra-
tions of pollutants arising from a given conversion unit; second, the
cascading effects must be considered; and finally, the long-range trans-
port of pollutants which is likely to result from a scenario. First,
looking at local effects, the prime consideration is the number of
localities affected, i.e., the number of coal conversion units employed.
The effects at a given locality are fixed due to specific size of the
conversion unit, particularly if a standard set of stack parameters is
adopted. The remaining variables are the meteorological conditions
and local terrain. It would be difficult at this point to merge these
variables into the assessment because they will vary with each locality.
The second and third considerations, cascading effects and long-
range transport, are also directly proportional to the number of coal
conversion units included in a scenario. The prime factor influencing
cascading effects is the density of sources per given area. However,
in all four scenarios, the siting of conversion units has been primarily
along the river corridors. Thus, the area used for siting is nearly
fixed and an increased number of conversion units is essentially equiva-
lent to increased density of power plants for a given area. For long-
range transport considerations, the primary factor is the total amount
of pollutants being released in the ORBES region. Again this factor is
directly proportional to the number of conversion units in ORBES.
Thus, it appears for all three considerations, the number and size of
conversion units in the scenario is the primary factor in relating the
intensity of the potential impact. Based upon this argument, the
ordered list for the scenarios running from the greatest potential
impact to the least is as follows:
BOM 80-20
BOM 50-50
FTF 100% Coal
FTF 100% Nuclear
: The preliminary report of this analysis raises some fundamental
policy questions. Since many air quality control regions along these
II-C-177
-------
corridors are presently experiencing extremely high atmospheric
pollutant loads and since present practices tend to emphasize siting
along the river, one must question the feasibility from an air
quality standpoint, of either of the BOM scenarios and possibly the
FTP 100% coal scenario.
Perhaps the following quote from the Teknekrpn Report (17)
further emphasizes the point when it summarizes long-range transport
of S0| within the ORBES region:
What do our first-year results say with regard to
an interim sulfate-control strategy? ... in both the
Ohio River and Illinois-Missouri Multi-Air Quality Control
Regions (MAQCR), the fossil steam units predominantly
responsible for SOg emissions are [the] existing units,
probably with tall stacks. Stricter environmental controls
than those of our strictest alternative (Strictest
Precursor Control, SPC) will probably be required for
existing units and for the siting of newly announced and
future plants. The primary reason for this is that, under
current energy policy, the S02 emissions under SPC are
about an order of magnitude lower than the emissions under
current environmental controls (Business as Usual), and
greater reductions will probably be needed to offset the
adverse effects of "source intensification" from the very
unfavorable coincidence of siting and dispersion patterns,
high oxidant precursor emission densities and concentra-
tions, and long-range transport between the two MAQCRs.
With regard to long-range transport, unless additional
environmental restrictions are placed not only on the Ohio
River MAQCR but on the Illinois-Missouri MAQCR as well,
the reductions in SO^ levels within and to the north and
northeast of the Ohio River MAQCR may be partially or
completely offset by S0| precursors and concentrations coming
in by long-range transport from the Illinois-Missouri MAQCR.
Several options might be considered:
1. Dispersal or removal of conversion units from the river
corridors. Clearly, siting should be made with considera-
tion of present local pollution levels and meteorological
conditions.
i
2. Conversion units of smaller capacities should be recon-
sidered. While a larger number of smaller units will be
required to meet a given capacity, this would be beneficial
in the dispersion process.
2. Very large stacks should be considered with stack parameters
to minimize local concentrations especially during periods
of short-range dispersion, with specific periods of low
wind speed and high atmospheric instability.
II-C-178
-------
4. The strictest precursor controls (SPC) should be Installed
and NSPS strictly enforced.
If further studies confirm the preliminary results for the cascading
effect, the above recommendations must be adhered to for the BOM
scenarios.
Having discussed some but not all of the major impacts upon air
quality, attention will now be directed towards some of the difficulties
in providing remedies for the damages that may result from degraded air
quality. The process is fairly well institutionalized and understood
whereby individuals who are damaged by the emissions from specific
sources may seek relief.
The procedures, authority, and responsibilities are less well
defined when a multiplicity of stations are making contributions to the
corridor effect. In addition, the ways in which compliance standards
are enforced either under the corridor effect or for problems arising
from long-range transport of pollutants are not clear. For example, the
lower Ohio River corridor is under the jurisdiction of four states
(Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio) and two separate EPA regional
offices (Atlanta and Chicago). Long-range transport from the corridor
will affect many states to the east and northeast of ORBES. Further the
steps to be undertaken to remedy the complex problem are less understood.
Perhaps the most effective tool would be to pass stricter performance
codes and laws against siting new sources in the corridor. The EPA and
other governmental agencies can expect to provide considerable input
into this legislative process. Further, more investigation and research
will be needed to understand the fundamental causes and processes,
particularly in the case of long-range transport.
7.5.2. CLIMATOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Climatological impacts can be subdivided into several categories,
depending upon the geographical size or proximity of the impact. For
convenience in the following discussion, three different scales will be
employed.
The first is local, which can be defined to range from an impact
that is quite local, such as fogging and visibility impairment on a
highway adjacent to a cooling pond or cooling tower, up to and including
multicounty impacts, such as increased precipitation downwind from a
pollutant source as a result of increased particulate matter in the
atmosphere. Another example of a local impact might be the deterioration
of visibility within five to twenty kilometers of a pollutant source,
causing subsequent loss of Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions necessi-
tating more restrictive and costly Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at an airport facility within that locality.
II-C-179
-------
A regional spectrum of climatological impacts is also possible,
ranging in geographical scale from portions of a state up to several
states, and ultimately to a regional impact. An example of the latter
would be low pH (acidic) rainfall on the western slopes of the north-
eastern Appalachian Mountains due to airborne pollutant discharge
throughout the lower Ohio River Basin.
The third and final category of climatological impacts to be
considered are those which are global in nature, such as the introduction
of certain substances to the atmosphere whose long-term residence times
allow them to become mixed into the global atmospheric system. These
substances include carbon dioxide released during combustion of fossil
fuels, fine particles resulting also from the combustion of fossil fuels,
i and wind erosion of disturbed lands, ozone, various chemicals and
pollutants.
The long-term residence times of many of these pollutants dictate
that global climatological impacts will tend to have slight immediate
effects, but long cumulative impacts, ranging from weeks in some cases
up to millenia or more in others.
These distinctions between local, regional, and global scale are
somewhat arbitrary; however, the coarseness of this scale is considered
to be adequate at this point for the needs of the study. Local clima-
tological impacts are often short term in duration and usually easily
identifiable as the result of the operation of an existing facility.
Furthermore, once the cause is removed or adequately remedied, such as
the completion of a mining operation and the subsequent restoration of
the disturbed land, the climatological impact will often be eliminated.
Local climatological impacts that are severe in intensity usually
impact only the residents of the local area. The population of the
basin as a whole would normally have little concern or interest. An
exception would be, for example, a local climatological impact which
would cause a response from an environmental group defending the last
known habitat of an endangered species. Local impacts such as visual
obstruction of highways due to fog from cooling towers, while being
locally severe, do not normally affect the lives and livelihood of the
vast majority of basin residents.
7.5.2.1. MICRO AND REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Table II-C-52, page 226, presents those climatological impacts
which are considered, at first cut, to be significant. The significant
impacts on a local scale appear to be restricted to local fogging effects
in the v'icinity of cooling towers, increased snowfall and rainfall in the
multicounty region downwind, and a general increase in atmospheric
humidity. The majority of the above impacts are obvious to all
interested parties, and action will be requested (typically through a
local government body) of the appropriate regulatory agency. These
agencies will then attempt to effect compliance of the source within
II-C-180
-------
existing environmental standards. Such action could involve considerable
administrative and judicial efforts resulting in a substantial period
(sometimes years) before compliance is effected.
The regional impacts are somewhat fewer in number due to disper-
sion of the pollutants in traversing the distance from the source.
Increased precipitation downwind from a particulate emitting source is
almost certain. Rainfall of lower pH can be expected both inside and
outside of the ORBES region (18,19). During certain meteorological
conditions, typically a sustained hot and humid period with near calm
winds and a very stable atmosphere, visibility could possibly be reduced
throughout the Ohio River corridor due to the cascading of pollutants
emitted from downwind sources. The contrast between the BOM 80-20 and
BOM 50-50 RTCs will be apparent due to the increased sulfur release into
the atmosphere associated with the BOM 80-20 RTC and its higher discharge
of combustion products and byproducts. The Ford Tech Fix nuclear
scenario will cause the least regional climatological impacts. The
parties at interest will include residents outside of the basin, although
it may be difficult for them to prove a cause-and-effect relationship.
The agencies involved will be, typically, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the affected state EPAs.
7.5.2.2. GLOBAL CLIMATOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Global effects on climate and world weather patterns are hotly
debated in the current scientific literature, with particular emphasis
on long-range world temperature trends.
There are essentially four schools of thought concerning long-
term world temperature trends and the cause of ice ages. The first group
believes that increased release of carbon dioxide from industrialization
and burning of fossil fuels will cause appreciable warming of the earth
(the so-called "greenhouse effect"), with subsequent melting of the polar
caps and consequent disaster. An overview of the basic argument is given
in (20).
The second school of thought includes those who suggest that the
particulates released into the atmosphere as a consequence of increased
industrialization will cause a reduction in incoming solar energy and a
subsequent chilling of the earth's temperature (21,22).
A third school of thought is comprised of those who believe that
exogenous variables such as changes in the earth's orbit are the principal
cause of ice ages and periodic climatic change (23).
A fourth and a relatively unknown viewpoint concerning long-term
temperature fluctuations is the closed-loop cybernetic systems theory
approach, which suggests that the periodic fluctuations in the world's
climate are the result of the world acting as a set of closed-loop,
II-C-181
-------
nonlinear differential equations for which a periodic limit cycle is
a stable (but not the only) system response (24,25). This fourth school
is a hybrid version of the first and third schools that is capable of •
explaining most known climatological phenomena, including periodic
glaciation and even earlier climate behavior.
The major belief common to all four schools of thought is that
the earth's temperature regulation mechanisms are largely unstable.
Proponents of continued energy use and development, especially of fossil
fuels, much realize that even small or modest perturbations in the
radiation heat balance coefficients that dictate the earth's temperature
may result in large, dramatic, and possibly irreversible changes in the
earth's temperature behavior. Many positive feedback loops exist that
reinforce the perturbation and thus cause the system to depart sub-
stantially from its current value.
In this study, the Ohio River Basin can be considered as a
microcosm of industrialized society. Thus, attention must be given in
the study to the impact of continued industrialization and its effect on
world climate.
II-C-182
-------
7.6. BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
This section will attempt to assess a range of impacts upon bio-
logical and ecological systems in the ORBES region resulting from energy
related activities such as extraction, processing, conversion and waste
disposal. The several energy futures are also discussed and contrasted.
7.6.1. EXTRACTION
Surface mining of fuel (coal or nuclear) necessarily destroys
existing plant and animal communities. For natural systems the result 1s
their replacement with bare ground. As reclamation begins, new uses of
the land may follow. For example, if natural vegetation 1s fostered, a
young sere will be established that will be suitable habitat for upland
game. Thus a secondary impact of strip mining is to potentially increase
the amount of area available to hunters. However, the time required for
natural revegetation, measured in decades, may be unacceptably long.
If the area to be strip mined is productive for agricultural or
forest products, Its annual yield will be lost and in the case of some
row crops its reestablishment may take 5 to 10 years. Since the supply
of productive soils is finite, and since demand for its products generally
lags population growth, the full impact of the loss of productive lands
may not be realized until some time in the future.
Strip mining and deep mining will have a detrimental effect on
surface waters through siltation and acid drainage and will reduce the
habitat available to aquatic populations. This will result in an overall
decline in productivity.
Deep mining and concomitant surface subsidence may have an adverse
effect on surface drainage. Without corrective measures, the surface
communities will be altered, and agricultural lands will become less
productive.
With the mining activity implied for all scenarios, it is likely
that significant sites will be threatened. A significant site is one
that has unusual ecological, historical and/or archaeological value.
•7.6.1.1. PARTIES AT INTEREST
The impacted parties from fuel extraction will include people who
use land for recreation and agriculture, environmentalists and scholars
as well as urban dwellers near mineable land. The consuming public will
also be affected. The potential recreational gains from strip mining
would likely be offset by losses of recreational areas. The overall
quality of recreational land is likely to be diminished in the short
term. Those with agricultural interests would be faced with higher land
cost caused by reduced supply. Water utilities would face potentially
II-C-183
-------
higher costs in water purification because of higher sediment loads
and reduced water pH. Consumers could face higher food costs through
decreased supply of agricultural land.
The response of agricultural and recreational parties to proposed
strip mining would be expressed through existing Interest groups such as
the Grange, Farm Bureau, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and
ad hoc groups. Their options would be to lobby for enactment of state or
federal strip mining laws or strict enforcement of existing laws. Action
by state fish and wildlife agencies and water utilities would vary accord-
Ing to their available options. Little or no action would be anticipated
by consumer groups.
If a significant area is threatened through mining activity, strong
resistance can be expected from environmentalists and scholars and appro-
priate state agencies. Their first avenue of opposition will likely be
through court action. If this method is Inadequate they can be expected
to press for additional legal protection for areas with great intrinsic
value.
7.6.1.2. POLICY OPTIONS
7.6.1.2.1. FUTURE LAND USE
The central issue regarding strip-mined land is its projected use.
With areas that have great intrinsic or agricultural value, the question
is whether this land should be mined at all.
For areas subjected to surface mining, policy options are limited
to deciding future use of the land which may not be satisfactory to all
impacted parties. Farmers, county governments and in some cases recrea-
tionists would like the land reclaimed in some manner suitable for their
own needs. One possible option is to allow the mined areas to be revegetated
and lie fallow for a period of years before being returned to productive
agriculture. The long term benefits of this option may be best for all
parties.
Areas with great intrinsic value are in general protected by law.
If they are threatened, their protection can be achieved through court
^actions. Valuable agricultural land is at present protected at the county
level through county zoning where such zoning exists. This land can be
protected by state zoning which would restrict surface mining or by an
enforceable law which would require that land be returned to Its-previous
productivity. It should be pointed out, however, that at present such
laws are in the early process of implementation.
Agricultural Interests can seek relief from damages suffered from
drainage impairment through court action. Mining companies can be held
legally responsible to repair damages to drainage systems. However, the
II-C-184
-------
land may continue to subside after the mining company's responsibility
has terminated. One possibility to compensate for this would be to
assess a severence tax on deep mined coal and allocate that tax to drain-
age districts for repair and maintenance of subsurface drainage systems.
7.6.1.2.2. PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER
The sediment load from surface mining can be reduced or controlled
by requiring sediment screens, strips of vegetation near streams and
rapid revegetatlon of mined areas. Buffer zones of vegetation would be
beneficial in reducing acid runoff. The sediment load from deep mines
can be reduced by the use of sedimentation ponds. Water treatment may
be required to decrease the acidity of the drainage water. Another option
is to deny discharge into surface waters and levy fines against violators
which would be used to rehabilitate damaged waters.
7.6.2. PROCESSING AND CONVERSION
The release of SO , NO and flourides from nuclear fuel processing
and/or coal burning, and 63 from the plume of coal fired boilers (CFBs)
may damage or kill affected plants in natural and managed ecosystems.
Their productivity or yield could be consequently lowered. Sulfate par-
ticles reduce the penetration of sunlight (1) and, at high levels, may
cause a reduction in primary productivity. The deposition of acidic
materials associated with SOX and NOX can cause a reduction in soil fer-
tility and thus a lowered productivity (2). The major focus of this
analysis will be on plant populations, because they are the first link
in any food chain and because much less is known of the impacts on animal
populations. However, it must be recognized that an impact on a plant
population will also affect animal populations which rely on the plants
as a food source. If the environmental quality is sufficiently poor to
damage plant communities, then it is likely to be harmful to the entire
system. The biological impacts of coal gasification will not be assessed
herein, because little is known about gasification emissions.
The amount of damage to vegetation from air pollution depends on
the species, involved, the condition of the plants, the concentration of
gases, exposure .time and other environmental variables. The following.
are presumed to be threshold values of incipient damage to sensitive
plants from a single toxicant:
(1) .05 ppm S02 for 8 hours (3)
,(2) .10 ppm 03 for 2 to 3 hours (4)
(3) .001 to .005 ppm .F" for 7 days (5)
(4) .05 to .01 ppm NOX continuous (6).
Damages will occur with these pollutants in combinations (7) and/or
at higher concentrations.
II-C-185
-------
7.6.2.1. NUCLEAR PROCESSING
Significant amounts of SOX» NOx and fluorides are released during
processing and enrichment of nuclear fuels. The estimated annual emissions
for a 1000 MW(E) facility operated at 100% capacity, 1n metric tons, are
respectively, 23, 39 and 1.2 (8). These materials and especially fluorides
are toxic to living things. These pollutants will be released near
ground level exacerbating the problem.
Because two of the existing enrichment facilities are located
in the ORBES region, Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky, the national
use of nuclear fuels could have an adverse effect on these locations. The
estimated emissions for the year 2000, assuming 47.8% capacity and equal
amounts of processing at each location are listed in Table II-C-45.
Table II-C-45
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF SOX, NOX AND FLUORIDES
FROM NUCLEAR FUELS PROCESSING
Mss1ons(tons/yMr/,ocat1on)
Scenario
BOM 80-20
BOM 50-50
Ford Tech Fix
100% Nuclear
in the U. S.
175
493
. 100
SOX
640
1300
370
NOX
1100
3100
630
Fluorides
33
94
20
Electrical plants in existence in 1985 are not included in these estimates.
These estimates assume that 16% of the total electrical production occurs
in ORBES and that the national fuel mix is identical to the ORBES region.
The estimated emissions are sufficient to cause concern over possible
losses to plants and damages to wildlife and domestic animals.
;7.6.2.2. CONVERSION
•>. '
Vegetation can be damaged and/or killed from exposure to SOg, 03,
NOX and heavy metal emissions from electrical conversions. These impacts
will be highly localized and specific to certain plants. Agricultural
crops like alfalfa and tobacco can be expected to be damaged. The extent
of the damage will be proportional to the exposure. If the exposure of
natural communities is sufficiently high, productivity will decrease
and existing communities will be replaced by younger seres (9).
II-C-186
-------
The Impacts of add rainfall on ecosystems are not well understood
at this time, but potentially, they are numerous and complex (10). Anti-
cipated ecological effects from acid rain Include changes 1n the leaching
rates of canopies and soils, alteration of predator-prey relationships,
acidification of surface waters, changes 1n metabolism rates of organisms
(11) and decreased growth rates of forests (12,13). The leaching of
terrestrial systems could also increase the eutrophication of surface
waters. If the buffering capacity of the terrestrial systems 1s insuffi-
cient, the acidity of surface waters will Increase and a decline in the
sport fisheries will result.
According to Ruess (14), agricultural systems can assimilate 8 to
15 kg S/ha/year. The deposition of "excess" S in the ORBES region in the
late 1950's falls within this range (15). Considering that the deposition
of acidic materials from NOx was not included in this estimate, that
deposition rates of both materials have probably increased, and that the
soil is bare for about 6 months each year, soil fertility is probably
being reduced at present. This reduction occurs from the replacement of
cations in the soil with H+ and their subsequent removal from the soil
by leaching.
The greatest impacts of acid rainfall will occur downwind and
probably out of the ORBES region. Based on information given by Johnson,
Reynolds and Likens (11) the greatest impacts will be in the Northeastern
Appalachian Mountains.
The number and distribution of CFB's for each of the BOM scenarios
raise questions about future air quality if present emission standards
are used.
It is difficult to adequately estimate the potential damages to
vegetation from future levels of air pollution. Such an estimate must
consider the simultaneous concentrations of several pollutants, the
exposure time on vegetation, the season of the year in which exposure
occurs and the species of vegetation involved. In addition, one must
have a suitable algorithm to estimate damages.
To make a first order estimate of potential damages to vegetation
in the ORBES region, the impact of future air quality on alfalfa along the
Ohio River corridor is examined for BOM 80-20. Alfalfa is chosen because
it is sensitive to S02, it is an important crop at least locally, and a
relationship exists to estimate damages (16). Other agricultural crops
that are grown in the ORBES region that are sensitive to 03, N02 and/or
SOz include oats, rye, soybeans, tobacco, wheat and sweet corn. Field
corn seems to be relatively insensitive to these pollutants. Field corn
can be indirectly affected, however. One method of controlling corn root
worms is to practice crop rotations generally with soybeans, preventing
population buildup of the insect. If the air quality is sufficiently
reduced to decrease the yield of soybeans this practice may be abandoned
requiring the use of insecticides.
II-C-187
-------
Several Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) that occur in part or
entirely 1n the ORBES area are presently 1n violation of either primary
or secondary air quality standards (17). The maximum concentra-
tions of S02 that are not in violation of these standards are assumed to
be baseline concentrations, I.e., 365 and 1300 yg/m3, respectively, and
these conditions are assumed to exist for a 24 hour period during the
growing season. Two levels of plant operation are also considered,
47.8% and 95.6% capacity factors. The latter is used to evaluate the
case in midsummer when all generators are likely to be in operation.
Estimates for the addition of S02 operating with a 47.8% capacity factor
are given 1n the Air Quality Section. Those for 96.8% capacity are twice
the ones for 47.8%. These estimates are added to the above assumed base-
line levels.
i . .
The estimates of damages are for alfalfa using the O'Gara function
modified by Thomas and Hill (16) as follows:
(C-ki)t- k2
Where: C is the estimated concentration of S02 in yg/m3,
t is time in hours and
k-j and k£ are constants for different levels of damage.
For first observed damage, 50% leaf destruction and 100% leaf
destruction, k] equals 630, 3700 and 6800; k£ equals 2500, 5500 and 8400,
respectively. Thus no damage to alfalfa would occur below 630 yg/m3 and
a 50% destruction of leaves would occur with a 5200 yg/m3 exposure of
3.5 hours. . .
Equation 1 may be rearranged using the above information to esti-
mate percent damage of various exposures of 24 hours:
0, C <. 630
.0157C - 9.89 630 <.C < 5700
100% C > 5700
k
3
PD =
.Where PD is the percent of damage and C is yg
The potential damage to alfalfa under the above four combinations
l&re listed in Table II-C-46. The entries under "Case" in this table
refer to cases developed in the Air Quality Section. Because the esti-
•mates of additional S02 for Cases A through F are very similar to those
of Cases A' through F1, only the first set is used.
There is little potential damage to alfalfa when the estimated
$02 from Tables A through F are added to a baseline concentration of
365 yg/m3. This Is true except for Case E with a capacity factor of
95.6%. Receptors at 1.5 km and 3 km show reductions of 15% and 10%,
respectively.
II-C-188
-------
Table II-C-46
POTENTIAL DAMAGES TO ALFALFA FROM SOg UNDER THE BOM 80-20 SCENARIO
EXPRESSED IN PERCENT OF LEAF DESTRUCTION
Case
Capacity Factor
Receptor Location, km
1.5 3.0 5.0 7.0
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
47.8
95.6
_
1
—
-
1
7
M
-
9
15
_
-
13
16
11
12
16
21
11
12
19
29
11
12
"Background"
_
-
«
-
—
4
_
-
3
10
_
-
"Background"
12
14
11
12
14
18
11
12
17
24
11
12
of 635 yg/m
—
-
—
-
—
2
_
-
1
6
—
-
of 1300 yg/m3
11
13
11
12
13
16
11
12
15
20
11
12
—
-
—
-
—
1
_
-
_
,5
^
-
11
12
11
12
12
15
11
12
14
19
11
12
II-C-189
-------
If the same additions occurred with a SOg content of 1300 yg/m ,
considerable damage is predicted for all receptors, especially for
Cases C and E. The majority of the potential damage is caused by the
baseline condition.
Considering that the estimates of damages are for S02 only, in a
single 24 hour event and that there will be concomitant elevated levels
of NOX and 03 which will increase damages, the concentration of CFB's
along the Ohio River is likely to have serious impacts on that region.
Plants, including ornamentals, rare and endangered species, common garden
varieties, horticultural and agricultural species, are likely to be
damaged. Certain types of agriculture may be driven from the region.
General productivity of the area is likely to decline due to deposition
pf acidic materials. The impact on animal life will be no less severe.
Important historical sites are likely to be damaged through the corro-
sive action of S02-related materials. The Ohio River Basin 1s recognized
as Including major archaeological resources (18,19). The concentration
of electrical facilities under the BOM scenarios will have a major impact
on these treasures.
Nuclear facilities are assumed to pose a small but real threat of
contaminating the environment with radioactive materials. If the threat
to humans is sufficient to preclude their location in populated areas,
then one must assume that they may also present a threat to adjacent
ecosystems. If the radiation is severe the system will revert to younger
successional stages (9). Little 1s known of the long range effects of
low-level exposure.
7.6.2.3. WASTE HEAT
Impacts of electrical generation on aquatic systems include: thermal
effects, impingement and entrainment. Impingement and entrainment are not
expected to be of major consequence.
The negative emphasis that has been given to thermal damage has
come from small streams that could not disperse the heat load (20). In
the ORBES region, however, game fish yields will probably be improved by
heated water. Cooling waters enhance sport fishing on small reservoirs
by lengthening the fishing season and concentrating the fish in the dis-
charge waters during cooler months. Growth rates of fish are also greater
{in heated waters. The cause for the difference in growth rate is unknown,
'although Coutant (20) suggests that it could be due to temperature effects
or to discharge currents disrupting summer stratification. Another possi-
ble reason is the longer growth period in heated water.
Cooling towers discharge chlorine and other biocides into the
atmosphere. These materials can have a deleterious effect on the surround-
ing ecosystems. Codling towers require makeup water which decreases stream
flow and diluting capacity as well as discharging of toxic materials and
II-C-190
-------
anticorrosive agents. These materials can cause fish kills and Increase
eutrophication of streams and other surface waters.
Cooling towers and once through cooling have been compared using net energy
analysis (21,22). Cooling towers appear to be a poor use of energy re-
sources. The example given by Odum and Odum (22) concerns a power plant
located at Crystal River, Florida which uses estuarlne water for cooling. ,
The cooling towers reduce, by half, the biological productivity from 150 '
acres of the estuary. The energy cost of the cooling towers exceeded
this loss in biological productivity by a factor of 100.
Waste heat can be effectively utilized in multipurpose cooling
reservoirs (20). These reservoirs are thought, however, to use more
water than towers and to cause fish kills through thermal shock, especially
during the winter months. Neither of these reservations is necessarily
true. For example, the heat loss through cooling towers for a 1000 MW(E)
CFB operating with a capacity factor of 47.8% is 4.6 x 10'2 kcal/year.
The evaporative heat loss from a cooling reservoir in central Illinois
was estimated to be 3.6 x 10'' kcal, based on a simulation model of the
heat budget (23). The evaporative heat loss from the reservoir 1s about
10% of that from cooling towers under similar conditions. The reason
for this difference is that long wave radiation is the dominate method
of heat loss from the reservoir.
To estimate the thermal shock from plant shutdown, the same model
was simulated with a constant daily input of 1.3 x 10!0 kcal for the first
14 days in January followed by a removal of the thermal input. This
caused a drop in the temperature of the receiving water of only about
8° C over a 10 day period. This is unlikely to have any major effect
on fish populations. Also, contrary to previous beliefs, the major
thermal impact in this reservoir and, presumably, in similar ones occurs
in late summer when the thermal load is greatest and water temperatures
may approach 40° C near the discharge. Game fish avoid such temperatures
by migrating to cooler areas (24). The possible negative impacts of
cooling in the reservoir involve the summer die off of Asiatic clams ,
and other benthic organisms in the area near the discharge (25) and the :
winter entrainment of fish (primarily shad species, 26). The benthic
fauna are rapidly replaced (25) and the loss of the shad is considered
to be beneficial (26) or to have little effect on the population (27).
The annual recreational value of a reservoir is estimated to be
between 1 and 2 million dollars (25). In addition, the reservoir supplies
one or more towns with drinking water and a nearby coal mine with water
for coal washing.
The problems of thermal discharge arise from an apparent lack of
understanding of the ecosystems in the receiving waters. Impingement
and entrainment are problems of improper engineering design (28). The
negative thermal impacts result from overloading the system's ability
to adequately dissipate the heat. Once through cooling and cooling
reservoirs are viable and may be preferable alternatives to cooling
towers. If an area has such great value or sensitivity as to make it
II-C-191
-------
unsuitable for once through cooling or cooling reservoirs, then the
decision to build a power plant in that location is questionable.
7.6.2.4. POLICY OPTIONS
1. Are standards adequate or enforced?
One option available to many impacted or damaged parties is to sue
for relief or compensation. Agencies responsible for setting and enforce-
ment of standards may fine or shut down violators. If air quality cannot
be maintained, responsible agencies may require a dispersed siting policy
and/or smaller plants as opposed to the BOM scenarios. With the number
'of CFB's implied under the BOM new emission standards may have to be
'imposed.
,«
The central questions raised in regard to nuclear generators are:
How safe are they?
How will spent fuels be recycled?
How will radioactive waste be disposed of?
The policy options are to rigidly enforce existing standards or to adopt
new standards and enforce them. Safe acceptable methods to recycle fuels
and waste storage need to be developed. Another option that has been
suggested is to declare a moritori urn on future nuclear development until
these problems have been solved.
2. What is the best method of disposing of waste, heat?
The present options are to use cooling towers or cooling reservoirs.
Reservoirs appear to be cheaper to build and maintain and also have the
advantage of presenting new recreational areas. However, they are a larger
user of land than cooling towers. Through judicious siting, this nega-
tive aspect of reservoirs can be prevented.
7.6.3. COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
6 The qualitative comparisons of Table II-C-53, page 228, indicate
othat BOM 80-20 has greater impacts than BOM 50-50; that Ford Tech Fix
' 100% coal has greater impacts than 100% nuclear and that the BOM
scenarios have greater impacts than the Ford Tech Fix. These comparisons
.are based largely on the.anticipated impacts of energy production with
coal and places little weight on radiation hazards of nuclear fuels.
For the coal units the estimated annual emissions of S02 of partlcu-
lates, and of NOX for the years 1975 and 1985 within the context of the
II-C-192
-------
four scenarios are compared in Table II-C-47. For 1975 and 1985, coal
and oil are assumed to have the same emission rates per 1000 MW(E) as
follows:
S02 7.4 x 104 tons/year
Participates 4.3 x 103 tons/year
NOX 2.8 x 104 tons/year
For installations after 1975, new source standards are assumed. An effi-
ciency of 37% (29) and an average capacity of 47.8% are also assumed in
these estimates.
Table II-C-47
ESTIMATED YEARLY EMISSIONS OF S02, PARTICIPATES AND NOX
Emissions (Tons/year)
Year S02 Particulates NOx
1975
1985
2000
BOM 80-20
BOM 50-50
Ford Tech Fix
100% Coal
100% Nuclear
4.3 x 106
4.9 x 106
6.8 x 106
5.8 x 106
4.4 x 106
4.1 x 106
2.4 x 105
2.9 x 105
4.7 x 10$
3.8 x 105
2.7 x 105
2.4 x 105
1.6 x 106
1.9 x 106
3.2 x 106
2.6 x 106
1.8 x 106
1.6 x 106
Based on these assumptions, the air quality will deteriorate somewhat
by 1985. Either of the BOM scenarios will cause significant deterioration
of air quality by the year 2000. The Ford Tech Fix 100% coal will result
in a slight reduction of emission over 1985 levels, but emissions will be
in excess of 1975 levels. The Ford Tech Fix 100% nuclear scenario has
emissions of NOX and particulates similar to 1975 levels, and the esti-
mated emissions for S02 are slightly below 1975 levels. Based on these
comparisons, the order of the scenarios in decreasing biological and
ecological impacts are: BOM 80-20, BOM 50-50, Ford Tech Fix 100% coal
and Ford Tech Fix 100% nuclear.
Natural systems are expected to absorb and somehow detoxify man-made
pollutants. When the input of toxic materials to a system exceeds the
capacity to detoxify these materials, the system will deteriorate. There
is ample evidence that this capacity is being approached or exceeded for
much of the nation east of the Mississippi River (30,31,11,10,12,13). The
S02 emissions of much of the Ohio River Valley and the State of Ohio
exceed 20 tons/km2 (30,10), and the pH of rainfall is less than 5.0 for
II-C-193
-------
much of the ORBES region and the Northeast (11,10). This Implies that
the present emission standards are Inadequate and that more stringent
standards must be set to reduce total S02 and NOX emissions below present
levels.
The use of taller stacks and/or a dispersed site are Insufficient
to meet these goals. These policies only serve to make the Impacts more
equitable. To achieve the goal of a reduction of the total emissions of
S02 and NOX, existing facilities must reduce emissions through coal clean-
Ing and/or retrofitting scrubbers, and new source standards must be more
stringent.
The total impact of coal-fired plants, from mine drainage to acid
rainfall, cannot be over-emphasized. We are not only deteriorating our
natural systems, but are damaging the heritage of future generations.
II-C-194
-------
7.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - HIGHLIGHTS AND SUMMARY
Under the Ford Tech Fix (FTF) scenarios, the small Incremental
Increase in energy-related activities associated with this amount of
growth would not create serious environmental problems beyond those that
already exist In the region. This 1s true whether one considers the
coal or nuclear emphasis scenario. In contrast with the Increase in the
BOM scenarios the number of power plant additions between 1975 and 2000
under the FTF demand projection is lower than if current plans to 1985
were linearly extrapolated to 2000.
The most significant environmental concerns are those resulting
from the BOM scenarios. While one cannot minimize the cataclysmic Impact
of a core melt-down in a nuclear power system, it is a different kind of
problem than that created by a coal burning system. Nuclear accidents
causing devastating radioactive release have a calculable low risk and
must be assessed on an entirely different basis from those daily impacts
caused by burning coal in significantly increased amounts.
The land in the ORBES region is predominantly high quality, highly
productive agricultural land. Increased coal mining will cause reversible
but long-term impacts upon that quality. Land converted to other energy-
related activities may have irreversible impacts, as will land converted
to serve the expanded economic activities embedded in both scenarios.
Comment is made in the section dealing with land use that the magnitude
of changed use and changed land quality will create pressures for effec-
tive land restoration laws and technologies integrated with future land
use planning. Thus, the policy Issues and options regarding land use
and land quality tend to be precisely the same: coordinated strategies
of land use, land restoration and regional planning.
If current environmental standards are enforced, as we have pre-
sumed them to be, there appears to be little or no serious problem in
maintaining water quality in the region. Most of the direct quality
impacts from the discharge of pollutants are controllable through ade-
quate treatment and, for the most part, that treatment is technologically
feasible. The principal issue, then, is the degree to which the quality
obtained is worth the cost, whether it be the cost of providing treatment
or the cost of doing without energy. Once these major trade offs have
been evaluated, a large number of policy instruments are available for
implementing the decisions. As indicated earlier in Chapter 5, the
problem with water is a locational one; that is, the Ohio River has the
effect of causing a concentration of power plants along a narrow corridor
that in turn causes a concentration of pollutants that is of serious
technical and legal concern.
The greatest impact of concentrating power plants along the Ohio
River is upon air quality. Even if each new individual plant were in
compliance with air quality standards (which is not true at present), the
cumulative emission of all the plants can degrade seriously the air quality
II-C-195
-------
at downwind portions of the region. The preliminary analysis of the
"corridor effect" is beginning to be understood. If confirmed, the
impact of either of the BOM scenarios could be a severe burden on the
air quality of the region. Findings of others also show that current
emissions of SO? and deposition of acidic material in the ORBES region
are among the highest in the nation. Unless strictly controlled, the
emissions from the aggregate of. coal plants along the Ohio River pro-
jected in either of the BOM scenarios could have serious effects on
both natural and managed ecosystems in the area. The agriculture in
the area may change in character significantly, by the elimination of
tobacco and alfalfa as farm crops. The concomitant deposition of
acidic materials is likely to decrease regional productivity and
increase the cost of agricultural products. The public health impli-
cations of the corridor effect will be discussed in Chapter 8.
The legal and institutional implications of this problem are of
some concern. What is indicated is an enforceable regional approach to
air quality. Compliance by an individual power plant is meaningless if
the aggregate effect is as potentially serious as we perceive it to be.
This is another manifestation of the well known environmental problem
of translating ambient standards to emission standards. To date the
law has not been very effective in assessing individual responsibility
for a collective problem. Nor have the law or institutions been
totally effective where a multiplicity of jurisdictions is involved
and the impacts within the region can range from trivial to possibly
devastating.
The policy options in this area of concern are both legal and
technical in nature. One option is to do nothing and continue to invoke
current air quality standards and suffer the potential and currently
unquantifiable loss in agricultural production. This would have the
effect of passing the social costs on to the public in the form of de-
graded air and higher food costs. Another approach would be to reassess
current standards and then promulgate new emission standards in light
of the cumulative effect. Another option is to develop and enforce a
regional approach to power plant siting that disperses future power
plants away from the Ohio River so that the corridor concentrations of
S02 would become more dilute. The technical options, of course, revolve
around the development of those technologies in coal preparation, pre-
combustion, gasification, liquefaction and stack gas scrubbing which
would eliminate S02 at the source rather than permitting it to accumulate
in the atmosphere. Here the public would pay more directly as a func-
tion of increased electrical costs. Clearly, the legal and technical
options are not mutually exclusive.
II-C-196
-------
REFERENCES
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
7.2. LAND QUALITY AND 6EOMORPHOL06Y
1. Wilson, R. and Jones, W., Energy. Ecology. and the Environment,
New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1974.
2. ORBES Task I Report, October 18, 1976.
3. U. S. Department of the Interior, Surface—Mining and Our Environ-
ment, Washington, D. C. U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
7.3. WATER QUALITY
The reader is referred to the following bibliographical material
which was used in a general way in preparation of the narrative.
1. Beychok, M. R. Process and Environmental Technology for
Producing SNG and Liquid Fuels.EPA-660/2-74-011, 1975.
2. Bonelieure, E. B. Industrial Waste Treatment. McGraw-Hill,
1952.
3. Clark, D. A. State-of-the-Art: Uranium Mining. Milling and Refin
ing Industry. EPA 660/2-74-038, 1974.
4. Doyle, W. S. Deep Coal Mining: Waste Disposal Technology.
Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N. J., 1976.
5. Doyle, W. S. Strip Mining of Coal: Environmental Solutions.
Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N. J., 1976.~~
6. Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Part I, Fuel
Supply; Part II, Nuclear Power Reactors.EPA 520/9-73-003-B,
1973.
7. Freudenthal, D. F., P. Riccardelli and M. N. York. Coal Devel-
opment Alternatives. Wyoming Department of Economic Planning and
Development, 1974.
8. Gurnham, C. F. Principles of Industrial Waste Treatment. Wiley,
1965.
9. Hoglund, B. M. and J. G. Asbury. Potential Sites for Coal Con-
version Facilities in Illinois. Illinois Institute of Environ-
mental Quality Document 74-60, 1974.
II-C-197
-------
10. Leonard, 0. W. and D. R. Mitchell (eds.). Coal Preparation.
American Institute Min., Met. and Pet. Engrs., N.Y., 1968.
11. Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Needs Related to
Water for Energy. UILU-WRC-74-0093, Univ. of Illinois Mater
Resources Center, November, 1974.
12. Pryor, E. J. (ed.). Mineral Processing. Elsevier, 1965.
13. Vimmerstedt, J. P., J. H. Finney and P. Sutton. Effect of
Strip Mining on Water Quality. PB217-872, 1973.
7.5. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
1. Pasquill, F. Atmospheric Diffusion: The Dispersion of Wind-
borne Material From Industrial and Other Sources, Halsted
Press (A Division of John Wiley & Son), New York, 1974.
2. Culkowski, W. and M. Patterson. A Comprehensive Atmospheric
Transport and Diffusion Model. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL-NSF-EATC-17, 1976.
3. Clark, D. A., State-of-the-Art: Uranium Mining, Milling and
Refined Industry. EPA 660/2-74-038, 1974.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, OAP-AP-42 (1973).
5. Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission Inventory. National
Environmental Research Center, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, APTD-1135, 1973.
6. Phillips, P. J. and DeRingo, P. P., "Fixing Up Coal: What It Can
Cost," Public Utilities Fortnightly, April, 1977.
7. Frank, M. E. and Schmid, B. K. "Economic Evaluation and Process
Design of a Coal-Oil-Gas Refinery," from Clean Fuels from Coal
Symposium II Papers, sponsored by Institute of Gas Technology,
Sept 10-14, 1973.
8. Briggs, G. A. "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observation,"
In Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress,
England, H. M. and Baery, W. T., eds. New York, Academic
Press, 1971.
9. Busse, A. and J. Zimmerman. User's Guide for the Climatological
Dispersion Model. National Environmental Research Center, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, EPA-R4-73-024, 1973.
II-C-198
-------
10. Air Quality Display Model. TRW Systems Group, U. S. Environmental
Protect!on Agency, NAPCA, Washington, D.C., 1970.
11. Davis, W. J. AQDM with Multiple Windfields. Report to Purdue
Trace Metals Project, NSF (RANN) Grant GI-35106, 1974.
12. Mills, M. and M. Reeves. A Multi-Source Atmospheric Transport
Model for Deposition of Trace Contaminants.Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Report ORNL-NSF-EATC-2, 1973.
13. Davis, W. J. and D. Metz. A New Model of Partlculate Effluent
Dispersion with Ground-Level Deposition and Reflection. To
appear in Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1977.
14. Thomas, T. and W. Davis. Modeling Particulars in the Gary,
Indiana Area. NSF Trace Metals Conference, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
CONF-730802, 1973.
15. Lyons, Walter A. and Henry S. Cole. Fumigation and Plume
Trapping on the Shore of Lake Michigan During Stable Onshore
Flow. Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 12, April 1973,
pp 494-510.
16. Lyons, Walter A. and Lars E. Olsson. Detailed Mesometeorological
Studies of Air Pollution Dispersion in the Chicago Lake Breeze^
Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 101, No. 5, May 1973, pp 387-403.
17. An Integrated Technology Assessment of Electric Utility Energy
Systems. Vol 3: Air Quality Impact Model and Results. Prepared
by Tecknekeon, Inc., Berkeley, Ca. EPO Contract No. 68-01-1921.
18. Kellog, W. W. et al, "The Sulfur Cycle," Science 175: 587-596,
1972.
19'. Johnston, N. M., R. C. Reynolds and G. E. Likens. Atmospheric
Sulfur: Its Effect on the Chemical Weathering of New England.
Science, 177: 514-516, 1972.:
20. Plass, G. N. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change.
Tellus VIII, 8: 140-153, 1956.
21. Bryson, R. A. and W. M. Wendland. Climatic Effects of Atmospheric
Pollution. Paper presented to the AAAS 1968 National Meeting,
Chicago, 1968.
22. Lubkin, G. B. (ed.). Atmospheric Dust Increase Could Lower
Earth's Temperature. Physics Today, Vol. 24, No. 10, October,
II-C-199
-------
23. Hays, J. D., J. Imbrie and N. J. Shackleton. Variations in the
Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages. Science, Vol .194,
No. 4270, pp 1121-1132, December 1976,
24. Klein, R. E., V. P. Crome, W. R. Heitschmidt and C. M. Zinn.
The Greenhouse Effect, Ice Ages, and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Revisited via Simulation and Nonlinear Feedback System Theory.
Proceedings of the Summer Simulation Conference, San Diego, June
1972, pp 904-909.
25. Sergin, V. Y. Large-Scale Climatic Variations and Earth Glaciation:
A Systematic Analysis.Paper prepared for the 1974 GARP Inter-
national Study Conference on the Physical Basis of Climate and
Climate Modeling, August 1974.
7.6. BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
1. Weiss, R. E., A. P. Waggoner, R. J. Charlson, and N. C. Ahlquist.
Sulfate Aerosol:"Its Geographic Extent in the Midwest and
Southern United States." Science 195:979-081. 1977.
2. Wallace, A., E. M. Romney and J. Procopiou. "Mobilization of
Nutrients in Soils by Acids of Sulfur and Chelating Agents'.1 In
Mineral Cycling in Southeastern Ecosystems, Fred G. Howell, John
B. Gentry, and Michael H. Smith (eds.). Technical Information
Center, U.S.E.R.D.A. CONF-740513, 1974.
3. Mudd, J. B. "Sulfur Dioxide" In Responses pf Plants to Air
Pollution, J. Brian Mudd and T. T. Kozlowski (eds.), Academic
Press, 1975.
4. Heath, Robert L."Ozone." In Responses of Plants to Air Pollution,
J. Brian Mudd and T. T. Kozlowski (eds.).Academic Press, 1975.
5. Zimmerman, P. W. and A. E. Hitchcock. Susceptibility of Plants
to Hydrofluoric Acid and Sulfur Dioxide Gases. Contrib Boyce
Thompson Inst. 18:263-279, 1956.
6. Taylor, 0. C., C. R. Thompson, D. T. Tingey, and R. A. Reinert.
"Oxides of Nitrogen." In Responses of Plants to Air Pollution,
J. Brian Mudd and T. T. Kozlowski (eds.) Academic Press, 1975.
7. Reinert, R. A., A. S. Heagle and W. W. Heck. "Plant Responses
to Air Pollutant Combinations." In Responses of Plants to
Air .Pollution, J. Brian Mudd and T. T. Kozlowski (eds.),
Academic Press, 1975.
II-C-200
-------
8. Wilson, R. and W. J. Jones. Energy. Ecology and The Environ-
ment. New York: Academic Press, 1974. ~~~~~
9. Woodwell, G. M. "Effects of Pollution on the Structure and
Physiology of Ecosystems." Science 168:429-433, 1970.
10. National Academy of Science. Mineral Resources and the
Environment. 1975.
11. Likens, Gene E. and F. Herbert Bormann. "Acid Rain: Serious
Regional Environmental Problem." Science 184:1176-1179. 1974.
12. Whittaker, R. H., F. H. Bormann, G. E. Likens and T. G. Siccama.
'The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Forest Biomass and Produc-
tion." Ecol. Monogr. 44:233 252, 1974.
13. Woodwell, G. M. "Biotic Energy Flow." Science 183:867, 1974.
14. Ruess, John 0. "Chemical/Biological Relationships Relevant to
Ecological Effects of Acid Rainfall." National Environmental
Research Center, U. S. E.P.A., Corvallis, Oregon, 1975.
15. Eriksson, Erik. "The Yearly Circulation of Chloride and Sulfur in
Nature: Meterological, Geochemical and Pedological Implications
Part II." leJJLus. 12:54-109, 1960.
16. Thomas, Mayer D. and George R. Hill, Jr. "Absorption of Sulfur
Dioxide and Alfalfa and its Relation to Leaf Drying." Plant
Physiol. Vol 10 pp 291-307, 1935.
17. An Integrated Technology Assessment of Electric Utility Energy
Systems. Vol 3: Air Quality Impact Model and Results, Prepared
by Tecknekeon, Inc., Berkeley, Ca EPO Contract No. 68-01-1921.
18. Jennings, Jesse E. Prehistory of North America. McGraw-Hill,
1966.
19. Willey, Gordon R. An Introduction to American Archaeology
Volume One: North and Middle America. Prentice-Hall, 1966.
20. Coutant, Charles C. "How to Put Waste Heat to Work." Environmental
Science and Technology 10: 868-871.
21. Odum, H. T. Letter to editor. Science 196:261. 1977.
22. Odum, Howard T. and Elizabeth C. Odum. Energy Basis for Man and
Nature. McGraw-Hill, 1976.
23. Wheeler, G. L. and M. J. Sale. "Lake Sangchris Modeling. An
Evaluation of a Cooling Lake Fishery." Annual Report to the
Electrical Power Research Institute. R. Weldon Larimore Prin-
cipal Investigator, 1976.
II-C-201
-------
24. Larimore, R. W. and J. A. Tranquil!i. "Annual Report for
Fiscal Year 1975. Lake Sangchris Project1.1 Illinois Natural
History Survey, Urbana, IL, 1975.
25. Wolff, Robert M., Ernest L. Hardin, Jr., and Michael Friedman.
Economic Impact of Proposed Thermal Discharge Standard for Lake
Sangchris. Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality,
Chicago, 1976.
26. Tranquilli, J. A. Personal Communication.
27. Edwards, Thomas J., William H. Hunt, Larry E. Miller, and James
J. Sevic. "An Evaluation of the Impingement of§Fish at Four
Duke Power Company Steam-Generating Facilities." In Thermal
Ecology II, Gerald W. Esch and Robert W. McFarlane (eds .).
Technical Information Center, U. S. E.R.D.A. CONF-750425, 1976.
28. Larimore, R. W. Personal Communication.
29. Palmedo, Philip F. "The Use of Models in the Assessment of
Energy Research and Development Options." In Energy and Environ-
ment Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Paris, France, 1974.
30. Ananth, K. P., J. B. Galeski, and F. I. Honea. "Particle Emission
Reactivity." Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City,
Missouri, 1976.
31. Johnston, Noye M., Robert C. Reynolds and Gene E. Likens.
"Atmospheric Sulfur: Its Effect on the Chemical Weathering
Of New England." Science 177:514-516, 1972.
II-C-202
-------
II-C-203
-------
Table II-C-48 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (LAND) More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
EXTRACTION
PROCESSING
COAL
NUCLEAR
CONVERSION
COAL
NUCLEAR
Temporary presence
of spoil and gob
piles on land- -tem-
porary piles of
waste material --low
aesthetic appeal
Refuse piles on
land
As above
Airborne pollutant
settling on land
Radioactive contam-
ination of land
AC.(S-L)
SV.LO
AC, (S-L),
MD.LO
AI.(S-L)
MD.LO
AC.L,
(I-MD) ,
SR
AI.L.SV,
MC
AC,(S-L),SV,
LO
AC,(S-L),MD,
LO
VU,(S-L),MD,
LO
AC, L, (I-MD),
SR
AI,L,SV,MC
1
AC,(S-L),SV,LO
AC,(S-L),MD,LO
P,(S-L),MD,LO
AC,L,(I-MD),SR
VU,L,SV,MC
1
1
2
1
2
AC, (S-L) ,
SV.LO
AC, (S-L),
MD.LO
AI,(S-L),
MD.LO
AC,L,(I-MD),
SR
AI,L,SV,MC
AC,(S-L),MD,LO
AC,(S-L),MD,LO
P, (S-L) ,MD,LO
P,L,(I-MD),SR
VU,L,SV,MC
3
3
4
3
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-48 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL Qtl/VLITY (LAND) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION
i
o
ro
o
01
PROCESSING
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
CONVERSION
COAL ~
NUCLEAR
Temporary pres-
ence of spoil §
gob piles on laic
--temporary piles
of waste materia
--low aesthetic
appeal
Refuse piles on
land
Airborne pollu-
tants settling
on land
Radioactive con-
tamination of
land
Farmers, Land-
owners, Real
estate industry
Business, Rec-
reation ind.,
Recreationists
Environmental-
ists
Ad hoc groups
As above
As above
As above
M, -
M, + or -
M-SV, -
SV, -
As above
As above
As above
Effectiveness
of land
reclimation
As above
Emission
standards
Reliability of
confinement pro-
cedures § mech-
anisms
Reclimation
legislation,
Bonding author-
ity,
Land use plan-
ning § zoning
to avoid sensi-
tive or fragile
areas.
As above
Enforce or
strengthen emis-
sion standards
Change safety
standards
Federal:
Courts
Congress, BOM
State: Courts,
Legislature,
State equiva-
lents of BOM
Local; Courts,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
As above
As above plus
Federal: EPA
State: EPA
As above plus
Federal: NRC
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; —unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-48 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONNENTAL QUALITY .(LAND) More „ More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
TRANSPORTATION
COAL
NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL
COAL
NUCLEAR
UTILIZATION
Loss of coal in
transport
Loss of uranium in
transport
Piles of ash,
scrubber sludge §
refuse on land
Radioactive con-
tamination of
surrounding land
Land storage of
the full range of
waste products
resulting from
utilization of
energy
AC,L,I,
LO
AI.L.SV,
MC
AC.L,
MD.LO
VU.L,
SV.LO
AC,L,
SV,MC
AC,L,I,LO
AI,L,SV,MC
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,MC-N
AC,L',I,LO
VU,L,SV,MC
AC,L,MD,LO
P.L.SV.LO
AC,L,SV,MC-N
1
2
1
2
ND
AC.L.I.LO
AI,L,SV,MC
AC,L,MD,LO
VU,L,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,MC-
N
AC,L,I,LO
W,L,SV,MC
AC,L,MD,LO
P,L,SV,LO
-
AC,L,SV,MC-N
3
4
3
4
ND
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM "
ND
I
o
I
ro
o
o>
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
ND = No Difference
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-48 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (LAND) Character-
o
ro
O
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems Policy Options
TRANSPORTATION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL
COAL
NUCLEAR
UTILIZATION
Loss of fuels
in transport
Piles of ash,
scrubber sludge
as refuse on
land
Radioactive con-
tamination of
surrounding land
Land storage of
full range of
waste products
resulting from
utilization of
energy
Farmers, Land-
owners, Real
estate industry
Business, Rec-
reation ind.,
Recreationists
Environmental -
ists
Ad hoc groups
As above
As above
All parties are
potentially
interested
Mr -
M, * or -
M-SV, -
sv, -
As above
As above
Depends on
individual
perception
of impact
(SV to I) ,
(+ to -)
Confinement of
fuels in trans-
port '
Confinement of
leachate, re-
climation pro-
cedures
Enforcement §
adequacy of con-
finement
Where and how to
store wastes
Tighten or en-
force transpor-
tation regula-
tions
Tighten or en-
force confine-
ment § reclima-
tion
Tighten or en-
force confine-
ment regulations
Zoning, land use
planning^ regu-
lation of waste
storage
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
Federal :
Courts,
Congress,
ICC
State ; Courts,
Legislature
Local: Courts,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
Federal: EPA,
Courts,
Congress
State: Courts,
Legislature,
EPA
Local: Courts
As above plus
Federal: NRC
All agencies
are potenti-
ally respon-
sive
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GEOMORPHOLOGY More More
severe " (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix]
EXTRACTION
COAL
Surface
Underground
NUCLEAR
Surface §
Underground
Remaking landscape,
disruption of
drainage pattern,
creation of new
drainage lines §
attendant changes
in pattern, inten-
sity § distribution
of geomorphologica]
processes (e.g.,
erosion § sedimen-
tation) . Problems
could occur off-
site (e.g., dis-
ruption of aquifiei
flow).
As above plus
subsidence
As above
AC,S,SV,
(LO-MC)
AC,L,
SV,LO
AI,L,
SV.LO
AC,3,SV,
(LO-MC)
AC,L,SV,LO
AI,L,SV,LO
AC,S,SV,
(LO-MC)
AC,L,SV,LO
VU,L,SV,LO
1
1
2
AC,S,SV,
(LO-MC)
AC,L,SV,LO
AI,L,SV,LO
AC,S,SV,
(LO-MC)
AC,L,SV,LO
VU,L,SV,LO
3
3
4
BOM.
BOM
BOM
o
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-mnlticounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GEOMORPHOLOGY Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
o
I
po
s
EXTRACTION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
Surface
Underground
Remaking land-
scape, disrup-
tion of drainage
pattern, crea
tion of new dra-
inage lines 5
attendant change
in pattern, in-
tensity § dis-
tribution of
geomorphological
processes (e.g.,
erosion § sedi- •
mentation) .
Problems could
occur off -site.
As above plus
subsidence
Landowners
Farmers
Environmental-
ists
Recreationists
Ad hoc groups
Public agencies
(municipal
water supply
officials)
Agricultural
organizations
Real estate
industry
Recreation
industry
As above
(SV-I),-
As above
Effectiveness
of reclimation
procedures ,
Avoidance of
particularly
sensitive areas
As above
Creating, tight-
ening or enforc-
ing reclimation
laws; Land use
planning , zoning
As above
Federal :
Courts,
Congress
State: Courts,
Legislature
Local: Courts,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
As above
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; —unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
r»crajrvnr»tvM r\r*\r . «,
GEOM3RPHOLOGY . More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix
PROCESSING
COAL
NUCLEAR
Milling
Enriching §
Fabricating
Remaking landscape,
disruption of
drainage pattern,
creation of new
drainage lines §
attendant changes
in pattern, inten-
sity § distribu-
tion of geomorpho-
logical processes
(e.g. , erosion §
sedimentation) .
Problems could
occur off -site
(e.g., disruption
of aquifier flow).
As above
As above
AC,L,I,
LO
AI,L,I,
LO
AC,L,
MD.LO
AC,L,I,LO
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,MO,LO
1
2
2
AC,L,I,LO
AI,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO •
. •
VU,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO.
3
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
o
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GEOTDRPHOLOGY Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
PROCESSING
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
Remaking land-
scape, disrup-
tion of drainage
pattern, crea-
tion of new dra-
inage lines §
attendant change
in pattern, in-
tensity § dis-
tribution of
geomorphological
processes (e.g. ,
erosion § sedi-
mentation) .
Problems could
occur off-site.
Landowners
Farmers
Envi ronment al -
ists
Recreationists
Ad hoc groups
Public agencies
(municipal
water supply
officials)
Agricultural
organizations
Real estate
industry
Recreation
industry
(SV-I), -
Avoidance of
particularly
sensitive areas
Land use plan-
ning, zoning
Federal :
Courts ,
Congress
State: Courts.
Legislature
Local : Courts,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
I
o
ro
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GECMORPHOLOGY More More
"" severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix]
CONVERSION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
TRANSPORTATIO>
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
Remaking landscape,
disruption of
drainage pattern,
creation of new
drainage lines §
attendant changes
in pattern, inten-
sity § distribu-
tion of geomorpho-
logical processes
(e.g. , erosion §
sedimentation) . •
Problems could
occur off -site
(e.g.,. disruption
of aquifier flow).
As above
* .
AC.L,
MD.LO
AC,L,
I.LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
1
2
1
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,I,LO
AC,L,MD,LO
.
AC,L,I,LO
4
3
BOM
BOM
I
o
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region.; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GEOMORPHOLOGY Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CONVERSION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
TRANSPORTATION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
Remaking land-
scape, disrup-
tion of drainage
pattern, crea-
tion of new dra-
inage lines §
attendant change
in pattern, in-
tensity 5 dis-
tribution of
geomorphological
processes (e.g.,
erosion $ sedi-
mentation) .
Problems could
occur off -site.
As above
Landowners
Fanners
Environmental-
ists
Recreationists
Ad hoc groups
Public agencies
(municipal
water supply
officials)
Agricultural
organizations
Real estate
industry
Recreation
industry
As above
(SV-I), -
As above
Avoidance of
particularly
sensitive areas
As ;above
Land use plan-
ning, zoning
As above
Federal:
Courts ,
Congress
State; Courts,
Legislature
Local: Courts,
Planning 3
Zoning Boards
As above
I
o
I
ro
•—»
CJ
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part A Continued)
Sunmary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
o
I
ro
GEOMORPHOLOGY More More
severe ' (3J (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BCM 2000 BOM or . Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BCM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
WASTE DISPOSAI
COAL
All Sub-
functions
/
-'
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
UTILIZATION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
Remaking landscape
disruption of
drainage pattern,
creation of new
drainage lines §
attendant changes
in pattern, inten-
sity § distribu-
tion of geomorpho-
logical processes
(e.g. , erosion §
sedimentation) .
Problems could
occur off -site
(e.g., disruption
of aquif ier flow) .
As above
As above
AC,L,I,
LO
P,L,I,
LO
AC,L,
SV,N
AC,L,I,LO .
' '
.P.L.I.LO ,
AC,L,SV,N
1 !
AC,L,I,LO
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,N
1
2
Nl)
AC,L,I,LO
P,L,I,LO
AC,L,SV,N
AC,L,I,LO
P,L,I,LO'
AC,L,SV,N
3
4
ND
BOM
BOM
ND
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
ND = No Difference.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-49 (Part B Continued)
Sunmary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
GECMDRPHOLOGY Character-
ization
of Impact
on Parties
Function
Impact
Parties at
Interest
Issues.
or
Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
WASTE DISPOSAL
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
All Sub-
functions
-..
UTILIZATION
COAL AND
NUCLEAR
Remaking land-
scape, disrup-
tion of drainage
pattern, crea-
tion of new dra-
inage lines §
attendant change
in pattern, in-
tensity § dis-
tribution of
geomorphologica]
processes (e.g.,
erosion § sedi- •
mentation) .
Problems could
occur off -site.
As above
Landowners
Farmers
Environmental-
ists
Recreationists
Ad hoc groups
Public agencies
(municipal
water supply
officials)
Agricultural
organizations
Real estate
industry
Recreation
industry
All parties are
potentially
interested
CSV- I), -
Depends on
individual
perception
of impact
(SVto I),
(+ -to -)
Effectiveness oi
reel imat ion pro-
cedures ,
Avoidance of
particularly
sensitive areas
As above
Land use plan-
ning, zoning
As above
Federal :
Courts ,
Congress
State: Courts,
Legislature
Local: Courts,
Planning §
Zoning Boards
As above
I
o
I
r\>
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) More ... More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear . (4) (Tech Fix)
EXTRACTION
Surface
Underground
Increased sediment
content and turbid
ity (including
radioactive matter)
Increased dissolved
radioactivity
Filling (silting)of
lakes § reservoirs
Decreased pH (acid
mine drainage)
As above
AC.M.MD,
SR
AC,L,MD,
SR-N
VL,M,MD,
SR
AC.L.SV,
SR-ST
As above
AC,M,MD,SR
AC,L,MD,SR-N
VL,M,MD,SR
AC,L,SV,SR-S1
As above
AC,M,MD,SR
AC,L,MD,SR-N
VL,M,MD,SR
AC, L,SV, SR-ST
As above
1
2
1
1
1
AC,M,MD,SR
AC,L,MD,SR-N
VL,M,MD,SR
AC,L,SV,SR-SI
As above
AC,M,MD,SR
AC,L,MD,SR-N
VL,M,MD,SR
AC,L,SV,SR-ST
As above
3
4
3
3
3
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
o
I
IVJ
»-•
OV
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year .1985.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Inpact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION
Surface
(4
*
underground
Increased sedi-
Tient § turbidity
Increased dissol-
red radioactivit)
Jilting of lakes
md reservoirs
tecreased pH
As above
Business, Land-
owners, Real es-
tate, Recreation
League of Women
Voters, Ad hoc,
Municipalities,
Environmental/
Recreational,
Chamber of Comm.
As above
As above
As above plus
Farmers
As above
— , ,
-
.
•
Reclamation and
mining controls
As above
As above
As above
Federal: BOM,
Bur. Land Rec-
lamation, Soil
Cons.Ser. , En-
vironmental
Prot. Agency,
Coun.on Envn.
Quality. State:
Envr. Protect.
Agency, BOM.
Local: Mun.
Public Works
As above plus
Nuc. Reg. Comm.
As above plus
Corps of Engrs.
As above
As above
I
o
I
ro
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part A Continued)
Suimiary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) More
severe (3) ~" (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
. (4) (Tech Fix)
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
Low BTU
Gasification
High BTU
Gasification
4
Increased water
temperature
Increased concen-
trations of toxic
chemicals (anti-
foul ing)
Increased concen-
trations of contam-
inants due to re-
duced flow
Increased concen-
trations of con-
taminants due to
reduced flow
As above
Increased amounts
of S, NH3, HCN,
trace metals and
hydrocarbons
VU,L,MD,
SR
VU,L,I-
MD,LO
P,L,MD,
LO
AI,L,I,
SR
As above
AI.L.I,
SR
VU,L,MD,SR
VU,L,I-MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
VU,L,I,SR
As above
AI,L,M,SR
VU,L,MD,SR
VU,L,I-MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
VU,L,I,SR
As above
AI,L,M,SR
2
. 2
2
1
1
1
VU,L,MD,SR
VU,L,I-MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
VU,L,MD,SR
VU,L,I-MD,LO
P,L,MD,LO
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
i—•
oo
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
Low BTU
Gasification
High BTU
Gasification
Increased water
temperature
Increased toxic
chemicals .
Increased con-
taminants
Increased con-
taminants
As above
Increased amts.
of S, NH,, HCN,
tr. metals and
hydrocarbons
Business, Land-
owners, Real es-
tate, Recrea-
tion, League of
Women Voters, Ad
hoc, Municipali-
ties, Environ-
mental/Recrea-
tional, Chamber
of Commerce
As above
As above
As above plus
Farmers, Labor
As above
As. above
?
-
-
-
-
.
Once -through
cooling
Regulation of
single -purpose
reservoirs
Federal: Fed-
eral Power
Com., Council
on Environ.
Quality, En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency, Fed.
Energ. Admin.
State: Equiva-
lent agencies.
As above
As above
Federal: En-
viron. Protec.
Ag., Fed.
Energ. Admin.,
Com. on Env.
Quality. State:
As above
As above
As above
o
ro
•-»
to
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) More - - ' - - More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 1001 Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact . (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
TRANSPORTATION
Barge
WASTE DISPOSAL
UTILIZATION
Increased concen-
trations of contam-
inants due to acci
dental spillage
Decreased quality
due to barging
activities
Radioactive con-
tamination
(spillage)
Decreased quality
due to increased
urbanization and
industrialization
VU-P.M,
I-MD,SR
AC.L,
I-MD.R
VU.M.SV,
SR-R
AC,L,MD,
SR
VU-P,M,I-MD,
SR
AC,L,I-MD,R
VU,M,SV,SR-R
AC,L,MD-SV,
SR
VU-P,M,I-MD,
SR
AC,L,I-MD,R
VU,M,SV,SR-R
AC,L,MD-SV,SR
1
2
ND
VU-P,M,I-MD,
SR
AC,L,I-MD,R
VU,M,SV,SR-R
-
AC,L,MD,SR
VU-P,M,I-MD,
SR
AC,L,I-MD,R
VU,M,SV,SR-R
AC,L,MD-SV,SR
.3
3 .
4
ND
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
ro
ro
o
LEGLXi): PRQB:\EILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; \l-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
OlJilYTION: S-short term; M-mcdiun term; .L-long tenn.
INTEXSnY: SV-severe; MD-noderately intense; I-insignificant.
Ci-:OGR.\:'H!CAL SC\LE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
.ND = No Difference. inoc
••An in.-i.-nifi.-a/.t civin^e is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-50 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WATER) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
o
I
INS
ro
TRANSPORTATION
Barge
WASTE DISPOSAL
UTILIZATION
Increased con-
centrations of
contaminants
Decreased quality
Radioactive
contamination
Decreased quality
Business, Land-
owners, Farmers,
Real Estate,
Recreation, Ad
hoc, League of
Women Voters,'
Chamber of Com. ,
Environmental/
Recreational
As above
All parties
Business, Land-
owners, Fanners,
Real Estate,
Recreation, Ad
hoc, League of
Women Voters,
Chamber of Com. ,
Environmental/
Recreational
_
-
-
-
Federal: Envir-
onmental Prot.
Agency, Council
on Environ.
Quality ,Dept.
of Transporta-
:ion. State ;
Equivalent
state agencies
\s above
Federal: Nuc.
teg. Comm. ,
xamcil on
aw. Quality,
snv. Protec-
:ion Agency.
State: As above.
Federal:
Council on En-
vironmental
Duality, En-
rironmental
hnotection Ag.
jtate: As above.
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-51 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (AIR) .. More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
EXTRACTION**
Surface S
Underground
PROCESSING
Crushing 6
Sizing
TRANSPORTATION
Coal only
**The :
1','ind blown parti -
cules containing
trace contaminants
Wind blown parti -
culates contain-
ing radioactive
contaminants
Wind blown parti -
culates contain-
ing trace contam-
inants
Wind blown parti-
culates containing
radioactive con-
taminants
Wind blown parti -
culate contain-
ing trace con-
taminants
najor distinction ir
AC,?!,? IB
LO
VU.M.IID
LO
AC,S,IID
LO
VU.S.MD
LO
AC,S,I,
(LO-R)
the see:
AC,.M,M),LO
VL.M.MD.LO
AC,S,MD,LO
VU,S,M),LO
AC,S,MD,
(LO-R)
larios involve
AC,M,MD,LO
VU,M,MD,LO
AC,S,MD,LO
VU,S,MD,LO
AC,S,MD,(LO-R]
; the number of
1
2
1
2
1
localil
AC.M.MD.LO
VU,M,MD;LO
AC,S,M,MD,
LO
VU,S,MD,LO
AC,S,MD,
(LO-R)
ies affected.
AC,M,MD,LO
VU,M,MD,LO
AC,S,MD,LO
VU,S,MD,LO
AC,S,I, (LO-R)
3
4
°3
4
3
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
ro
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-51 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (AIR) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
PolicyOptions
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION
Surface a
Underground
PROCESSING
Crushing §
Sizing
TRANSPORTATION
Coal only
Wind blown par-
ticulate con-
taining trace
contaminants
Wind blown par-
ticulate con-
taining radio-
active contam-
inants
Wind blown par-
ticulate con-
taining trace
contaminants
Wind blown par-
ticulate con-
taining radio-
active con-
taminants
Wind blown par-
ticulate con-
taining trace
contaminants
Residents §
farmers near
mine.
As above
Residents f,
farmers near
processing
facility
As above
Residents
along trans-
portation
corridor
MD, -
MD, -
MD, -
MD, -
(I-MD), -
Effect upon local
>iosys terns
As above
As above
^s above
As above
Damage suit,
injunction
against
operation
Damage suit,
injunction
against
operation
Damage suit,
set standards,
injunction
against
operation
Damage suit,
set standards,
injunction
against
operation
Damage suit,
set standards
Federal: EPA
State : EPA
Local : Farm
organizations
Federal: EPA,
NRC
State; EPA
Local: Farm
organizations
Federal: EPA
State : EPA
Local: Farm
organizations
Federal; EPA.
NRC
State: EPA
Local: Farm
organizations
Federal: EPA,
DOT
State: EPA,
DOT
Local: Farm
organizations
I
o
I
(V)
ro
u>
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-raoderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
DOT « Department of Transportation
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
. NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Council
-------
Table II-C-51 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALllTf (AIR) j^g More
**" severe (3) ~~ ~ (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
CONVERSION
Coal
Gasification
Electrical
Generation
Gaseous emissions
and particulates
containing trace
contaminants
As above
Radioactive
emissions
AC.L,
(SV-MD) ,
1C
AC,L,
(SV-MD) ,
MC
(VU-AI) ,
L,SV,
(MC-SR)
AC, L, (SV-MD),
MC
AC, L, (SV-MD),
(MC-SR)
(VU-AI) ,L,
SV, (MC-SR)
AC,L,(SV-?D),
MC
AC, (SV-MD),
(MC-SR)
VU,L,SV,
(MC-SR)
--
1
2
AC, L, (SV-MD),
MC
AC, L, (SV-MD),
(MC-SR)
(VU-AI), L,
SV, (MC-SR)
AC, L, (SV-MD),
MC
AC, L, (SV-MD)
MC
(VU-AI), L,SV,
(MC-SR)
--
3
. 4
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-51 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (AIR) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Intact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CCNVERSICN
Coal
Gasification
Electrical
Generation
Gaseous emis-
sions and par-
ticulate con-
taining trace
contaminants
As above
Radioactive
emissions
Residents and
farmers in the
f f . j
affected
region
As above
Residents and
biosys terns in
region
•(MD-SV), .
As above
SV, -
Public health §
local biosystems
effects, clima-
tological
effects .
As above
Depending on
accident :
death, long- tern
biological
effects, long-
term contamina-
tion of land
Damage suit,
enforce stand-
ards, set strong-
er standards,
injunction
against
operation under
certain meteor-
logical condi-
tions.
As above
Many damage
suits
Federal: EPA
State: EPA
Local; Public
health board,
city govern-
ments, environ
mental groups,
farm organiza-
tions
As above
Jj£Q&j£gX • Cf /\f
NRC
State; EPA,
National Guard
Local: City
governments ,
environmental
groups, civil
defense groups
I
o
I
ro
ro
01
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFJECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; 7-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-52 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CLIMATOLOGY) .
severe
(1) (2) (1)
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2)
(3)
2000 Tech
Fix 100%
Coal
(4)
2000 Tech
Fix 100%
Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
Increased precipi-
tation due to
particulate
emissions
Acid rainfall due
to sulfur emissions
Increased atmos-
pheric humidity due
to use of cooling
towers for heat
rejection
P.L.MD,
(MC-R)
VL.M,
MD.R
P,L,MD,
MC
AC,L,SV,
(MC-R)
AC,M,SV,R
AC,(M-L),SV,
SR
P,L,MD,'(LO-R)
VL,M,SV,R
AC,(M-L),SV,R
1
1
2
P,L,(MD-S),
(MC-R)
VL,M,SV,R
P,L,MD,MC
P,L,MD,(LO-R),
VL,M,MD,R .
VL,(M-L),SV,R
•
3
BOM
3
4
BOM
BOM
I
o
fN>
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; W-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short terr.; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTEN'SITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I•• insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-52 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
ENVIIOWENTAL QUALITY (CLIMATOLOGY) Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
*
*
In times of <
Increased pre-
cipitation due
to particulate
emissions
Acid rainfall
due to sulfur
emissions
Increased atmos-
pheric humidity
due to use of
cooling towers
for heat rejec-
tion
rought, increase
Residents,
Farmers ,
Highway mainten
ance personnel
Residents, Fish
§ game people,
Farmers
Farmers, Local
residents,
Motorists
d cloud seeding
(MD-SV),-
CMD-SV),+*
(MD-SV)
(MD-SV),-
(SV-MD),-
Tom partial!
Change in climate
due to increased
jrecipitation
could be benefi-
cial to farmers.
Roads harder to
maintain. To
general residents
uncertain.
Increased acidity
of ground § watei
within region,
effects on biolo-
gical species,
>articularly
ilants
teduced visibil-
ity, effects on
plants, possibly
xiorer drying of
crops, less com-
:ortable climate
'or local resi-
dents
ates may be benei
Force meeting of
emission stand-
ards, set new
standards
Damage suits,
force meeting of
emission stand-
ards, set new
standards
Very little can
be done, possible
law suits
icial.
Federal: EPA
State: EPA
Local: Environ
mental groups
As above plus
Farm organiza-
tions, wild-
life groups
Federal : EPA
State ; EPA
Local: Environ-
mental groups
I
o
ro
-j
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: -(-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLpGICAL More
severe (3)" (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BCM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix}
EXTRACTION
Surface
Underground
Destruction of ex-
isting community
Loss of agricul-
tural land
Threat to a signi-
ficant site
Increased small
game habitat and
recreation areas
Subsidence and
alteration of
surface drainage
AC.M-L,
SV,LO
P.M-L,
SV,LO
P.L.SV,
LO
VU.L,
SV.LO
AC.M,
SV,MC
AC,M-L,SV,LO
AC,M-L,SV,LO
As above
P,L,SV,LO
AC,L,SV,SR
AC,M:L,SV,LO
VL,M-L,SV,LO
As above
P,L,SV,LO
AC,M,SV,SR
1
1
1
1
1
1
AC,M-L,SV,LO
P,M-L,SV,LO
As above
VU,L,SV,LO
AC,M,SV,MC
AC,M-L,SV,LO
P,M-L,SV,LO
As above
VU,L,SV,LO
AC,M,SV,MC
3
3
3
3
3
Ttf\Lt
BOM
BOM
BOM
BCM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almbst impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTEi.JITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part B)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION
Surface
underground
Destruction of
existing
community
Loss of agri-
cultural land
Threat to a sig-
nificant site
Increased small
game habitat 5
recreation areas
Subsidence § al-
teration of sur-
face drainage
Recreation,
Environmental-
ists
Consumers ,
Farmers
County
Government
Environmental-
ists, Scholars
Recreation
Landowners ,
Farmers, En-
vironmentalists
SV, -
M, -
SV, -
M, +
SV, -
How § will land
be reclaimed?
How § will land
be reclaimed?
Loss of tax base
and commerce
Protection of
important site
Best use of
reclaimed land
Future land use
Enforce existing
laws, enact new
laws, quality of
reclaimed land
1. Agricultural
2. Recreation
Return land to
original use,
improve produc-
tivity elsewhere
Return land to
some use, zoning
Injunction
Use of reclaimed
land
1. Agricultural
2. Recreation
Replacement of
drainage, litiga-
tion, tax with
local government
responsible for
problem
State § Federal
Bureau of Mines,
EPA
State § Federal
Bureau of Mines
As above
Courts, EPA
State 3 Federal
Bureau of Mines
State § Federal
Bureau of Mines,
EPA
o
I
ro
ro
vo
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; —unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL More- - More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 1004 Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix}
EXTRACTION (Cc
Both
PROCESSING
n't)
Aquatic habitat
destruction
1. Sedimentation
2. Acid drainage
Gaseous damage
to plants
AC,L,
SV.MC
As above
AC,L,
MD.LO
AC.L.SV.SR
As above
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,SR
As above
AC,L,MD,LO
1
1
1
2
AC,L,SV,MC
As above
AC,L,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,MC
As above
AC,L,MD,LO
3
3
4
BOM
•
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
EXTRACTION (Co
Both
« PROCESSING
o
ro '.
CO
H^
n't)
Aquatic habitat
destruction
1. Sedimentation
2. Acid drainage
Gaseous damage
to plants
Recreation
As above
Landowners, Pub-
lic, Farmers, En-
vironmental ists
sv, -
As above
M/SV, -
Protection of
water surface
J
As above
Are standards
adequate or
enforced?
Require sediment
traps § strips o:
vegetation, rapi<
revegetation,
sedimentation
ponds
Deny discharge,
rewater treatment
Fines, shut-downs
New standards,
Litigation
State § Federal
Bureau of Mines,
EPA
As above
NRC, EPA
' -
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part A Continued)
luH^UIHlUrhJ. J *^^ ,»«.»^.fc— •— • — ___^_ — _ • J f 4 • __
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL - More- — " More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix).
CONVERSION
Electrical
Gaseous damage
to plants
Acid rainfall
Decreased soil pro-
ductivity from de-
position of acidic
materials
Radioactive
contamination
Threat to a
significant site
VU.L,
MD,LO
AC.L,
MD,MC
VU,L,
MD,LO
AI,L,
MD,LO
AI.L,
SV.LO
AC,L,SV,SR
AC,L,SV,N
VL,L,fvD,SR {
AI,L,SV,LO
P,L,SV,LO
VL,L,SV,SR
AC,L,SV,N
P,L,SV,SR
AI,L,SV,LO
P,L,SV,LO
1
1
1
1
2
?
VU,L,MD,LO
AC,L,MD,MC
VU,L,MD,LO
AI,MD,MD,L
VU,L,SV,LO
AI,S,I,LO
AI,S,I,LO
AI,S,I,LO
AI.L.SV.LO
VU,L,SV,LO
3
3
3
4
7
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
o
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL Character-
ization
of Impact
on Parties
Function
Impact
Parties at
Interest
Issues
or
Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
CONVERSION
Electrical
Gaseous damage
to plants *
Acid rainfall
Decreased soil
productivity
Radioactive
contamination
Threat to a
significant site
Landowners ,
Public, Farmers,
Environment-
alists
Public, Farmers,
Public lands,
Environment-
alists
Farmers, Public
lands, Environ-
mentalists
Landowners ,
Public, Farmers,
Environment-
alists
Recreation,
Environmental-
ists, Scholars
M/SV, -
As above
As above
SV, -
As above
Are standards
adequate or
enforced?
As above
As above
As above
What is the val
value of these
areas?
Fines , shut-downs
New standards,
Litigation
As above
As above
Fines , shut-downs,
New standards
Litigation,
New laws
NRC, EPA
EPA
As above
NRC, EPA
State Dept.
of Conserva-
tion, Histori
cal groups
o
oo
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-sever.e; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: +-favorable; --unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknown.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part A Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL More
severe (3) (4)
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech
1985* 2000 BGM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100%
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear
More
severe More
(3) severe
or (BOM) or
(4) (Tech Fix)
WASTE DISPOSAL
I feat Cooling
Towers
"BrTTt
Slowdown
Water
Reservoirs
Decreased
productivity
Fish kills
Eutrophication
Increased fishery
and recreation
areas
Loss of present
land use
VU,L,
MD.LO
vu,s,
MD.LO
P,M,
MD.LO
AC.L,
SV,SR
AC.L,
SV.LO
P,L,;>D,SR '
P,S,MD,MC
AC,M,SV,R
AC,L,SV,R
AC,L,SV,LO
P,L,MD,SR
P,S,MD,MC
AC,M,SV,R
AC,L,SV,R
AC,L,SV,LO
1
2
2
2
2
2
VU,L,MD,LO
VU,S,MD,LO
P,M,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,SR
AC,L,SV,LO
VU,L,MD,LO
VU,S,MD,LO
P,M,MD,LO
AC,L,SV,SR
AC.L.SV.LO
4
4
4
4
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
o
ro
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-53 (Part B Continued)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL Character-
ization Issues
Parties at of Impact or
Function Impact Interest on Parties Problems
Policy Options
Potentially
Responsive
Agencies
WASTE DISPOSAL
Heat Cooling
Towers
Drift
Slowdown
Water
Reservoirs
Decreased
productivity
Fish kills
Eutrophication
Increased fish-
ery and recrea-
tion areas
Loss of present
land use
Landowners ,
Farmers
Recreation,
Environment-
alists
As above
As above
Recreation,
Landowners,
Farmers
M, -
M, -
M, -
M, +
M, -
Best method of
heat disposal
As above
As above
As above
As above
Cooling towers
or reservoirs
As above
As above
As above
As above
EPA, NRC
As above
As above
As above
As above
I
o
I
ro
U)
in
LEGEND: SEVERITY OF IMPACT: SV-severe; M-moderate; I-insignificant.
EFFECT ON PARTY: ^-favorable; —unfavorable; o-neutral; ?-unknowT.
-------
II-C-236
-------
8. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
8.1. INTRODUCTION
The expansion of energy conversion facilities 1n the ORBES region
will also have significant impacts upon socioeconomic, political and Insti-
tutional systems. Direct first-order Impacts may flow from the technolo-
gies, as in the displacement of population because of land acquisition,
the creation of new employment opportunities and change In land value
through a change in use. The majority of the socioeconomlc Impacts, how-
ever, are likely to be second- and higher-order. Their Influence is either
through other subsystems, such as the environment and public health, or
in response to end-use functions in each fuel cycle.
Unlike other impacts, the direct and indirect consequences of so-
cietal change affect people who evaluate the impacts as parties at in-
terest in the decisionmaking process. People will evaluate those Impacts
of which they are aware according to their perception of the associated
costs and benefits and their own value systems. Impacts as well as re-
sources are cultural appraisals. Although these matters are not addressed
directly in this Phase I report, they are important considerations because
of the likelihood that the evaluations of impacts by groups who live within
an impacted community may differ significantly from those of other groups,
including institutions which may regulate those impacts.
II-C-237
-------
8.2. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
8.2.1. DEFINITIONS
Before proceeding, it might be advisable to define public health,
as the term is used in this study. Dictionaries define health, in part,
as "the condition of being sound in body, mind, or soul; freedom from
physical disease or pain; flourishing condition; well-being." Well-being,
in turn, is defined as "the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous"
(1).
During the past century, great public health progress has been made
as many infectious diseases have been brought under control. Modern public
health continues to emphasize "freedom from physical disease," but it is
not exclusively concerned merely with reducing physical illness and post-
poning death. The condition of the mind and terms such as "flourishing,"
"happy," and even "prosperous" are now receiving increasing attention in
public health education and practice.
Prosperity has ;been a societal goal arid economic development has
been the means. Both are now seen as prime aspects of public health-
beneficial as well as detrimental. These broader definitions of public
health, which might collectively be termed "health and well-being," seem
to provide the framework for the most appropriate arid meaningful "health"
input into an energy study'. !
Energy transformation and utilization processes generate, directly
or indirectly, significant and complex health and well-being impacts (2,
3,4,5,6,7,8,9). These impacts can affect both energy-related occupations
and more general populations (10,11,12,13). Affected workers and popula-
tions can be located nearby or remote from the electric power facilities
(14,15,16).
First of all, there are numerous relatively-obvious occupational
and environmental hazards associated with energy development (7). Several
categories are qualitatively described in incqmplete fashion in Table II-C-57,
page II-C-285, The most significant hazards involve mining, air pollution,
and nuclear accidents, and are designated as first-order impacts—that is,
those directly associated with the production of electric power (7).
Also of significance, however, are the higher-order effects of elec-
tricity production—those associated with utilization of electricity.
Again, some are more direct than others: for example, air pollution and
occupational hazards created by a new factory constructed in response to
the availability of ORBES energy. Other higher-order impacts are more
subtle, as increased energy utilization influences standards of living.
An individual's physical and mental health can be closely related to his
economic wealth (17). These economic-related ramifications can be cate-
gorized into at least three broad areas: living standards and other na-
tional goals, diseases of poverty, and diseases of affluence.
II-C-238
-------
Living standards and other national goals. When
Involved In the details of energy planning and
assessment, one sometimes tends to forget that
energy growth is basically directed toward main-
taining and improving living standards and toward
related national goals such as defense—that is,
toward improving the health and well-being of the
citizens and the nation.
Diseases of poverty. In some areas of the world,
energy development projects can have great merit,
even when accompanied by extremely serious envi-
ronmental and occupational hazards. The provi-
sion of food, water, housing, clothing, and em-
ployment for a given population requires some
level of energy production and associated economic
development. Increasing levels of energy produc-
tion are required to continuously secure these
"essentials" for a growing population. Lacking
these basics, there is no public health. Popu-
lations must be supplied with these essentials
if they are to survive long enouah to be subjected
to the sophisticated diseases such as those associ-
ated with ambient air pollution or with long-term
occupational exposures to trace metals and organics.
There are pockets of subsistence-level poverty in
the USA and possibly some within the ORBES region.
It is much more likely that within the ORBES region
there are considerable areas above subsistence
level, but suffering from unemployment and under-
employment. Research at the Johns Hopkins School
of Public Health has begun to quantify the health
implications of reduced employment (17). Increased
levels of alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide, men-
tal illness, crime (including homicide), mortality,
cardiovascular and renal disease were all found to
correlate directly with increased unemployment.
Higher levels of energy production can therefore
be beneficial if they lead to less unemployment.
Diseases of affluence. For energy, as with other
commodities, there can be "too much of a good thing."
Energy-related economic benefits can bring deleter-
ious environmental and occupational side effects.
One can visualize a high level of economic develop-
ment where the adverse effects of further develop-
ment could outweigh the benefits.
II-C-239
-------
Environmental degradation and occupational ha-
zards are not the only deleterious health aspects
that could be associated with energy growth. Ac-
companying these first-order direct impacts are
higher-order ramifications associated with plenti-
ful } low-priced (relative to income) energy sup-
plies. Some of these energy resources are even-
tually utilized for labor-saving devices and for
production of energy-intensive food. Thus, at
the high end of the economic spectrum, public
health becomes concerned with diseases associated
with an affluent, sedentary life style and with
obesity. Heart disease is but one example.
Some observers have noted that the diseases of poverty and afflu-
ence are similar: the stress (and perhaps "malnutrition") at either end
of the economic spectrum can lead to alcoholism, heart failure, and other
causes of premature mortality (17).
8.2.2. ASSESSMENT RATIONALE
Within a region, there are optimal levels of energy development
and of associated hazard control. In seeking out the optimums, all health
and well-being aspects should be integrated into the decisionmaking pro-
cess (18). However, for such decisionmaking, the health information is
usually less satisfactory, often being qualitative or uncertain, and hence
not easily comparable with the other decisionmaking inputs.
The decisionmakers confronted by such situations seem to fall into
two categories: at one end are those that consider health to be sacred,
and feel that any adverse health effect, no matter how minor, should be
enough to halt any project. At the other extreme are the "quantitative
objective" decisionmakers; they tend to totally iqnore all qualitative
health information because it cannot be included in an "objective cost-
benefit analysis. From society's standpoint, neitner extreme is satis-
factory. Public health professionals should be even less satisfied, as
their information is either misused or not used at all. The solution is
to provide health information in a form which is not only quantitative,
but directly comparable to other inputs in the decisionmaking analysis.
The ORBES health analysis to date has made a small step toward that ulti-
mate goal.
Questions of risk and uncertainty complicate efforts to quantify
first- and higher-order health and well-being effects. The word "risk"
itself is used in several different ways in health impact analyses; how-
ever, all are directed toward the ideas of some adverse effect which
might occur (19,20,21,22). These include:
II-C-240
-------
Risk of a future unforeseen effect, possibly asso-
ciated with a pollutant of which we are presently
unaware, or for which a toxic effect 1s presently
unrecognized. For example, 1n Japan,, the very seri-
ous health effects of cadmium and mercury in water
and fish became apparent 20-30 years after the pol-
lution discharges began, long after irreversible
health effects had done their damage (11).
Risk involving a presently recognized pollutant,
which only affects certain segments of the popu-
lation (sometimes small and undefined). For ex-
ample, some nonsmokers acquire lung cancer; smo-
kers have a higher probability of acquiring the
disease; smoking asbestos workers have yet a
.higher probability of contracting lung cancer
(13). Even though the adverse effects of smok-
ing and airborne asbestos are recognized and
the relative risk to various populations with
various exposures is partially defined (7),
much uncertainty remains as to whether a given
individual will ever get lung cancer.
Risk associated with the possibility of a future
accident, such as a meltdown in a nuclear power
reactor or of a mine fire or cave-in. For such
situations, there is uncertainty with regard to
occurrence, severity, and number of people af-
fected (21).
The complexities of these kinds of risk analysis are formidable,
but not overwhelming. Semi-quantitative analysis of a diversity of health
and economic impacts is now possible. One meaningful approach is to com-
pare energy risks with those which we readily accept, such as those in-
volving air and automobile travel. For such travel, the risk-takers ap-
parently feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. Note that such risks
are voluntary, while those associated with unperceived pollution emissions
from a fossil fuel power plant are less so. The differentiation is im-
portant and should be considered within risk analysis.
Energy-related decisionmaking cannot be postponed until every health
and economic detail is rigorously known. Meaningful integrated assessments
can proceed despite uncertainty. Highly subjective considerations can be
ranked using Delphi and other survey techniques. Incomplete Information
and less-than-accurate conclusions can have value as long as bands of un-
certainty are clearly defined.
A qualitative summary of some of the direct health impacts associ-
ated with various ORBES scenarios is presented in Table II-C-57, page
II-C-285, and a quantitative assessment of such impacts has been initiated.
II-C-241
-------
8.2.3. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Policymakers are beginning to insist on improved quantification,
wherein trade-offs between diverse impacts can be made in a straightfor-
ward manner.' Government agencies and private foundations are supporting
related research throughout the country, and considerable progress is
being made (5,11,23,24,25).
Methodologies for the recently-initiated quantitative ORBES health
assessment have been drawn in part from previous work and in part repre-
sent innovative methods directed at reducing a wide variety of health ef-
fects to a common basis. The assessment is far from complete; quantifi-
cation of many of the health impacts must await estimates of specific
levels of pollution and population-at-risk.
The system adopted is broad and encompassing. Many person-years
would be required just to survey the extensive existing health literature
as it relates to ORBES. Much additional effort could be beneficially oc-
cupied with toxicological and epidemiological studies needed to provide
missing information. Despite ongoing efforts, however, some of the health
relationships probably will never be known with certainty.
Even though the ORBES effort has been limited by personnel and time
constraints, the results have begun to provide insight into the relative
health impacts associated with the various ORBES scenarios. The methodo-
logy used, including a sample calculation, is described below.
A matrix format was adapted for bookkeeping purposes. Twenty-one
energy functions were listed versus five population categories for each
of the four ORBES scenarios. The system was replicated for occupational -
environmental and for economics-related effects and for "present," 1985,
and 2000. The health impact for a given scenario in a given year consists
of a summation of 21 x 5 x 2 = 210 individual entries. Totals for all
scenarios and years, equal. 210 x 4 x 3 = 2520 entries. Thus the task of
quantification can be seen to be formidable, although some of the entries
will be judged to be zero, or will be easily extrapolated from other en-
tries.
ORBES energy growth can affect the health of different populations
(populations-at-risk) in different ways. Five populations have been se-
lected for assessment in ORBES:
In Illinois, for example, consideration of proposed environmental
regulations must include an economic impact statement, and a state-sponsored
Decision Analysis Task Force comprised of economics, engineering, manage-
ment, and public health academicians has been created to assist in the
preparation and interpretation of these comprehensive statements. Quan-
tification and monetization (assigning monetary values) of health effects
is a significant aspect of the effort.
II-C-242
-------
1. Employees working in the ORBES region who are
directly involved in power production. These
individuals experience occupational hazards in
exchange for direct economic compensation.
2. Same as category 1, except that the employees
work outside the ORBES region.
3. Individuals residing within the county of the
site of the energy facility. These individuals
experience most of the direct environmental ef-
fects and share most of the direct economic com-
pensation with those in category 1.
4. Individuals in the ORBES region, but remote
from energy sites.
5. U.S. individuals residing outside the ORBES
region. A sizable population experiences
slight health effects associated with pollu-
tion and import of ORBES-region power.
Quantification of the foregoing distribution may be beyond ORBES re-
sources. Yet, the five-group system has been criticized as being oversimpli-
fied. Perhaps the greatest shortcoming is the assumption that individuals
are identical with regard to the health effects resulting from equal en-
vironmental or economic impacts. Individuals are very different, however,
and much of the pollution-related health literature deals with hyper-
sensitive groups. For example, the greatest adverse effects of air pol-
lution are on young children, the elderly, and those already afflicted
by respiratory and cardiovascular disease (7). By analogy, one might
postulate groups which are "hypersensitive" to economic and other changes
associated with energy growth. All these groups, a small fraction of the
total, remain mostly hidden within the total population, but these indi-
viduals will bear the brunt of energy growth impacts. >.
The size of population groups selected for quantification can be
tabulated on a matrix format identical to that for health impact. Even
with the simplifications, there remain 21x5x3x2= 630 entries to
be defined. Such population data are essential for estimation of the
magnitude of the health effects.
The matrix uses an adjusted life shortening formula (ALS). Indi-
viduals suffer from a wide variety of energy-related diseases: a child
with intensified asthma, and an aviator whose plane collides with an elec-
tric transmission line, are two examples. The health impacts entered into
the matrix are combinations of illness and life shortening.
The base case assumes a 100-year (36,525 day) illness-free life-
time. These rare base-case individuals expire instantly and painlessly
at the end of the 36,525th day of life. Less .fortunate individuals die1
sooner and/or suffer varying degrees of illness -along the way.
II-C-243
-------
Four levels of ill health are assumed and equated to life shorten-
ing as in Table II-C-54. Conversely, some effects of energy production
could lengthen life. Note that, because of the life-shortening approach,
death at birth would be the only way that a mortality contributes an en-
tire lost lifetime to the ALS table.
The method of combining morbidity and mortality into an ALS entry
is clarified in the example contained in section 8.2.7. Note that with-
out such a method for combination of health effects, the matrix would
have to be expanded many times, and the diversity of effects would make
it almost impossible to compare one scenario with another.
There is considerable controversy over whether occupation- and
environment-related diseases should be reported in terms of life shorten-
ing or as actual deaths. The latter method is more straightforward, and
tends to heavily weight such environment-related diseases as emphysema.
The life-shortening argument is supported by the feeling that a death of
a child is far more tragic than the death of a senior citizen.
Table II-C-54
LEVELS OF ILL HEALTH EQUATED TO LIFE SHORTENING
Equivalent Life Shortening
(days of life shortening/
Levels of 111 Health days of illness)
Bedridden and in pain (or coma) 3/4
Bedridden, but otherwise function- ,/2
ing and without pain '
Ambulatory, but suffering from any
of a variety of diseases or other ,,.
maladies (fron lung disease to am-
putated limbs)
Good health 0
The system employed here represents a compromise. The life-shortening
principle is utilized, but by moving the life expectancy from the present 72
years in the USA up to 100 years, the impact of a death of a senior citizen
is increased to 28 years of life shortening (up from zero). Also, setting
life expectancy at 100 gives those involved in either public health or
energy production an as yet unattained goal to work toward.
II-C-244
-------
8.2.4. VOLUNTARY VERSUS INVOLUNTARY RISK TAKING
It was decided that involuntary risk taking should be weighted
more heavily than voluntary risk taking (22). In the latter case, ALS
has been reduced by 50 percent prior to inclusion on the matrix. Some
difficulty was encountered in distinguishing between voluntary and In-
voluntary impacts. Thus the following assumptions were made: voluntary
impacts include those occuring as a result of a person's employment, where
risk taking involves, to some extent, monetary compensation; impacts such
as the effects of ambient air pollution are considered to be involuntary.
The differentiation is not clear, because a coal miner may have a limited
choice of alternative employment and a person affected by air pollution "
impacts could avoid them by moving to a "less-risky" environment.
8.2.5. UNCERTAINTY
An estimate of uncertainty is made for each estimate of health im-
pact. The six uncertainty classes range from "wild guess" to "known fact
based on well-documented past experience." Those entries with high un-
certainty coupled with high impact would receive detailed study during
future phases of ORBES.
8.2.6. PROBABILITIES OF FUTURE EVENTS
Where appropriate, probabilities and discounting procedures have
been incorporated into the methodology in order to more meaningfully re-
late possible future effects with present impacts.
8.2.7. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The rationale, computation, and references that lead to each entry
on the ALS matrix are recorded individually. A sample worksheet for cal-
culations of coal mining ALS is shown on Table II-C-55.
8.2.8. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The initial qualitative assessment of first-order effects is pre-
sented on Table II^C-57, p. II-C-285. Some semi-quantitative conclusions
have been drawn. These indicate generally that the BOM 80-20 scenario
(high energy, high coal) is the more severe. However, a large impact in
one category, such as "nuclear waste disposal," could conceivably reverse
the results. Also, use of adjectives such as "almost certain" can be mis-
leading. It is "almost certain" that some nuclear workers will contract
some sort of cancer as a result. The intensity for those afflicted workers
certainly is severe (SV). However, the overall intensity would be more
meaningfully related to the number of workers afflicted.
II-C-245
-------
Table II-C-55
EXAMPLE OF ADJUSTED LIFE .SHORTENING (ALS) CALCULATION
/ events » y affliction y Illness y voluntary
" * year ; time * severity A adjustment
(a) (a) (a)
ALS (Injury) - 213.6 X 106 X ^ X ^|i x ^jj^ X 0.5 X 0.5 % 1.0
ton 1 event /days Iost\/11fet1ine\
year ton/man-hr man-hour \ event /\ days/
ALS (fatality)* 213.6 X 106 X ^ X ^- X (100-40)' Lj^ X 1.0 X 0.5 * 19
fBlack M ^ M / l \ ^
ALS Lung) ' (33MOO X>12) X 0^00375 X (100-50) Ug-j X 0.25 X 0.5 * 9
( •""« ) *
-x-
ALS Total * 29
NOTES:
(a) G.E. Dials and E.G. Moore. "The Cost of Coal." Environment. September, 1974, pp 23,24,30,34,35.
(b) Committee on Mineral Resources and the Environment (COMRATE). "Mineral Resources and the Environment,"
Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975, p. 194.
(c) Coal Consumption to miners from COMRATE, p. 194. ORBES consumption .12 of nation. Projection to 2000
from 0.3-3 and 0.4-6 ORB coal consumption data.
'
(d) Chicago Daily News, March 30. 1977, P. 12. (^ %£f) („&?%**> = 0'00375 iTnlTyfe
S. C. Morris and K. M. Novak. "Handbook for Quantitation of Health Effects from Coal Energy
Systems (draft)." Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Center for Analysis of Energy
Systems, Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division. Upton, N.Y., December 15, 1976.
* Preliminary estimate from previous Illinois team report which assumes a 100% capacity factor
The amount of ORBES coal extraction used in other sections of this report 1s substantially
less than this figure.
-------
Several unanticipated energy impacts were found to result in sig-
nificant life shortening. These include alrcraft^-power line accidents
and electrocution of farmers. The largest BOM 80r20 impact computed to
date involves coal transport by rail, which results in an ALS of 180.
Table II-C-56 shows the adjusted life shortening associated with some en-
ergy impacts in this scenario as compared to non-energy associated events.
Table II-C-56
ADJUSTED LIFE SHORTENING ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY IMPACTS
BOM 80-20, 2000 ALS
Underground coal mining 29
(injuries + death + disease)
Aircraft collisions with power lines 6
Fanners electrocuted by power lines 6
Coal transport by rail 180
The following are not related to any ORBES scenario but are use-
ful for comparative purposes:
ALS
Traffic accidents in ORBES
Fatalities + injuries, motor vehicles 1975 6,250
General aviation accidents in ORBES
Fatalities + injuries, 1975 64
Air pollution impacts also may be sizable. For example, prelimi-
nary modeling results (described in Chapter 7) indicate that the BOM 80-20
scenario would cause an increase in sulfur dioxide concentrations along
the Ohio River of 560 micrograms/meter (24-hour average) on at least four
days each year. If this impact is assumed to be experienced by residents
of a band of counties (four counties wide, two on each side of the river;
population of 5,700,000), then the ALS increase for the four peak days
alone is estimated to be 30 (increment for the year 2000 over the year
1985).
Note that lesser concentrations on other days would contribute
further significant increases to ALS. Improved definition of. air pollu-
tion health impacts will be possible after more complete definition of
background and incremental ambient concentrations (with frequency distri-
butions for a variety of pollutants) and of populations-at-risk. Note
also that the air pollution impact is highly dependent on the extent of
emission control.
II-C-247
-------
Initial results indicate the need for additional quantification.
Other unforeseen results probably lay hidden within the 2,520 possible
impacts, and a large number of small impacts will result in large totals.
The quantification study should continue, and conclusions drawn from con-
troversial data and methodologies should be subjected to careful scrutiny.
The assessment presently omits water pollution, mental health, well-being,
and quality of life aspects. For future phases of ORBES these aspects
might be included.
II-C-248
-------
8.3. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
8.3.1. INTRODUCTION
The first-order demographic impacts associated with new energy
conversion facilities are changes in population size and growth rate,
migration patterns, and selected structural characteristics of the popu-
lation such as age distribution and sex ratio. Some demographic impacts
may occur in the planning stages as a utility's intentions become known
or are anticipated, and if families are forced to relocate as the result
of land acquisition for a facility. The most significant and extensive
demographic impacts, however, occur during the construction and operation
of a plant and as the result of the utilization of the energy produced.
Direct employment in the construction and operation of energy con-
version facilities is a direct cause of demographic change. The number
of employees used in selected types of facilities is illustrated in Figure
tI-C-26 (1, p. 4).' During the planning and construction phases the
number of employees increases rapidly and then drops from the peak construc-
tion employment as a plant nears completion. The number and timing of em-
ployees varies by type and size of the project, with coal gasification
requiring the largest number over the shortest period of time. During the
operating phase of all types of facilities, the number of employees is
relatively low and stable throughout the life of the plant.
The patterns of population change that may occur as a facility is
built in a "boomtown" environment are illustrated in Figure II-C-27 (l,p.
8). The families of project employees are the single most important source
of population growth during the construction of the facility. Workers and
their families, in turn, may create a demand for indirect as well as income-
induced employment because of the expansion and diversification of the eco-
nomic base. As the number of construction workers declines and the popula-
tion drops from the temporary peak, the primary source of population growth
changes during the operating phase to indirect and income-induced employ-
ment opportunities.
The translation of such a pattern of population change into signi-
ficant demographic impacts in the ORBES region, however, depends upon a
number of factors. Several are characteristic of particular technologies;
coal-fired and nuclear-powered facilities, for example, have different
labor requirements. Others concern the demographic as well as socioeco-
nomic environments within which the plants are located. Boomtown conditions
The substitute coal gasification plant (250 million cubic feet
produced per day) is proposed by El Paso Natural Gas Company and Western
Gasification Company for the Navajo Reservation; the nuclear is at Calvert
Cliffs, Maryland; the coal-fired plant is at Page, Arizona; and the coal
export mine (9 million tons produced per year) is at Fruitland, New Mexico.
Other direct employment figures are in 2, pp. 12-35.
II-C-249
-------
I
o
I
ro
8,000
7,000
6,000
T3
01
•o
•o
g 5,000
4,000
Figure II-C-26
ADDED POPULATION FROM ENERGY PROJECT
Example of 2250 MW Coal-Fired Electric Generating Plant
O>
o_
-------
3500 r
3000 -
o
I
no
ui
Figure II-C-27
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR
SELECTED ENERGY PROJECTS
Substitute Coal Gasification
Construction
Operations
Electric Generating
Plant-2250 MW
Substitute Gasification
Electric Generating
Plant-440 MW
Coal Export Mine
Electric 2250 MW
Nuclear
4 5
YEARS
-------
prevail when large numbers of newcomers move to small, isolated rural com-
munities in which the population is static or declining.2 The ORBES re-
gion, however, is relatively densely populated and has a large number of
counties in or near metropolitan areas and centers of industrial activity.
8.3.2. TYPES OF IMPACTS
8.3.2.1. FORCED RELOCATION
The forced relocation of long-term residents as the result of land
acquisition may occur during extraction of coal, especially surface min-
ing; when building conversion facilities; and for community development
which may result from energy-related activities. The extent of relocation
will vary according to the land requirements of a particular function and
the density and distribution of population. Coal-fired plants and under-
ground mines have the lowest potential for forced relocation, as they
tend to be located in relatively sparsely-populated areas (8). Nuclear
plants have the greatest potential for forced relocation, not only be-
cause of their land requirements but also as a result of their proximity
to load centers and metropolitan areas.
Relocation may also result indirectly from land acquisition for
community development (9,10). Such projects include water impoundment,
whether for flood control or other uses; highway construction; airport
facility construction or expansion; and industrial siting. The number
of people involved in relocation is small, as relatively low cost land
will be utilized, and utilities and other groups will seek to minimize
the relocation problem. Most of the people who are forced to relocate
will move to the closest available place and remain in the community.
According to Napier and Wright, they are the only group alienated by the
development (10).
8.3.2.2. IN-MIGRATION
In-migration is primarily in response to employment opportunities.
The number of in-migrants to a community depends upon the proportion of
jobs that cannot be filled with resident workers. The impact of in-
migration, however, depends more on the rate of in-migration and the char-
acteristics of the migrants compared with those of the resident or "host"
population.
The labor demand for underground mining is greater than for surface
mining by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (11). The exact size of the labor
force at the mine site will vary according to (a) the width and depth of
2
The assessment of the social impacts of boomtown growth resulting
from energy development has been developed mainly from recent experiences
in the western United States (3,4,5,6,7).
II-C-252
-------
the coal seam, (b) the size of the supervisory staff, and (c) the type of
reclamation in surface mining. Neither underground nor surface mining has
an early "boom" during mine construction, Furthermore, most miners are
recruited locally and live in communities within commuting distance of the
mine (12). The rate of in-migration is relatively low except where mines
are located in sparsely populated, isolated rural areas.
The potential for impact from in-migration is much greater during
the construction of the plant and associated facilities. The demand for
labor, much of it highly skilled, is great over a short period of time.
In the western model of boomtown growth, the construction workers move
to the site. Many will live there with their families until the job is
completed. The impacts of such rapid population growth are relatively well-
documented. In the eastern part of the United States, however, a majority
of the construction workers, may commute from nearby metropolitan areas on
a daily or weekly basis (13,14,15). This is especially true at nuclear
sites. The ORBES region has elements of both models, although commutation
is more likely to be dominant. Few counties are more than a two-hour drive
from a metropolitan area, 3 fact which utilities consider in their plan-
ning (16).
A relatively small proportion of the construction jobs, most at
lower skill levels, may be filled by local people, The argument that
plant construction will reduce unemployment is one of the strongest cases
for local support (17). This result is not guaranteed, however, as workers
may leave other jobs in search of better pay in construction work at the
site. High levels of occupational instability are reported during plant
construction as people change jobs and move in and out of the area (18).
Like all aspects of in-migration during this phase, however, this too is
temporary.
Compared with the construction workers, fewer people are involved
in plant operations. They are less likely to be drawn from the local re-
sident population, more likely to become permanent residents of communities
near the plant site. These operating personnel will be highly-skilled,
well-educated and relatively young (18). Although there is little evi-
dence that they differ in these respects from the resident population,
the operating personnel at coal facilities are more likely to reside
among a socioeconomic elite.
In-migration associated with the construction and operation of a
facility and utilization of the power generated is an indirect result of
energy development. Estimations of such indirect and incomes-induced
growth have traditionally been based upon economic multipliers (see 8.4
below). A portion of this growth may come from employees and their families,
but result from the expanding economic base of communities near the site.
The distribution of these effects, and hence the migration associated with
them, depends upon where the power generated at a site is used. One
cannot assume that it is localized in the same county or remains entirely
in the utility's service area.
II-C-253
-------
One type of local indirect impact is the increase in population
near nuclear plants, A particular example occurred in Lacy Township of
Ocean County, New Jersey, site of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant (19,23,24).
The municapalities used taxes paid by the utility to reduce local tax pre-
ssures. This reduction increased the attractiveness of the area to new
residential development. Such an effect, especially in places which are
accessible to metropolitan areas and under growth pressures, may negate
the requirement that nuclear plants be located in low-density areas in
order to reduce risk.
8-. 3.2.4. OUT-MIGRATION
A corollary to the argument that building and operating a plant
will reduce local unemployment is that the rate of out-migration will
decline. This is especially important as plant locations continue to
disperse toward more sparsely-populated, non-metropolitan areas (19).
It is also a questionable proposition, in the short-term as well as the
long-term. In the short-term, some jobs in construction may be available
to local residents, although there is no evidence that this has any effect
on out-migration. In the long-term, industrialization and other types of
indirect employment are expected to reduce out-migration. Evidence from
depressed, rural areas of the south is that the major impact is to initially
increase the in-migration of workers who will take the better paying and
more highly skilled jobs (20,21). Some of these are return migrants,
others are newcomers to the area. The combination of return migrants and
a slightly reduced rate of out-migration suggests that the net result may
be to decrease population loss in the long-term.
8.3.2.5. RATES OF POPULATION GROWTH
Assessments of the socioeconomic impacts of energy development in
the western United States have concluded that rapid rates of population
growth will create the most severe problems (1,3). Population growth is
considered to be almost entirely a function of in-migration. Migratory
movement is also the major factor in population growth patterns in the
eastern United States, including the ORBES region. The population growth
that results from new energy conversion facilities, however, may vary con-
siderably. Surveys of the impacts of nuclear plants conclude that most of
them have no significant effect upon population growth in the long-term,
and only small impacts during the construction phase (15,18). They are lo-
cated relatively close to metropolitan areas so that many construction
workers can commute, and the operating force is small relative to the
resident population. Coal-fired plants are likely to be in more sparsely-
populated areas further from metropolitan areas, where the short-term
impacts and long-term consequences for population growth are greater.
High rates of population growth, such as those in the west, have not been
reported.
II-C-254
-------
8.3.3. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE ORBES REGION
According to the most recent estimates, the total population of
the ORBES region increased by an average of .06 percent annually from
1970 to 1975.3 Natural increase was the primary component of growth as
each state except Kentucky had a net migration loss greater than one per-
cent annually, the patterns of population growth in Illinois, Indiana
and Ohio paralleled those in the North Central Region, whereas population
growth in Kentucky was similar to that in other states in the South.
The pace of population growth in the ORBES portions of Illinois, Indiana
and Ohio, however, was at least double the average annual percent change
in the rest of each state. This is also true of net migration, which is
negative in each state. These non-ORBES counties include large metropoli-
tan areas along the northern rim that have led their respective states in
net migration loss.
B 0
Approximately two-thirds of the ORBES population in 1975 was in
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Since the 1960s, popu-
lation growth rates in the metropolitan areas of the North Central Region
have declined, primarily because of net migration loss from central ci-
ties, in favor of the decentralization of growth to the suburbs and, more
recently, to smaller non-metropolitan places (26). This trend has accel-
erated since 1970 (27). The distribution of recent population growth in
the ORBES portions of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio confirms this decentral-
ization pattern. Even in Kentucky, metropolitan areas grew more slowly
than non-metropolitan places, and had a net migration loss of -0.1 per-
cent (24).
Population projections for the ORBES region report that the total
population will exceed twenty million by the year 2000. Combined "offi-
cial" projections for the ORBES portions of each state forecast a total
of 23.1 million for the region (28). An independent projection for the
region by the Center for Advanced Computation (CAC) reports that the to-
tal population will reach 21.1 million by 2000, or 9 percent less than the
combined states' forecasts (29). The CAC projection shows a dramatic de-
crease in the rate of population growth by the next generation, but a
continuation in the net migration losses -for the Illinois, Indiana and
Ohio portions of the region. Migration will affect population growth
directly by reducing the number of people in the region, and indirectly
by changing the age structure of the population. The younger and more
fertile portions of the population are also the most mobile. By the year
2000, the population of the ORBES region will have a significantly older
age pattern than at present (29, p. 30).
o
The generalizations about current population trends are based
upon data/-contained in 22,23,24 and 25.
II-C-255
-------
8.3.4. ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS
8.3.4.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Review of the literature on the demographic impacts of energy de-
velopment suggests that they will vary according to the technological
characteristics of the conversion systems and the characteristics of the
region within which they are located. Five considerations are especially
important:
1. The more labor-intensive the technology,
the more likely it is that a community
will experience significant demographic
impacts.
2. The impacts will be greater where the
peak construction force is large and
the ratio of construction to operating
employees is high.
3. Impacts will vary according to the time
phasing and location of new facilities.
Dispersed siting is assumed for the
ORBES region. However, if several sites
(counties) are near, or adjacent to, one
another, the impacts will be greater.
4. Impacts will vary according to the demo-
graphic characteristics and structure of
the region, including the density and
distribution of the population.
5. The impacts will vary according to the
size, composition and geographical dis-
tribution of the labor force. Accessi-
bility to a large labor force such as is
in a metropolitan area, which is diversi-
fied to meet the employment demands of
new energy development, will reduce the
number of in-migrants because workers
may commute daily 1.5 to 2 hours each
way.
8.3.4.2. BUREAU OF MINES REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS
The Bureau of Mines RTCs involve the largest number of counties
and the largest proportion of the ORBES region's population. They will
also use the largest land area, primarily because of extraction (see
Chapter 5) and the largest number of employees in constructing and oper-
II-C-256
-------
ating the facilities. The potential for significant demographic impacts
to occur is high, especially in consideration of the concentration of
facilities in contiguous groups of counties in southeastern Indiana and
in Ohio. However, most of the counties are either within a metropolitan
area or within commuting range of at least one such area. Approximately
half of the counties are also growing more rapidly than the sub-regional
averages. Relatively few counties have "boom town" site characteristics
analagous to those in the western United States. Counties that do are
those selected for coal-fired facilities in southeastern Illinois and
southwestern Indiana, although even they are within a two-hour drive of
a metropolitan area.
Relocation of people may occur either from expanding the area in
surface mining or land acquisition for plants. The latter will be more
important because facilities are located in the more densely-populated
counties. Surface mining will have the least impact, considering the
geographical distribution of the reserves and the assumption that an in-
creased proportion of the coal used will come from underground mining.
In either case, a relatively small number of people will be involved even
under the 80 percent coal - 20 percent nuclear RTC.
The rate of in-migration may increase slightly in coal mining coun-
ties, as production expands to meet the increased demands of the scenarios.
On the other hand, the labor force may commute from nearby towns or live
in the area. The nature of this change is unknown. The demographic im-
pacts associated with construction workers are potentially more signifi-
cant. However, the accessibility of plant sites (counties) to metropoli-
tan labor markets suggests that the proportion of the construction force
which has a long-term residence at the site will be small. Furthermore,
large-scale development such as the BOM scenarios project may, through
time, create a more diversified labor force that can fill many of the
construction jobs locally, or at least within a multi-county area such
as southeastern Indiana. This would further reduce in-migration.
The numbers of in-migrants will be less during the operating phase,
although they are more likely to be permanent residents. Their impact
will be even less through time, as many of the counties into which they
move will have increasing populations, whereas the number of operating
employees and their families will remain relatively stable. Through time,
the demographic shifts resulting from in-migration seem less likely to
be significant. This may not be true for counties in which coal mining
increases.
The impact of energy development upon out-migration is another ques-
tion. Approximately half of the counties selected as sites in the BOM
RTCs have had net migration losses since 1975. Because of the labor de-
mand, especially in construction, the BOM scenario has the greatest po-
tential for reducing the rate of out-migration. On the other hand, it
is precisely because the jobs are in construction, and the probability
that many of the workers can commute, that a direct impact upon out-
migration may be small.
II-C-257
-------
8.3.4.3. COMPARISON OF BUREAU OF MINES RTCs
The demographic impacts associated with the 80 perdent coal - 20
percent nuclear RTC'will be more extensive, and more significant, than
those associated with the 50-50 fuel mix. In general, it is more labor
intensive in the long term in the conversion function and, because of
assumptions about the coal supply, in extraction functions as well. Also,
the geographical distribution of site counties in the 80-20 RTC is more
dispersed and includes a larger number of counties which, although, grow-
ing in population, have had recent net migration losses.
The longer-term demographic impacts may be associated with the
utilization of electricity produced. This may create secondary and income-
induced employment opportunities which may either encourage in-migration
or return migration to the region, or provide opportunities for people
who might otherwise leave. Both the future economic structure of the re-
gion and peoples' responses to it are unknown at present. If one assumes
that the county in which the plant is located has some advantage in access
to power, then the most extensive demographic impacts will occur in the
80-20 RTC and will concentrate where plants are located in clusters of
contiguous counties, as in Indiana and Ohio. Assuming that migration to
and from the ORBES region is insignificant, population redistribution
at multi-county or .subregional scale will contribute significantly to
a shift of population growth to suburban and non-metropolitan areas of
the region. This will occur in either of the BOM RTCs.
8.3.4.4. COMPARISON OF THE BUREAU OF MINES
AND FORD TECHNICAL FIX SCENARIOS
The scale and intensity of demographic impacts for the Ford Tech-
nical Fix RTCs are more local, and much less severe at regional scale
than for the Bureau of Mines. The coal-based RTC has a greater potential
for long-term impact in terms of total population growth, if only because
of extraction and the slightly larger number of employees required to
operate coal-fired facilities. The nuclear-based RTC will have the larg-
est short-term impact because of the large number of peak construction
employees.
The demographic impacts of the Ford Technical Fix scenarios may be
significant at local scale and, in southeastern Ohio, the impacts which
I are expected will be similar to those expected for the BOM. The counties
are grouped along the Ohio River and adjacent to several metropolitan areas,
thus making them accessible to construction workers. However, there is a
, distinction between the nuclear RTC, which includes counties that have
1 relatively high population growth and net migration gain, and the coal RTC,
in which most counties have net migration loss. The demographic impacts
of population growth, and migration patterns, will probably be greater in
the latter case.
II-C-258
-------
8.3.5. SECOND- AND HIGHER-ORDER SOCIAL IMPACTS
Demographic change has associated with it a host of other second-
and higher-order socioeconomic impacts at local and subregional scales.
These are generic impacts whose extent in the ORBES region, and the
patterns of interrelationships among them, are presently unknown. How-
ever, they may focus upon several issues of importance between now and
the year 2000.
The effect of energy development upon local employment is one
example. Energy development will probably result in increased employ-
ment opportunities. But, as noted in Section 8.3.2.4., a large propor-
tion of the jobs created by local growth, especially those at higher skill
levels, may be filled either by newcomers or return migrants. Temporary
problems may result as employees of other local industries are attracted
by the higher wages paid during the construction of a facility (18). On
the other hand, the job mobility of local residents may be limited by
people moving into the community and competing successfully for new jobs.
The lack of adequate housing is a second example. Whereas temporary
housing in the construction phase is an issue in boomtown development,
increased demand for permanent housing for operating personnel and their
families, and then for people involved in secondary and induced employment,
will become the more important issue for the ORBES region.
Many local jurisdictions have used utility and industry taxes to
reduce local property taxes. In most cases, communities have a long-term
net gain in taxing power. However, stabilizing or lowering property taxes
may actually act as a financial incentive to speed residential development
and population increase (19). In the long term, this may have the effect
of negating the original intent of taxing policy as real estate values
and property taxes increase during development.
Additional impacts may occur that are relevant to the provision of
public services. First, the ultimate level of demand for certain services
may increase. This may result from a change in the kinds of residents
now involved in electing public officials and making demands on them. It
may also occur because of rising expectations among long-term residents
of the area. Whatever the cause, public policymakers may find that their
linear projection of "more of the same" kinds of public services may not
be sufficient to meet new demands. In such cases, they may realize the
shortfall only after it becomes clear that increased public revenues will
not take up the slack. In those cases, the obvious impact will be a rise
in tax rates for all residents in the jurisdiction. The fact that their
expectation was exactly the opposite may lead to political disillusionment
and considerable dissatisfaction with local policymakers.
A second and more likely impact 1s that residents of other tax
districts may look with envy at the increased public service level and low
tax rate that is ultimately available in those districts which have energy
II-C-259
-------
facilities and may change their residence as, a result. This type of
tertiary impact has at least two consequences: 1) it means that part
of the rationale for siting the utility distant from population centers
may defeat its own purpose by relocating population around the plant;
2) it may mean that the increased number of residents who enter the
community reduces the benefit level to individual residents, both old
and new.
The importance of such chains of events, should they occur in the
ORBES region, will be to decrease the relative importance of energy
development to the long-term residents of jurisdictions which have new
energy conversion facilities. In particular, the poor, the elderly and
other groups, such as female heads of households, may bear a dispropor-
tionate burden of impacts, such as increased property taxes,because they
are least likely to be able to compete successfully for new employment
opportunities which indirectly or directly result from electricity
production.' They may realize an absolute increase in the level of public
services available to them although in the long term they may leave because
of rising taxes and lack of alternative housing.
These and other social impacts ape related not only to the relative
number of new residents in a community, but also to the different value
systems that they introduce.
The classical pattern of conflict between newcomers and long-term
residents in a community is long-standing, and the impacts may range from
demands on public services to social realignments.. However, people who
are associated with nuclear-powered facilities will introduce a special
element of controversy, which may tend to polarize a community's attitudes
and political alignments. The growing controversy over the siting of
nuclear plants is evident in recent statewide referenda and in local con-
troversies over individual plants. In the ORBES region, such controversy
will focus upon the BOM 50-50 RTC and the FTP 100% nuclear RTC, and*will
likely involve related political issues such as local control over siting
versus decentralization of decisionmaking, as outlined in Section 8.5.
Problems of the elderly are of particular concern for the aging
of the basin's population is a central fact of projected demographic
change (29).
II-C-260
-------
8.4. ECONOMIC .IMPACTS
The Regional Technology Configurations developed as plausible
responses to the BOM and Ford Tech Fix scenarios may produce economic
impacts on a local, regional or national scale. A discussion of
economic impacts at the national and regional levels is included in
Chapter 10; economic impacts at the local level are discussed in the
following section.
8.4.1. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The nature and magnitude of economic impacts associated with siting
in a specific locality can be examined more readily than those associated
with a particular RTC. In cases where specific sites have been identified,
and where construction is scheduled to begin within three or four years,
it is possible, though costly, to generate useful quantitative estimates
of local economic impacts (1,2,3,4,5,6). As planning horizons lengthen,
however, projections become less reliable. For the ORBES study, it is
desirable to assess local economic impacts which may occur as late as the
year 2000, for plausible sites identified only at the county level. This
goal raises special technical problems not treated in the socioeconomic
assessment literature, most of which is concerned with specific sites
and much shorter horizons. The major problem areas are discussed below.
1. Identification of a plausible site at the
county level does not mean that the econo-
mic impacts will be confined to that county.
Impacts may be more significant in adjacent
counties or even adjacent states. The spa-
tial distribution of economic impacts is
highly sensitive to the actual site within
the identified county.
2. Reliable and comprehensive baseline projec-
tions to the year 2000 are not currently
available. Such projections are essential
to the identification and quantification
of economic impacts at the municipal and
county levels. The inherently volatile
and site-specific nature of small town de-
velopment undermines confidence in the
extrapolation forward of historical trends.
But even if useful projections were avail-
able, they would be required for every
feasible siting location within the identi- '
fied counties.
In view of these problems, it does not appear possible to attri-
bute any certain economic itnpacts to the identified counties other than-
the following:
II-C-261
-------
1. The county of siting will experience an eventual
increase in its capacity to raise tax revenues.
2. The county of siting will experience a net
increase in employment.
Potential local economic impacts are discussed below in general terms and
grouped according to whether they are likely to occur during the planning,
construction or operating phases.
8.4.1.1. PLANNING PHASE
During and immediately following the period of utility negotiations
for the purchase of land, some degree of land speculation may take place.
Depending upon landowners' expectations of future land values, land prices
could rise significantly, with some impact on rents and future economic
development. Similarly, in anticipation of future shortages, housing
rents and prices may begin to rise. The magnitude of such effects is
likely to be greatest in and around the communities nearest the planned
site, decreasing with distance from it. Impacts may be minimal near
those sites which have long been earmarked for industrial development.
8.4.1.2. CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Local economic impacts associated with the construction of the
facility will exhibit considerable sensitivity to site-specific condi-
tions. As described in section 8. 3., two to three thousand construction
workers may be employed on site at the peak of this activity. The extent
of the economic impact will depend directly upon what portion of this
labor force is made up of local residents, temporary residents during the
construction phase, and commuters from outlying communities.
It is possible that most or all of this labor force will be made
up of commuters for some of the selected counties. For others, however,
the majority of^construction workers may take up temporary residence in
communities near the site. Direct economic impacts will be greater in
the latter case and will include the following:
1. Increased direct local employment (con-
struction).
2. Increased demands for local private sec-
tor goods and services, including housing.
3. Increased demands for public sector ser-
vices, including schools, roads, police,
fire, waste disposal, etc.
To the extent that private sector demand increases faster than supply,
temporary shortages, price rises and inefficiencies brought about by ra-
pid change may occur. There may be local reluctance to adapt completely
II-C-262
-------
to the massive influx of workers since their presence in the community
is known to be temporary. If so, the mix of goods and services available
locally may be incomplete, requiring considerable additional travel to
obtain some items.
In order to meet the increased, though temporary, demand for pri-
vate sector goods and services, there may be increased employment in this
sector. The magnitude of such an increase will depend on the number of
construction workers taking up residence in the local communities (i.e.,
non-commuters). As construction nears completion, direct employment will
taper off significantly, requiring some readjustment of the business com-
munity toward pre-construction levels.
The most potentially significant local economic impacts may occur
in the public sector. To the extent that the construction labor force
demands additional or different public services such as schooling, waste
disposal, water, police and fire protection, an increased strain may be
placed on local governmental units. Again, the severity of impact will
depend in part on the number of construction workers who take up resi-
dence in the local communities. Problems may arise in the following ways:
1. Increased demand for public services is
known to be temporary. Construction of
schools, for example, would be costly
when used only for a few years.
2. Depending upon site-specific scale eco-
nomies and existing excess capacity,
maintenance of pre-construction public
service levels could be more costly for
all local residents.
3. Tax revenues to finance increased pro-
vision of public services may lag the
increased demands by a considerable
period.
8.4.1.3. OPERATING PHASE
The operating phase of the facility siting process is character-
ized by the continuous employment of approximately 200 individuals for
the life-time of the facility. Economic impacts deriving from direct
employment will be similar to those described for the construction phase
with two important exceptions:
1. Most or all of the operating personnel
can be expected to reside in the local
communities, rather than commute.
II-C-263
-------
2. Direct employment will be relatively
permanent.
Following the above, indirect employment in both private and public sec-
tors may increase through expansion of these sectors in response to the
demands of operating personnel for additional or different goods and ser-
vices. The magnitude of impacts during this phase depends, as before,
on existing excess capacity and scale economies, but also on the extent
to which increased demands were accommodated during the construction phase.
If the construction phase was a period of local economic expansion, then
the early operating phase may be marked by economic contraction.
Much of the socioeconomic impact assessment literature has dealt
with the problem of estimating "employment multipliers" for prediction
of indirect local employment during the operating phase. A preliminary
review of that literature suggests the multiplier concept may be inappro-
priate to ORBES requirements. First, the theory upon which the multiplier
derivations are based requires that conversion facility employment be as-
sumed identical to existing regional "export industry" employment in terms
of secondary/indirect employment generated. This assumption lacks intui-
tive appeal and has not been verified. It may be argued that regional
export industries often rely upon the local economy for the supply of
goods and services to a far greater degree than would a conversion faci-
lity. If so, the usual employment multiplier may significantly overstate
the secondary employment impact. Second, most of the employment multi-
pliers estimated in the impact assessment literature are derived from
county level data, whereas local economic impacts, as stated earlier, may
be greater in adjacent counties or states. Third, employment multipliers
estimated on the basis of historical data cannot be expected to maintain
any relevance over the ORBES 1985-2000 horizon.
8.4.2. OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACTS
In addition to the impacts discussed above and in Chapter 10, there
are certain to be other economic impacts associated with the RTCs. Included
are economic analyses of:
1. environmental and land use impacts.
*
2. transportation (especially rail-
road) impacts.
3. mining and materials resources
impacts.
4. interregional impacts
Some of the economic impacts are expected to be highly significant
and thus warrant detailed examination. In general, however, analysis re-
quires at least some quantification of the impacts, which will not be avail-
able until the end of Phase I. Therefore* treatment of these impacts should
be appropriately undertaken during Phase II of the ORBES project.
II-C-264
-------
8.5. LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPACTS
Political impacts will undoubtedly occur in many of the communi-
ties where energy conversion facilities are sited in the ORBES region.
However, these impacts will occur only in response to other earlier im-
pacts, or the anticipation of such impacts, by the local polity. There-
fore, it is useful to consider political impacts as at least third-order
effects, which are likely to occur after, and in response to, demographic,
sociological, environmental, public health, and economic changes. While
noting that such political impacts are by definition tertiary, it is im-
portant to bear in mind that the community's expectation of changes in
its physical environment as a result of increased energy conversion faci-
lities in its vicinity will also create political change.
The first likely response of a community will be to demand ameli-
oration by the responsible authorities they have dealt with on other policy
issues. Such officials include elected officers (mayors and county com-
missioners) as well as bureaucratic representatives of both federal and
state agencies (public health officials, soil conservation agents, and
environmental protection agents). However, such agents may prove unre-
sponsive to the demands for change made by their constituents, due to
indifference on the part of the authorities or to an inability to act be-
cause of legal restraints.
In reaction to these two categories of response, interests in the
communities who wish to create change will have three approaches available
to them: 1) change the responsible agents (easier to do in the case of
elected officials than in the case of bureaucrats); 2) change the legis-
lative authority of such officials; or 3) bypass both by creating new
legislative authority and new agencies to deal with the problem. The
last method is often favored when members of a community cannot know for
certain whether the lack of response to their demands is caused by in-
difference or lack of ability to respond. One method of testing this
situation, however, is to take their cause to court and attempt to force
action by the responsible agencies. The latter technique frequently has
the effect of clarifying the law and determining whether new legislation
is needed. The process is diagrammed in Figure II-C-28.
It is possible to predict that the further siting of conversion
facilities in the ORBES region will lead to increased demand for control
over siting decisions. This may initially take the form of attempting
to influence the decisions of the agency responsible for issuing licenses
of convenience to utility companies. If little response is forthcoming
from those agencies, it is reasonable to predict that court cases will
be generated to force the agency to allow greater public participation in
the licensing process, to respond to objections raised by public inter-
venors in these hearings, and to generally tighten up the issuing process.
If the people who make these kinds of demands are not satisfied with the
policymakers' response, it is likely that they will seek legislative re-
medies. These may range from new zoning laws at the local and county
levels, which are potentially more responsive to local demands, to new
II-C-265
-------
INITIAL
IMPACTS
Figure II-C-28
^
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPACT PROCESS
RESPONSE BY
COMMUNITY
DEMANDS ON
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCIES
RESPONSES AND
REACTIONS TO
RESPONSES
NEW FORMS
OF DEMANDS
|Environmental
Courts
(for clarification
of laws)
Legislatures
(for new authority)
Elective Process
(for -new officials)
Legislatures
(for change in
political
structure)
-------
state laws and even to federal legislation to control land-ruse planning.
There are two opposing tendencies presently helping to shape the
future legal and institutional frameworks designed to control land-use
planning in the United States. The first is the demand for greater re-
gional planning and centralization of decisionmaking at higher levels of
government, in response to an awareness of the cumulative nature of en-
vironmental and biological impacts. One reasonable solution to this prob-
lem is to regionalize decisionmaking to the point where the cumulative
impacts may be taken into account and tradeoffs made among different groups
that, although located distant from each other, affect each other's qual-
ity of life. The trend in recent years has been to raise the level of
decisionmaking to the federal level where local concerns are unlikely to
dominate the process. Thus, one possible institutional impact may be the
further regionalization of problems and their solutions.
On the other hand, there is a counter-demand that decisionmaking
be done with the interests of localities and individual citizens in mind.
One result of the trend toward centralization has been an increas-
ing demand for public participation in policymaking. Many persons now
believe that individual citizens will more likely achieve effective input
at the local level of government. Some municipalities have, in fact,
recently demonstrated more interest in restricting growth than in encour-
aging economic development. This trend is a direct contradiction of the
previous tendency for all local decisionmakers to accept development for
the sake of economic expansion and to compete with one another for increas-
ing tax revenues. The need to give individual communities some autonomy
in shaping their own environments becomes especially important with the ,
current wide variation in the goals of different communities and increas-
ing desire for latitude and flexibility at the local level. However, there
is also a possibility that, in reaction to the increased emphasis on re-
gional planning, there will come greater public pressure for community
autonomy and discretion in defining their own environmental values and
goals.
Demographic changes in the community will undoubtedly lead to con-
siderable change in the political/legal structure of the communities in-
volved. Newcomers to the area will bring with them their own values,
needs and demands for public services, which may or may not coincide with
those of the longer-term residents. In addition, the simple increase in
population will create strains on public services such as education,
health, crime control, and environmental control. These strains, and the
manner in which local, state and federal officials respond to them, will
create either satisfaction or demands for structural changes in a system
that is incapable of meeting the demands for public services.
Even if the political authorities'are successful in meeting most
new or changed demands, it is likely that a simple shift in the demogra-
phic and sociological balance in the community may bring about substantial
political changes. These will range from changes in the partisan balance
of the community to modifications in structures of government. One such
II-C-267
-------
. I
structural change might be a shift from a city council/mayor form of gov-
ernment to a city manager form, a change that often accompanies urbaniza-
tion. The composition of all elective boards may be expected to change,
depending on the relative numbers of the newcomers who enter the communi-
ty. In addition, the relative strengths of different institutions-
county boards or commissions, school boards, sanitary boards, municipal
governments, etc.—may be expected to shift also, depending on these
bodies' relative responses to demands made by the new political config-
uration in the community.
It is impossible to make quantified predictions of the likelihoood
of particular political impacts occuring for the various scenarios.
, Whether any particular impact occurs will be entirely dependent on the
perceptions of the communities.involved with respect to the severity of
, the impacts on their quality of life. This includes their physical,
biological, public health, economic and demographic environment. Some
attempts have been made to quantify the likelihood of these occurring
in previous sections of the report. If these estimations are accurate,
then one might expect that'the political impacts will be proportional.
However, such impacts are interactive. For example, a large negative
physical and biological impact might be compensated for by a large posi-
tive economic impact. It would be impossible to balance these tradeoffs
in any kind of quantificable manner.
Differentiating among the various scenarios can be done in a gen-
eral way by saying that the more extensive the development, the greater
the number and likelihood of the various impacts, and consequently the
more likely it is that there will be a political impact. Coal and nu-
clear developments have different impacts in the physical, biological
and other areas. Whether one type of impact will be more likely to pro-
duce a response in the political system, however, will be largely depen-
dent on the psychological reactions of persons in the communities in-
volved.
11-C-268
-------
8.6. POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Four major policy Issues were found to be common to most of the
areas in which the socioeconomic impacts of the four Regional Technology
Configurations were assessed. They are: growth management, provision
of public services, pricing policy and control of hazards to public
health. Each issue 1s itself composed of several sub-issues that are
common to a number of impacts assessed in Sections 8.2. through 8.5.
Consequently the following discussion focuses on these issues rather
than on particular impact areas and the relative differences of the
impacts in these areas between the four RTCs. Some of the differences
in magnitude and direction of these common impacts in the four RTCs will
be indicated in Section 8.7.
8.6.1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Peoples' perceptions of and attitudes toward accelerated growth
vary with their economic status. Those who are in the wealthiest economic
situation usually support the positive aspects of growth, especially em-
ployment, whereas those who are more insecure economically are concerned
with a decline in social welfare, but not necessarily pollution (1).
Industrial development in rural areas is generally perceived as desirable
even if it dislocates some people (2). The question of population growth
accompanying development, however, has considerably less support (3).
Whether increased population is a desirable policy goal is a serious
question for policymakers (4). Gilmore and others (5) argue persuasively
that the rapid growth of a boomtown experience may actually hinder energy
development if not properly managed. Other reviews show that communities
have mixed results when faced with rapid growth (6, pp. 88-95). The ques-
tion is especially important for the ORBES region in the BOM 80% coal 20%
nuclear RTC because of the potentially larger number of communities
involved, and the location of more site counties in non-metropolitan areas
where growth may be more rapid and the impacts more severe.
Once the goal is set, policymakers may choose to manage population
growth in different ways. Using the taxing power of municipalities,
counties and states is one method. Property taxes are one of the most
variable of policy options. Increasing or decreasing property.taxes will '
influence greatly the total cost of housing in an area, and consequently ,
the numbers of people who migrate to or from a community, as well as their
characteristics. Property taxation may be used effectively as a policy
option to control or manage population growth. On the other hand, it may
have unintended effects. As Morell has shown (7), the use of taxes from
nuclear plants to lower property taxes in sparsely populated places near
metropolitan areas can increase the attractiveness of the locations for
residential development and actually result in a population increase to
a level that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at one time thought was
II-C-269
-------
undesirable. This type of problem may be important to both the Bureau
of Mines 50% coal 50% nuclear and the Ford Tech Fix nuclear RTCs.
The differential rate at which various types of uses of land are
taxed also may influence population growth. It is possible to encourage
development on the periphery of urban areas by taxing land at its market
price. This usually speeds the sale of land to individuals who will make
the most profitable use of it, which is seldom agriculture. On the other
hand, agricultural land may be taxed preferentially by assessing it at its
use-value, which is-a lower rate than that charged for land used for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Taxation at a preferred
rate can be manipulated by land speculators to benefit themselves rather
; than the fanners that such laws were designed to assist. Consequently,
. some taxing authorities choose to add a deferred tax clause. Under such
' laws, the lower rate is paid only as long as the land remains used for
agriculture. This option may be used to protect prime agricultural
land from the expansion of strip mining. Once the land is converted to
another use, the back taxes for the new use can be collected. The number
of years such deferred taxes are due can be a means by which public
authorities discourage development.'
Use zoning is a second method for managing population growth. Some
land may be removed from residential development, for example, by zoning
it for agricultural use and refusing to vary from that policy. On resi-
dential land, the types of housing that are built may be controlled through
exclusionary techniques such as minimum lot size. Recent court decisions
concerning the use of zoning to achieve community planning goals consistent
with the protection of environmental quality are of direct interest (9).
The majority of the cases, including the timed growth concept, are appli-
cable only to suburban environments.2 In non-metropolitan areas, the
problems of direct regulation by use zoning may be more complex. Here
planners and planning are met with open scepticism, especially if state
or federal intervention through the centralization of planning becomes
an issue (10). Furthermore, use zoning is often absent or not enforced
in rural areas. Approximately half of the counties in the southern half
of Illinois, for example, including those which might produce coal and
have been selected for coal-fired facilities in the BOM scenarios, have
little or no zoning.
A number of localities have attempted to place direct or indirect
limits on population instead of or in addition to planning for growth.
4 Ordinances which set absolute limits on the number of residents in a
community are routinely declared unconstitutional. Limiting population
through restrictive and exclusionary zoning is a more successful method.
However, authorities who restrict the size of the housing market do so
at risk to older and poorer residents who may be less able to compete
Dedicated services and impact fees, and taxes on the source of
growth, are other financial options (8, pp. 12-16).
2
The timed growth concept, which was developed in Ramapo, NY in
1972, provides that all available land is zoned in advance for its final
use (ibid.).
11-270
-------
for a more limited housing supply than newcomers with larger and more
secure incomes (see Section 8.3.6.).
Industry and commerce may also be the objects of growth manage-
ment. The primary types of industrial growth involved with energy con-
version policy are building new power plants and mining raw materials
required to construct and operate them. Local and state officials have
the option of encouraging or discouraging this kind of industrial growth
through tax policies. In so doing, they compete with other administrative
units concerning the demands they can place on the new plant (e.g., the
tax rate as well as other kinds of demands, such as employment of local
residents). Once a decision has been made to encourage the siting of a
large energy conversion facility in an area, however, additional industries
frequently are attracted to what may be a cheap source of energy. Local
officials have the same kinds of options available to them to encourage
the proliferation of industrialization through their taxing and zoning
policies.
Commercial enterprises may grow up around any new industrial com-
plex. Since these kinds of service and retail sales operations are a
major source of new employment, policymakers may wish to encourage them
through taxing and zoning policies. However, such policy options may also
be used to restrict commercial growth in certain areas: to concentrate
such establishments to prevent a proliferation of built-up areas which .
will be taken out of agricultural production, or to reduce the need for
public highways and automotive traffic. Alternatively, officials may
choose to disperse these establishments to service different areas of
the community equally or to reduce traffic congestion in certain areas.
Eminent domain, which is the power of a public body to condemn
for public use private lands which the individual property owners do not
wish to sell, is the finaltype of policy option available to policymakers
for influencing local growth patterns. The primary use of eminent domain
has been to condemn land for electric transmission lines to reach distant
markets. Policymakers may wish to continue,to use this power for that
purpose: if they have as a primary goal increased energy conversion
facilities in their area, the power generated will need to reach its
market. Alternatively, if they are less concerned with becoming a power-
exporting area, they may choose to restrict the use of eminent domain for
this purpose.
Other types of growth management include land banking (the buying
of private lands for public uses) and buying of development rights in
certain areas. Both techniques may be used either to encourage power
development rights in order to guarantee that the land will be available
for sale to public utilities when the need arises. Alternatively they
may purchase such land and rights with the intention of using them for
other purposes (recreation, public open lands, etc.), rather than com-
mercial development.
w
II-C-271
-------
8.6.2. PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES
A second major policy goal is the provision of adequate services
for the residents of a particular area, whether small town or growing
metropolis. Different communities vary as to the level and kinds of
services they provide to their residents, and these kinds of decisions
are again considered to be goal-setting decisions in the context of this
study. However, one clear impact from increased growth in the ORBES
region will be the increased and changed demands for public services in
the communities where.such conversion facilities are sited. Police and
fire protection, transportation, educational, cultural, recreation, sewage
and garbage services that seem perfectly adequate today will not with-
stand the impact of significant population increases. One implication
which must be faced by policymakers is provision for increased levels of
demand for public services.
A primary motivation for attracting energy conversion facilities
and industry to a community is to reduce the tax bills of the residents
and increase public services available to them. However, this will also
attract in-migrants who may have different sets of public service demands
and ideas of what constitutes an appropriate level of supply. As demands
for services increase, tax rates may increase to the point that the
original goal of tax control is negated. Because such tax increases
place a disproportionate burden on long-time residents who are poor and
elderly, the issue of increased taxation is important to people in non-
metropolitan counties in which facilities will be located.
The distribution of tax revenues from energy-related development
is a significant policy issue. If the impacted locality gets all of the
revenue, the original gain may eventually be offset or eliminated by popu-
lation growth. If the tax is spread over a number of adjacent tffected
jurisdictions, the result may be the same. Another option is to make the
tax payable to the state, and then shared among all counties. Whereas
the intent is to discourage competition among counties, the effect in
Pennsylvania has been that all counties discourage utilities locating in
their jurisdictions (8).
Policymakers have a number of policy options open to them in pro-
viding public services. First, they may adopt a very careful planning
procedure whereby they try to make accurate predictions of the inputs to
and the demands on the public purse in the foreseeable future, given a
variety of development/nondevelopment options. Once they have made this
projection, they will want to set their tax demands on the utility accord-
ingly. This type of policy option is partially controlled by the fact
that any given jurisdiction is in competition at all times with other
potential hosts to any given utility. Second, they may choose deliberately
to hold back on the escalation of public service levels in order to con-
trol the rising expectations that frequently accompany development.
Finally, they may wish to exercise all the policy options appropriate for
growth management in order to constrain increased demands on the political
system.
o
II-C-272
-------
8.6.3. PRICING POLICY
A third major public policy issue is the conservation of electri-
city by means of pricing. The present supply of electricity as well as
the demands for it are partially dependent upon the prices that public
service commissions will allow the utilities to charge. Compared with
growth management policy, which is largely in the control of localities,
and regulation of pollution and public health, where the policies are
set by the federal government, options to manipulate the price structure
to obtain policy goals are controlled by the state.
One option available to public service commissions is to allow
prices to float freely although this would cause large increases in the
price of electricity. The impact is more likely to create hardship on
the poor, as they will be the only segment of society sufficiently influ-
enced by prices to adjust their consumption to conform with increased
prices. A second option is to change preferential pricing to charge more,
rather than less, per bloc of increased electricity consumption. If there
is an elasticity in the demand for electricity, it is probably with large
users, especially industry. Thirdly,peak load pricing is an option that
would penalize those who use electricity at times of highest demand. Under
this option, the objective is to encourage heavy users to conserve by
shifting their demands to other periods of the day or evening.
8.6.4. CONTROL OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
A fourth important policy issue to be highlighted involves public
health. Contaminants released by both major methods of generating electri-
city have significant impacts on the surrounding environment of land, air
and water. Since all three of these natural resources have other important
uses in communities, a major public policy question 1s: to what degree
should energy conversion facilities be permitted to degrade the air, water
and land around them? Different communities may wish to adopt different
standards (policy goals) depending on the degree that they value develop-
ment as opposed to the degree to which they value a clean environment.
Debates continue among experts about the actual impact of these contamin-
ants on human health as well as on the flora and fauna of the region.
The goals which have been set are by and large national ones: the
United States now has national standards for liquid wastes (effluents),
for radiation from nuclear power plants and ambient air standards, as well
as new source emission standards for air pollutants. Much discretion has,
therefore, been removed from the local decisionmakers. To the extent that
they can influence environmental quality through choices about land use
options, however, local communities can have an impact on the environmental
damage done to their areas. They may decide to exercise those*options
for the purpose of achieving an environmental control goal even when they
do not wish to limit growth for its own sake.
II-C-273
-------
Public he'alth hazards can be divided into at least two types:
those whose major impact is on workers directly involved in the industry,
and those with more general impacts on the entire population of the
community, and perhaps surrounding communities as well, especially those
downwind and downstream of the contaminants. In both cases, the national
government has been active in developing legislation concerning on-the-
job safety and prevention of occupationally related diseases, as well
as more general environmental controls. The major policy debate centers
around whether the various standards should be modified upward or down-
ward. Other methods of achieving the same kinds of goals which have been
suggested include such options as charging dischargers of air and water
contaminants on the basis of the volume and strength of the various com-
ponents of the discharge.
Policy options will be selected that will either increase or
decrease the permissible level of discharges. The choice depends on
the relative weight which policymakers give to the goal of reducing
health hazards to the public compared to increasing employment oppor-
tunities or economic growth. Both goals - a cleaner environment as well
as an economic expansion - are viewed in this study as having potential
public health benefits. Much depends on the public's perception of the
hazards they face and the value they place on their economic well being.
Risks to public health that generally receive little attention
are those that will be suffered by future generations and those that
are primarily psychological. Risk acceptance and endurance from yet-to-
be proved possibilities, such as nuclear accidents, play a role in the
mental health of present-day residents of various communities. These
factors are shared unevenly among the population, and the impact they
have on different segments of the population may vary according to educa-
tion, occupation and information levels. The only certainty 1s that
each community 1s divided in its attitude toward policy goals in these
matters. Yet the major decisions about risk prevention and reduction are
being taken at the national level, rather than the local and state levels
where the actual risks are being run.
8.6.5. COMPARISONS
In comparing the policy issues and problems of the scenarios, the
BOM scenarios will create the greatest concern over population growth and
the expansion of commerce and industry. As the number of sites increases,
many more local communities will become involved in considering growth
management strategies to restrict development in their areas. Alterna-
tively, public policy issues of unemployment and need for economic expan-
sion are more likely to be debated relative to the FTP scenario. Also,
under the FTP scenario, fewer communities are likely to become involved
in a discussion of the issues because the potential for change and the
need to make a decision concerning issues such as growth will not be as
pressing. Consequently, the FTP scenario may result in more of a status
quo situation and less potential for political change than in the BOM
scenario.
II-C-274
-------
Whether the size of the political impact and policy discussions
will vary between the 80% coal 20% nuclear and 50% coal 50% nuclear RTCs
will depend upon several factors. First, the increased use of coal will
result in a greater land use impact because a larger percentage of coal
will be produced in the ORBES region as 'opposed to uranium mining which
occurs in the western United States. Thus, efforts toward managing growth
in order to restrict the mining of coal in agriculturally rich areas will
be more likely in the 80-20 fuel mix. On the other hand, given the
psychological nature of the conflict over expansion of nuclear plants,
the public perception of the risks and advantages of the expansion of
nuclear energy will be higher under the 50-50 RTC as the chances of any
individual community playing host to a nuclear facility increase.
II-C-275
-------
8.7. SUMMARY
8.7.1. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT HIGHLIGHTS
The most severe, and most extensive, direct impacts of future
energy development upon socioeconomic systems in the ORBES region will
result from the BOM 80% coal 20% nuclear RTC. The majority of the socio-
economic impacts, however, will be second- and higher-order and result
primarily from the utilization of the electricity produced. A portion of
these impacts may be localized where extraction and conversion takes place;
the higher-order impacts will be more dispersed throughout the region.
The most obvious occupational and environmental hazards associated
with energy development are in mining, air pollution and the potential
for nuclear accidents. The public health impacts are estimated using an
adjusted life-shortening method that combines the effects of morbidity
and mortality. In the case of the BOM 80% coal 20% nuclear RTC, the
transportation of coal has a much greater direct impact upon public health
than does underground mining. Air pollution and other environmental
hazards will also have important public health impacts, as-will those
impacts that affect public health through socioeconomic change. These
may either increase or decrease a person's life span.
Population redistribution within the ORBES region is a major demo-
graphic impact in both the BOM and FTP scenarios and may accelerate current
trends toward decentralization. The majority of this redistribution will
result from the production of electricity and its potential stimulation
of industrial and commercial growth.
Redistribution will be most extensive in the BOM scenario because
of the larger number of counties involved. In the 80-20 RTC, these will
include sites in more rural counties in coal-producing regions. This
impact will be concentrated in three areas: southeastern Ohio, south-
western Ohio and southeastern Indiana, and along the Ohio River, includ-
ing counties in Kentucky. Redistribution will be less extensive in the
FTP scenario, and the impacts will be concentrated primarily in south-
eastern Ohio. In other parts of the region the impacts will be localized.
Whether population growth in counties that have been selected as
candidates for power plants will result primarily from increased rates of
in-migration or decreased rates of out-migration cannot be determined at
present. However, relatively few counties will experience boomtown prob-
lems similar in magnitude to those associated with energy development in
the western United States. The base populations in most of the ORBES
counties are larger, and many counties are gaining population despite
having some out-migration. Furthermore, the impacts of construction
employment are expected to be relatively small because of the sites'
accessibility to existing metropolitan area labor markets in the ORBES
region.
II-C-276
-------
A county in which electrical conversion facilities are located will
also bear significant economic impacts. In general, it will have an even-
tual increase in its capacity to raise tax revenues and a net increase in
employment. These are positive long-term impacts. However, the county
may also have a considerable lag between the time of increased demand
for goods and services, which is usually associated with the construction
phase, and the availability of tax revenues necessary to meet this demand.
Because the problem of timing is most critical in boomtown environments,
the local fiscal impacts of energy development in the ORBES region may be
minimized and the long-term positive benefits increased.
Political, legal and institutional impacts will result from
peoples' perceptions of expected change in their environments as the
result of the location of energy conversion facilities. Among the host
of such possibilities, two opposing tendencies are of overriding Impor-
tance. On the one hand, the regionalization of problems and their solu-
tions result in increased centralization of power away from the community.
On the other hand, localities seek greater public participation in decisl-
onmaking in order to better represent their Interests in determining their
own environmental values and goals. The Increased demand for control over
siting decisions in the long term is a case in point. New residents in a
community may play an important part in this process as the result of
changes in political structure and local governmental organization.
II-C-277
-------
REFERENCES
8. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
8.2 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
1. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, G. C. Merriam, Spring-
field, Massachusetts. G. C. Mernam uo:, iy70.
2. M. Eisenbud. "Health Hazards from Radioactive Emissions." In
Energy, the Environment, and Human Health, A. M. A. Congress on
; Environmental Health. Edited by Asher J. Finkel. Acton,
Massachusetts: Publishing Sciences Group, 1974.
i
3. J. R. Goldsmith, "Health Hazards from Power Plant Emissions." In
Energy, the Environment and Human Health, Edited by Asher J.
Finkel.Acton, Massachusetts:Publishing Sciences Group, Inc.,
1974.
4. L. D. Hamilton. "The Health and Environmental Effects of Electri-
city Generation-A Preliminary Report." Brookhaven National
Laboratory. National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems, Bio-
medical and Environmental Assessment Division. Upton, New York:
July 30, 1974.
5. S. C. Morris. "Accidental. Death In Energy Supply and Use." Paper
presented at the American Public Health Association 102nd Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 21, 1974.
6. S. C. Morris and K. M. Novak. "Handbook for the Quantisation of
Health Effects From Coal Energy Systems." (Draft). Brookhaven
National Laboratory, National Center for Analysis of Energy
Systems, Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division. Upton,
New York: December 15, 1976.
7. R. A. Wadden. "Energy Utilization and Environmental Health:
Methods For Prediction and Evaluation of Impact on Human Health,"
Paper presented at the Energy Utilization and Environmental Health
Methods & Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, March 23-25, 1977.
8! R. A. Wadden. "Environmental Health Implications of Coal Conversion
Processes," Proceedings, Second Inter-University Energy Conference
Constraints on Coal Utilization^Carbondale, Illinois, May 18-20,
1975.
9. K. R. Wilson and W. J. Jones, Energy. Ecology and the Environment,
New York: Academic Press, 1974.
II-C-278
-------
10. A. J. Finkel, ed., Energy, the Environment and Human Health, A.M.A.
Congress on Environmental Health.Publishing Sciences Group, Inc.,
1974.
11. N. Huddle, M. Reich, N. Stiskin, Islands of Dreams: Environmental
Crisis In Japan. Tokyo: Autumn Press, 1975.
12. W. S. Lainhart and W. K. C. Morgan. "Extent and Distribution of
Respiratory Effects." In Pulmonary Reactions to Coal Dust. Edited
by Marcus M. Key, Lorin E. Kerr, and Merle Bundy. New York:
Academic Press, 1971.
13. 0. P. Wyatt. "Environmental Factors in Chronic Lung Disease." In
Environmental Factors in Respiratory Disease. Edited by Douglas
fl. k. Lee. New York:Academic Press, 1972.
14. L. B. Lave and L. C. Freeburg. "Health Costs to the Consumer per
Megawatt-Hour of Electricity." In Energy, the Environment and
Human Health. A.M.A. Congress on Environmental Health.Edited
by Asher J. Finkel. Acton, Massachusetts: Publishing Sciences
Group, Inc., 1974.
15. P. Schlick and L. Fannick, "Coal in the United States." In
Pulmonary Reactions to Coal Dust. Edited by Marcus M. Key, Lorin
E. Kerr, and Merle Bundy.New York: Academic Press, 1971.
16. C. M. Shy, V. Hasselblad, L. T. Heiderscheit and A. A. Cohen.
"Environmental Factors in Bronchial Asthma." In Environmental
Factors in Respiratory Disease. Edited by Douglas H. K. Lee.
New York:Academic Press, 1972.
17. H. Brenner. Estimating the Social Costs of National Economic
Policy: Implications for Mental and Physical Health and'Criminal
Agression. Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of
the United States. October 1976.
18. M. F. Chew. Application of Air Pollutant Damage Functions to Anti-
Smog Control, Detroit, Michigan: Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE Paper 730197), January 1973.
19. L. D, Hamilton and S. C. Morris. "Risk Assessment for Energy
Technology Development." Paper presented at the Air Pollution
Control Association Conference on Toxic Substances in the Air,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 1976.
20. M. G. Morgan, S. C. Morris, A. K. Meier and D. L. Shenk. A.
Probabilistic Methodology For Estimating Air Pollution Health
Effects From Coal Fired Steam Electric Plants (draftTBrookhaven
National Laboratory, Biomedical and Environmental Assessment
Group, Departments of Applied Science and Medicine. Upton, New
York: January 6, 1977.
II-C-279
-------
21. P. A. Morris. "Power Plant Reactor Safety and Risk Appraisal." In
Energy, the Environment and Human Health, A.M.A. Congress on
tnvironmentai Health.tented by Asner j. Finkel. Acton,
Massachusetts: Publishing Sciences Group, Inc., 1974.
22. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. An "Anatomy" of Risk.
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, March 1975.
23. Committee on Mineral Resources and the Environment (COMRATE) and
Commission on Natural Resources, National Resource Council,
National Academy of Sciences. Mineral Resources and the Environment.
Washington, D. C., 1975.
24. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analysis of the Uranium Fuel
, Cycle. Part I: Fuel Supply. EPA-52019-73-003, Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, October 1973.
' 25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analysis of the Uranium Fuel
Cycle. Part II: Nuclear Power Reactors. EPA-52019-72-003-C.
Washington, D. C.:Government Printing Office, 1973.
In addition to the specifically cited references in this section, the
reader is referred to the following bibliographical material, which was
used in a general way in the preparation of the narrative.
G. E. Dials and E. C. Moore. "The Cost of Coal." Environment 16
(September 1974): 18-37.
B. A. Hoglund and J. A. Asbury. Potential Sites for Coal Conversion
Facilities in Illinois. Illinois Institute of Environmental Quality,
Docutment No. 74-60.Chicago, Illinois: 1974.
Hohenemser, R. Kasperson, R. Kates. "The Distrust of Nuclear Power."
Science 196 (1977): 25-34 pp.
R. I. Larsens. "Relating Air Pollutant Effects to Concentration and
Controls." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 20
(April 1970).
* National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1976. Chicago, 1976, 96 pp.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reactor Safety Study,
, Main Report. Wash-1400 (NUREG-75/014). October 1975.
i
8.3 Demographic Impacts
1. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community
II-C-280
-------
Development and Planning. Rapid Growth from Energy Projects:
Ideas for State and Local Action. Washington, D. C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1976.
2. Erik 0. Stenehjem and James E. Metzger. A Framework for Projecting
Employment and Population Changes Accompanying Energy Development.
Phase I. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory, Energy
and Environmental Systems Division, August, 1976.
3. Thomas E. Baldwin et al. A_S6ci6ec6n6mic Assessment of Energy
Development in a Small RuraT'Courity: Coal Gasification in Mercer
County, North Dakota.2 Vols., Argonne, Illinois:Argonne
National Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems Division,
December 1976.
4. John S. Gilmore. "Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development."
Science, 191 (1976): 535-540.
5. John S. Gilmore and Mary K. Duff. Boom Town Growth Management.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1975".
6. David Myhra. "Boomtown Planning: Examples of Successful Appli-
cations at Nuclear Power Plant and Western Coal Mining Sites.
Paper presented at the 57th Annual Conference, American Institute
of Planners, San Antonio, Texas, 1975.
7. University of Denver Research Institute. The Socioeconomic and
Land Use Impacts of a Fort Union Coal Processing Complex.
Washington, D. C.: ERDA-Fossil Fuels, FE-1526-T-1, May, 1975.
8. Kimberley A. Campbell. Preparing for Anticipated Growth. Greene
County. Pennsylvania. NACo Case Studies on Energy Impacts, No. 3:
Washington, D. C. National Association of Counties. May, 1976.
9. Sue Johnson and Alan Randall. "Social, Political and Institutional
Aspects of Coal Utilization." Paper presented at the Water for
Energy Development Conference, Engineering Foundation and U.S.
Water Resources Council, Pacific Grove, California, December 5-10,
1976.
10. Ted L. Napier and Cathy'J. Wright. An Evaluation of Forced Re-
location due to Rural Community Development. Research Bulletin
1073; Wooster: Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
August, 1974.
11. State of Illinois, Department of Mines and Minerals. 1975 Annual
Coal, Oil and Gas Report. Springfield: State of Illinois, Depart-
ment of Mines and Minerals, 1975.
II-C-281
-------
12. Dale McLaren. Impact of Coal Mining in the Greater Wabash Region.
Greater Wabash Regional Planning Council, April 1973.
13. D. J. Bjornstad. Fiscal Impacts Associated with Power Reactor
Siting: A Paired Case Study.Oak Ridge, Tennessew:Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1977.
14. R. M. Traub. ' The Socioeconomic Impact of Nuclear Power PI ants
on Small Communities.Columbus:Ohio Power Siting Commission,
1975.
15. B. J. Purdy et al. Post-Licensing Case Study cf Community Effects
1 at Two Operating Nuclear Power Plants.Final Report, March, 1975-
March, 1976. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
June, 1976.
I
16. Robert W. Beck and Associates. Environmental Analysis. Merom
Generating Station. Prepared for Hoosier Energy Division ot
Indiana Statewide R.E.C. Denver: R. W. Beck and Associates, 1976.
17. "Residents of Oswego Accept Nuclear Plants." New York Times,
October 14, 1976.
18. Kimberly A. Campbell. Nuclear Power Plant Development, Boom or
Boon? County Experiences'! NACo Case Studies on Energy Impacts,
No. 4. Washington, D. C.: National Association of Counties,
May 1976.
19. David Morell. "The Complex Political Problems of Siting Electrical
Energy Facilities." Paper presented at the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 22, 1977.
20. Niles M. Hausen. Intermediate-size Cities as Growth Centers:
Applications for Kentucky, the Piedmont Crescent, the Ozarks and
Texas. New York: Praeger, 1971.
21. Duane A. Olsen and John A. Kuenk. Migrant Response to Industriali-
zation in Four Rura1 Areas, 1965-19757 Agricultural Economic
Report No. 270: Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri,
Agricultural Experiment Station, September, 1974.
22. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Estimates of
the Population of Illinois Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July
1, 1974 and 1975.: Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 75-
13. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, August,
1976. ' .
23. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Estimates of
the Population of Illinois Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July
1, 1974 and 1975. Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 75-
14; U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1976.
t
II-C-282
-------
24. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Estimates
of the Population of Kentucky Counties and Metropolitan Areas:
July 1, 1974 and 1975." Current Population Reports, Series P-26,
No. 75-17. Washington, D. C.:U.S.Government Printing Office,
May, 1976.
25. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Estimates
of the Population of Ohio Counties and Metropolitan Areas: July
1, 1974 and 1975." Current^Population Reports. Series P-26, No. 75-
35; Washington, D. C7iU. S. Government Printing Office, September,
1976.
26. Glenn V. Fuguitt and Calvin L. Beale. Population Change in Non-
Metropolitan Cities and Towns. Agricultural Economic Report No.
323; Washington, D. C.:U. S. Department of Agriculture.
27. and . Post-1970 Shifts in Pattern of
Population Change in the North Central Region. CDE Working Paper
76-17; Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center
for Demography and Ecology, May 1976.
28. Ohio River Basin Energy Study. Task I Report. October 18, 1976.
29. Thomas P. Milke, Robert C. Dauffenbach, and Eric Holshouser.
Population Projections tor the Ohio River Basin: 1970 to 2000.
CAC Document No. 224; Urbana, Illinois:University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Center for Advanced Computation, February 18, 1977.
8.4. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
1. U. S. Department of Commerce. OBERS 1972-E Projections of Economic
Activity in the U. S.. 1929-2020. Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, April 1977.
2. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rapid Growth
from Energy Projects: Ideas for State and Local Action^Washington,
D. C.:Government Printing Office, 1976.
3. D. J. Bjornstad. Fiscal Impacts Associated with Power Reactor Siting:
A Paired Case StudyTOak Ridge, Tennessee: ^Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, February 1977.
4. E. J. Stenehjem. Forecasting the Local Impacts of Energy Resource
Development. AML/AA-3, Environmental Control Technology and Earth
Sciences (UC-ll); Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory,
December, 1975.
II-C-283
-------
5. E. J. Stenehjem and T. E. Baldwin. A Framework for Detailed Site-
Specific Studies of Local Socioecohomic Impacts from Energy Develop-
ment. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory, Regional
Studies Program, December 1976.
6. Resource Planning Associates. En'ergy Supply/Demand Alternatives for
the Appalachian Region. Prepared for National Science Foundation
and Council on Environmental Quality. March 1975.
•
8.6. POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS
1. W. Cris Lewis and Stan L. Albrecht. "Attitudes Toward Accelerated
Development in Low-population Areas." Growth and Change. 17(1977):
22-28.
>
2. Ted L. Napier and Cathy J. Wright. An Evaluation of Forced Relocation
Due to Rural Community Development. Research Bulletin 1073; Wooster:
Ohio Agricultural REsearch and Development Center, August 1974.
3. Frank Clemente and Richard Krannich. "Local Attitudes Toward Industry
and Change." Rural Development, 2(1976): 1-3.
4. "Report Population Shift Stirs Rural Resentment." The Chicago Tribune,
February 24, 1977.
5. John S. Gilmore. "Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Development." Science,
191(176):535-540.
6. Denver Research Institute. The Social, Economic and Land Use Impacts
of a Fort Union Coal Processing Complex.Research and Development
Report No. 103, Interim Report No. 1; Washington, D. C.: Energy
Research and Development Administration, May, 1975.
7. David Morel!. "The Complex Political Problems of Siting Electrical
Energy Facilities." Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 22, 1977.
8. A Legal Study Relating to Coal Development-Population Issues. Vol. 1:
Responding to Rapid Population Growth.Prepared for the Old West
Regional Commission by Kutak, Rock, Cohen, Campbell, Garfinkle and
Woodward, Omaha, Nebraska. Washington, D. C.: Old West Regional
Commission, 1974.
9. Robert M. Hutching. "Environment and Civil Rights." The Center
Magazine, November-December, 1975, pp. 2-5.
10. L. E. Hudman and W. E. Perich. "Attitudes and Perceptions of Rural
Residents in Energy Growth Counties to Planning Needs and Planners."
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Institute of
Planners, San Antonio, 1975.
II-C-284
-------
Table II-C-57 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
PUBLIC HEALTH *tore ,„ ,-„ *>re
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
EXTRACTION
Surface
Coal
Nuclear
Underground
Coal
Nuclear
\
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
increased numbers
of on-the-job acci-
dents and slightly
increased lung
disease cases
Not practiced on
large scale
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
increased numbers
of mining accidents
§ increased lung
disease cases
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
increasing numbers
of cancers (partic-
ularly lung cancer)
and due to increas-
ing numbers of min-
ing accidents
AC, (S,
M,L),I,
LO
VU
AC, (S,
M,L),MD,
LO
VL,(S,
L),(MD,
SV),LO
AC,(S,M,L),I,
LO
VU
AC,(S,M,L),
MD,LO
VL,(S,L),(MD,
SVO.LO
1 1
AC,(S,M,L),I,
LO
VU
AC, (S,M,L),MD,
LO
VL,(S,L),(MD,
SV),LO
1
2
1
2
AC,(S,M,L),
I,LO
NA
AC,(S,M,L),
MD.LO
NA
NA
VU
NA
VL,(S,L),(MD,
SV),LO
3
4
3
4
BOM
BOM
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
oo
en
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
.• Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant; NA-not applicable.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: "LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region;" N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-57 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
PUBLIC HEALTH More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
PROCESSING
Nuclear
Coal
Convers ion
Mortality 5 morbid-
ity increase due tc
increasing numbers
of cancers result-
ing from on -the -jot
exposure § increas-
ing exposure for
population in the
vicinity of proces-
sing. Also note
accidents causing
injury § death -
(mostly affecting
workers) .
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
an increase in car-
cinogenic § toxic
materials in air
VI, L,
(M,SV),
LO
P,(M,L),
MD.LO
VL,L,(M,SV),
LO
P,(M,L),MD,LO
VL,L(M,SV),LO
P,(M,L),MD,LO
2
1
NA
P(S,M,L),I,
LO
N,(S,M,L),MD,
LG-
NA
4
3
BOM
BOM
ro
oo
CD
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; Vl-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
AI-almost impossible.
DURATION': S-short term; M-medium term; .L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant; NA-not applicable.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-57 (Part A)
Sumnary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
PUBLIC HEALTH More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BCM 2000 KM or Fix 1001 Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
CONVERSION
Electrical
Generation
Coal
Nuclear
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
increased number of
bronchitis § other
lung diseases,
explosions § other
mishaps
Increased mortality
§ morbidity • due to
increased nunber.oJ
cancers § increasec
risk of sabotage.
Accidents. Also*
note possibility o:
sabotage or acci-
dent (e.g. •, loss o
coolant) causing
maj or explosion1
P,(S,M,
L),MD,
LO
AC,(S,
L),(MD,
SV),
(LO.G)
(Prob.
1/100
million
to I/
10,000
depend-
ing on
whose
estimate
you use
P,(S,M,L),MD,
LO
AC,(S,L),(MD,
SV),(LO,G)
P,(S,M,L),MD,
LO
AC,(S,L),(MD,
SV),(LO,G)
Not
clear
Not
clear
P,(S,M,L),I,
LO
NA
MA
P,(S,M,L,M,LO
Not
clear
Not
clear
BOM
BOM
I"
r>
i
ro
00
•sj
LEGEND: PROB,\BILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible. .
DUR;\TION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant; NA-not applicable'.
GEOGR'UWC/XL SCALE: LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant cliange is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-57 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
PUBLIC HEALTH More More
severe (3) (4) severe' " More
(1) (2) ' (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (31 severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 1001 Fix 100% or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) . Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
TRANSPORTATION
Coal
Nuclear
Mortality § morbid-
ity increase due tc
an increasing num-
ber of on- the- job
accidents § due to
increasing amounts
of chronic lung
disease caused by
exposure during
transhipment and
storage
Increased mortal it)
§ morbidity due to
increased number oi
cancers resulting
from increasing
exposure to radio-
active materials.
Accidents. Note
also transporta-
tion- -theft 5
sabotage .
VL.CS,
M,L),
MD.LO
AC.L,
(MD.SV),
LO
VL,(S,M,L),
MD,LO
AC,L,(MD,SV),
LO
VL,(S,M,L),MD,
LO
AC,L,(MD,SV),
LO
Not
clear
Not
clear
VL,(S,M,L),
MD.LO
NA
MA
VL,(S,M,L),MD,
LO
Not
clear
Not
clear
BOM
BOM
\
o
PO
00
oo
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant; NA-not applicable.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE: LO-local-; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
Table II-C-57 (Part A)
Summary of Impact and Policy Option Comparisons under the 4 Scenarios -
PUBLIC HEALTH More More
severe (3) (4) severe More
(1) (2) (1) 2000 Tech 2000 Tech (3) severe
1985* 2000 BOM 2000 BOM or Fix 100% Fix 1004 or (BOM) or
Function Impact (BOM) 80-20 50-50 (2) Coal Nuclear (4) (Tech Fix)
WASTE DISPOSAL
Coal
Nuclear
Variety of indus-
trial accident
hazards
Increased mortal it)
§ morbidity due to
increased number oi
cancers resulting
from increasing
exposure to radio-
active materials.
Accidents. (Note:
necessary if con-
sidering waste dis-
posal for periods
of around 2000 yrs]
Protection against
earthquake § possi-
bility of sabotage
VL.S.I,
LO
AC,L,
(MD.SV),
(LO,G)
VL,S,I,LO
AC,L,(MD,SV),
(LO,G)
1
VL,S,I,LO
AC,L,(MD,SV),
(LO.G)
1
2
P,S,I,LO
NA
NA
VL,L,MD,LO
3
4
BOM
BOM
I
o
I
ro
00
vo
LEGEND: PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE: AC-almost certain; VL-very likely; P-as probable as not; VU-very unlikely;
Al-almost impossible.
DURATION: S-short term; M-medium term; .L-long term.
INTENSITY: SV-severe; MD-moderately intense; I-insignificant; NA-not applicable.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE:' LO-local; MC-multicounty; SR-subregional; ST-state; R-ORBES region; N-national; G-global.
*An insignificant change is expected under the Tech Fix Scenario to the year 1985.
-------
II-C-290
-------
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
9.1. SCOPE OF PHASE I - TASK 2 STUDIES
As described 1n Chapter 1 of this report, the primary objective
of this Phase I - Task 2 study is to provide a mini-assessment of four
Regional Technology Configurations (RTCs) which are based upon two fuel
mixes each for the Bureau of Mines (BOM) and Ford Technical Fix (FTF)
scenarios for the ORBES region. The approach of the Illinois team has
been to identify and evaluate, in as much depth as time and funds would
permit, a broad range of primary and higher-order impacts resulting
from the anticipated introduction of energy conversion facilities
corresponding to the projections of need between the present (1975) and
the year 2000 for the BOM and FTF scenarios.
The methodology utilized for this mini-assessment of the four
scenarios is described in Section 1.3. (pages 4-10). The present and
planned (1975-1985) energy conversion facilities of the ORBES region, and
the projected facilities to the year 2000 for the four scenarios as well
as a discussion of assessment procedures are included in Chapters 2, 3,
and 4. The anticipated impacts resulting from the requirements of the
four scenarios as well as the related policy issues and policy options
are discussed in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 for Impacts on Natural
Resources, Impacts on Developed Resources, Environmental Impacts, and
Socioeconomic Impacts, respectively. Each of these chapters provides a
summary of the impacts and related policy issues and options. These
summaries are recommended to the reader for study along with this over-
all summary. In addition, since this Phase I - Task 2 mini-assessment
is intended to provide a basis for continuation and completion of a
comprehensive technology assessment under Phase II of the ORBES,
recommendations for topics requiring additional study during Phase II
have been provided in Chapter 10.
The assessment process for the Illinois Task 2 Team was enhanced
by the calculations which make up Appendix B. This appendix contains a
year by year, state by state, scenario by scenario tabulation of fuel
requirements and waste products generated. This tabulation can be of
great help in the conduct of follow-on studies.
9.2. OVERVIEW OF THE SCENARIOS
As has been noted, the two fuel mix scenarios based on the BOM
energy projections to the year 2000 are predicated on the continuation
of the past high rate of annual growth for both total energy and electrical
energy requirements. This set of assumptions predicts a doubling of
total energy and more than a four-fold increase in electrical energy
requirements in the 25-year period, 1975-2000. Both BOM fuel, mix
scenarios, 80% coal-20% nuclear and 50% coal-50% nuclear, provide the
II-C-291
-------
opportunity and probability of an appreciably increased use of high-
sulfur coal from the coal reserves of the ORBES region. Thus, the
direct impacts from extraction, transporting and conversion of coal
to electrical energy as well as the resulting impacts on the water,
air, and land quality due to the discharge of wastes and emissions
are much more severe in the BOM and particularly the BOM 80-20 case
than either of the FTP fuel mix scenarios.
There are those who question the ability of the nation and of
the ORBES region to meet the capital investment requirements of the
high-growth electrical energy production projections of BOM scenarios
which are approximately six times those of the FTP scenarios—even
though the BOM scenarios provide for a growth in productivity and
gross national product (GNP) corresponding to the projected future
electrical energy needs.
Also there are many concerns about the reliability and cost
effectiveness of present S02 removal technologies which must be applied
to all new coal-burning electrical generating facilities in the very
near future if the ORBES region is to have any chance of maintaining
air quality standards suitable for public health, agriculture, and the
ecology generally. This problem will be aggravated both by the
present relatively high $03, 03, and NOX pollutants in portions of the
ORBES region and by the growing pressure to convert to coal a number
of present industrial and institutional power plants which now use
natural gas or oil as fuels for providing heating, refrigeration,
process steam and/or electrical power.
In spite of the potential difficulties of providing for the
severe impacts of the BOM scenario through appropriate technology and
planning, the promise of economic growth implicit in the relationship
of energy availability and economic development of the BOM scenario will
be attractive to many citizens and their, representatives in the body
politic.
The FTP scenarios include a considerable emphasis on conservation
and project a very much lower requirement for electrical energy pro-
duction in the year 2000 than the BOM scenarios. The growth is less
than 62% over the 25-year period, 1975-2000, compared with a more than
four-fold increase projected by BOM. Viewed in another way, the FTP
electrical energy requirement for the ORBES region in the year 2000 is
only slightly higher than that which could be provided by the presently
planned electric generating facilities to be installed by 1985. The
presently planned (1976-85) additions will provide for the FTP electric
power requirements through the year 1994. Thus, the accommodation of
the FTP scenario results in virtually no severe impacts on the natural
or developed resources, and places very little additional stress on
the environment or the biological system of the region.
II-C-292
-------
However, the limited growth and energy conservation approach
of the FTP will produce a considerable number of impacts on the social
and political systems of the region. Conservation requires a marked
change in the "life-style" of the general public and also requires an
investment in building insulation, storm windows, more efficient
appliances, etc. There are those who feel that "doing without" labor
saving devices and conveniences is not necessary in this modern age.
Also, the belief that a slowing down of economic growth and employment
will result from a conservative energy growth policy is widespread and
threatens the public acceptance of the FTP scenario concept. A number
of other questions related to social and political issues of the PTF
scenario are posed in Chapter 10 for consideration in Phase II of the
study.
9.3. HIGHLIGHTS OF IMPACTS, POLICY ISSUES, AND POLICY OPTIONS
As previously indicated, summaries have been provided in
Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the benefit of the reader. Some of the
more significant of these observations will be incorporated in the
following tabulation:
a) The largest land use for energy conversion in the ORBES
region is related to the 80-20 BOM scenario. However, even in this high-
growth, coal-intensive scenario, the land use is modest and most is
returnable to productive (agricultural) usage after the extraction
process with appropriate reclamation practices. More land is irreversibly
dedicated to industrial development in the utilization of the electrical
energy produced, giving rise to the question of zoning and other land
use policy options.
b) The ORBES region is blessed with an ample supply of water under
the projected requirements for all scenarios. However, changes in use
patterns, such as an increase in the irrigation of crops, in contiguous
regions now contributing to the river flows in the ORBES region could
change this potential availability.
c) There are ample reserves of coal in the ORBES region for the
long-term future. The high-sulfur content of most of these coal reserves
requires the use of the best possible sulfur removal technology to avoid
undue stress on the environment. Strip mining and deep mining of coal
must be managed to minimize irreversible losses of productive lands and
contamination of water through acid runoff. Land use and reclamation
regulations as well as bonding the mining companies to assure funding
availability are possible policy options.
d) While uranium is primarily mined outside the ORBES region, it
is enriched isotopically within the region requiring safe handling methods
to avoid radiation hazards. The question of storage of spent fuel
elements and radioactive wastes must also be resolved in the near future.
II-C-293
-------
e) There are ample minerals (crushed rock, limestone, lime
for cement, etc.) needed for construction for any of the scenarios.
f) The BOM (80-20) scenario requires, the-greatest increase in
transportation by all forms (rail, barge, or truck). Since locks and
dams on the Ohio River and the Mississippi-Illinois waterways are now
nearing saturation, increased barge transport for energy conversion
will need consideration in modernizing this transportation mode. The
railway system is currently' in need of upgrading and rehabilitation and
expansion is needed even without the additional requirements of expanded
energy conversion.
g) The relative capital investment for BOM (50-50) and FTP (100%
coal) varies by a factor of six to one (357 billion dollars at present
value for BOM and 58 billion dollars for FTP). Nuclear plants have
higher initial capital investment cost per installed kilowatt hour
capacity but based on current and projected fuel prices, the operating
cost of nuclear plants over their life span more than compensates for
the higher capital cost.
h) The estimated skilled labor availability for construction of
facilities under the BOM scenarios appears to be in short supply for the
near term but adequate over the longer term by means of training
programs. Coal miners are also currently projected to be in short supply
requiring lead time for recruiting and training prior to new mine openings.
i) The consumptive use of water in the waste-heat removal
process would be reduced by the use of cooling ponds and/or the once-
through cooling method. These alternative methods should be reviewed for
wider application, including the additional benefit of reducing the
humidity burden and fog generation in the vicinity of the power plant.
j) From a very preliminary modeling study developed under the
Illinois team Task 2 effort, it appears that the numerous new power plant
locations along the Ohio River Valley required in the BOM (80-20)
scenario create a "cascade effect" of additive amounts of S02» 03, and NOX
from successive power plant emissions upwind of a given location. Thus,
while each plant may be in "compliance," the collective effect appears
to exceed acceptable air quality standards.
k) If the above "cascade effect" is confirmed through further
study, a method of wider dispersion of the power plants (away from a
narrow band along the river) will be necessary to accommodate the
capacity requirements of the BOM scenario without violating air quality
standards.
1) In view of the relatively high levels of $03, 03, and NOX now
present in certain sections of the ORBES region along the Ohio River, the
implications of even a modest cascade effect, (if confirmed by further
study), from the combination of presently located and future power plants
II-C-294
-------
and sites would provide sufficient S02» 03, and NOX pollution to
diminish productivity and/or pose a serious threat to agricultural
activities in portions of the river valley.
m) The public health section of Chapter 8 introduces a novel
methodology which attempts to assess a wide variety of health impacts
qrowing out of the various scenarios. The Adjusted Life Shortening
(ALS) system combines concepts of mortality and morbidity in calcula-
ting the effects of energy producing activities upon the people
employed in the energy-conversion industry as well as the public
subjected to the environmental impacts of energy production and
distribution.
n) It is quite clear that because of the number of plant sites
predicted under the BOM scenarios, there will be significant demographic
change in the ORBES region. Power plant siting is viewed as an economic
stimulant, particularly to nonmetropolitan areas, and populations
within the district tend to become redistributed. Population growths,
however, may be more the result of increased in-migration relative to
incremental out-migration.
o) The siting of a power plant adjacent to a community, particu-
larly one which is rural or nonmetropolitan in character, will have the
potential for considerably raising the tax base of the community.
However, demand for public services will precede the realization of
increased tax revenues, particularly during the lower tax revenue
generating construction period.
p) The policies and issues related to power plant siting
exemplify two opposing tendencies in the formation of those policies.
In one trend, local citizens are demanding a greater voice in the public
policy formation process and a more direct control of the forces that
are changing their community. The other tendency calls for greater
centralization of control with policies and decisions being made at
higher levels of government. Somewhere along this continuum mechanisms
must be created so that policies may be formed, implemented, and managed.
Often the issues can be dealt with effectively only at regional or
higher levels of government. The air quality question is a prime
example of this jurisdictional issue.
9.4. DISCIPLINARY INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN THE
MINI-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Commentators and critics of technology assessment invariably
point out the difficulties of achieving a true interdisciplinary effort
in which the knowledge, expertise, perceptions, and methodologies of a
wide variety of disciplines are brought together and are overlaid to
create a cohesive and useful assessment. It is self-evident that a
mini-assessment is even more limited in the achievement of this ideal,
and it is the purpose of these comments to characterize what we were
II-C-295
-------
not able to do. As participants in the mini-assessment process, we
consider these comments to be important guides to those who conduct
the Phase II comprehensive assessment.
The product of the Illinois team study effort is one which has
resulted from a multidisciplinary rather than an interdisciplinary
effort. The team members majnly focused on the disciplinary concerns
of their own fields. This was particularly true in the development
of well-stated policy issues and well-defined policy options. Most
of the team members, particularly those representing the engineering
and life science disciplines, were virtually without experience in
the field of policy development and they were quite unfamiliar with
the language of the field. Given the constraints of time and funding
for Phase I - Task 2, the members of the team did not have the
opportunity to interact or iterate to a point where reasonably well-
defined problem issues could be translated into policy alternatives.
The inevitable dichotomy existed between the relative "firmness"
with which the physical scientist could identify and describe direct
impacts upon the physical world and the position of the social
scientists who had to deal with the ill-defined and the less well-
understood higher-order impacts upon the social environment. Here
again, time did not permit an adequate coalescence of these differing
methods of inquiry. Finally, there was not sufficient time to trace
out the next level of inquiry of what the higher-order impacts
resulting from alternate policy options might be.
«
Our time and our approach permitted only an initial portrayal
of what must ultimately be brought into a clearer assessment focus.
For the ORBES region, there needs to be created a large adaptive,
interactive model in which a number of the major components will relate
to policies on natural resource utilization, environmental quality
protection, agricultural productivity, public health, and economic
well-being. Our report suggests what some of the areas of concern are
in each of those components. It remains for a more comprehensive
assessment to better interrelate the problem areas which have been
identified.
It was not in our charge to look in any detail beyond the
boundaries of the Ohio River Basin; however, one must consider the
interrelations which exist between air quality regions, as well as the
implications of utilizing massive amounts of natural resources of
other regions. We were only able to begin to suggest some of the
multi-jurisdictional problems in the management of the resources and
the environment within the region.
Finally, we were not able to bring into our mini-assessment
the impacts that thetsociology of nuclear power and the sociology of
coal utilization may have upon planning for the next 25 years. The
effectiveness with which we are able to deploy significantly larger
numbers of coal-burning power plants is partly dependent upon our
II-C-296
-------
capacity as a society to assume that the potential social toll 1s
adequately factored into our planning. And further, that the deploy-
ment of nuclear power carries with 1t continued public and scientific
debate which complicates immeasurably the precision with which we are
able to plan.
The final recommendation in the conduct of Phase I is that the
quality and efficacy of the Phase II work will be dependent upon
coming to grips with these fundamental Interrelationships.
II-C-297
-------
II-G-298
-------
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II
10.1. INTRODUCTION1
The Illinois Mini-Assessment Team has two sets of recommenda-
tions for Phase II of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study. The first set
concerns the content of the general assessment of this report; the
second set consists of recommendations for specific research problems
and needs for impact assessment that team members have identified. In
addition, concerns about the BOM and Ford Tech Fix scenarios and
questions arising from the subject matter and scope of the study in
general are discussed in Sections 10.4. and 10.5.
10.2. GENERAL ASSESSMENT
10.2.1. SCENARIOS
In reviewing the scenarios for Phase II, national and regional
energy policies should be considered as significant variables in
scenario construction. The policy alternatives could include parts of
the current administration's energy program, such as increased emphasis
upon coal.
The use of the BOM scenario should be reassessed for Phase II.
The Phase I mini-assessment has indicated that the impacts associated
with it are severe. More importantly, the current administration's
policy initiatives in energy conservation and the energy industry's
responses to them seem to be more consistent with the FTF scenario than
with the BOM scenario. The scenarios adopted for Phase II should focus
upon the most probable course of energy supply and demand, with
variations to accommodate national and regional energy policies.
Although the BOM scenario may seen over-ambitious for the country
as a whole, in the long range the ORBES region may be exploited dispro-
portionately to satisfy the requirements of the rest of the country.
With the extensive coal resources in the region and the anticipated
national shift to electrical energy use, the electrical generation
capability for the ORBES region could equal or exceed the BOM projection.
An adaptive scenario, preferably one with simulation capabilities,
is recommended in order to accommodate policy alternatives. The
scenarios should be constructed so that the sensitivities of conclusions
to various assumptions and parameters could be tested. The scenarios
should be consistent with the best available projections of population
and socioeconomic activities to the year 2000.
The recommendations contained in this chapter assume that Phase II
of the ORBES project will be conducted as a comprehensive regional
technology assessment.
II-C-299
-------
10.2.2. REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS (RTCS)
The fuel mixes and siting patterns for each scenario should be
reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the policy orientation
of the scenarios. In particular, the Phase I siting patterns should be
reviewed to ensure that they were based on a consistent methodology,
and to identify and interpret any differences between the distribution
of plants for the ORBES project and for other assessments (particularly
ERDA's National Coal Utilization Assessment and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's siting study for the Ohio River Basin Commission). During
Phase II, alternative siting configurations, such as power parks, might
rbe investigated as regional policy alternatives.
! 10.2.3. BASELINE DATA
ii
A present (1970-1975) data base is necessary as a starting point
for the assessment. Extensive data collection, organization, and
evaluation has been a major activity during Phase I. .Specific data
needs which have been identified as critical to the general assessment
should be accommodated as quickly as possible. Some of these are
outlined in 10.3. below. Other data needs may be identified as the
result of more intensive study of second- and higher-order impacts in
Phase II. These should be met through published or readily accessible
sources if possible; otherwise, support studies may be required.
Additional data bases which are needed include an internally
consistent set of population projections to county scale and projections
of labor supply, the structure of economic activity, and land use.
10.2.4. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Following a review of Phase I assessments, impacts should be
identified in functional terms (e.g., an increase in strip mined acreage,
a decrease in prime agricultural land under cultivation) and the
relationships among them determined. This may be accomplished initially
through modeling, and the most significant subsystems may be isolated for
further in-depth study by whatever methods are appropriate (1,2).
The impact analysis of Phase II should also trace the impacts of
societal change upon the natural systems of the physical and biological
1 environment. Technologically-oriented assessments generally assume that
: technology causes environmental change, which may in turn cause societal
change. However, societal change itself can significantly effect
environmental quality. The impacts on water resources from population
growth, urbanization and industrial development might be pollution,
demands for consumptive use and flooding because of increased runoff.
II-C-300
-------
Societal change Is Influenced by second- and higher-order Impacts.
They are a major problem 1n any technology assessment because they are
difficult to trace. Nevertheless, their cumulative impact may be the
most significant long-term consequence on society of the energy-related
development in the ORBES region.
Phase II should attempt to use a consistent method of evaluating
the impacts within the framework of significantly related policy issues
and parties at interest. The assessment may determine that a given
magnitude of change may occur as the result of an RTC. The evaluation
of those impacts, however, must include the people who are directly or
indirectly affected as well as the relevant institutional and regulatory
frameworks. Increased public participation may help serve this end (see
10.2.8. below).
10.2.5. POLICY ANALYSIS
The purpose of the policy analysis is to evaluate the change in
the direction and magnitude of impacts that is expected from a selected
set of policy options. This is the information that the comprehensive
technology assessment of the ORBES region should provide policymakers.
These options might include alternative environmental control
strategies for air and water quality as well as policies for dealing
with societal change. Policy options could be selected from the Phase I
reports and supplemented as the analysis of second- and higher-order
impacts proceeds in Phase II. The options should include executive
proposals as well as legislative initiatives that have been implemented
or proposed both within and outside the ORBES region at national, state,
and regional scales.
10.2.6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Advisory Committee should continue as an integral part of the
Phase II assessment. The members are useful not only as technical
advisors but also as representatives of parties at interest with parti-
cular insights into evaluating the effects of policy options upon impacts.
The public presentations should also be continued, with meetings
scheduled according to the anticipated progress of the analysis of
impacts and policy options. Each presentation could focus upon a
limited range of impacts and policy options. The members of the public
who participate could thus serve as an additional resource for the
initial evaluation of the effects of policy options upon impacts.
The extent of public participation should be expanded in a full-
scale evaluation of impacts and policy options (see 10.2.5.). A procedure
similar to that used in the Office of Technology Assessment's recent
study of the coastal effects of offshore energy systems (3) and a region-
wide survey of peoples' evaluations of impacts and policy options would
11-C-301
-------
be suitable. Impacts may be defined in technological terms, but they
are cultural appraisals as well. Both types of information are
important to policymakers.
10.2.7. MICRO-ASSESSMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES'
The Phase II assessment might include micro-assessments of
alternative energy conversion technologies that could be introduced in
the ORBES region in order to compare their impacts with those of coal
and nuclear technologies. This can be accomplished in a series of
day-long seminars, provided that working documents and position papers
are circulated prior to the meetings. Although the technologies might
not be available for use in the ORBES region by the year 2000, an
understanding of coal- and nuclear-related impacts and policy options
may serve as a sound base for a quick assessment of changes resulting
from the use of other technologies.
10.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC RESEARCH NEEDS
10.3.1. OVERVIEW
The following recommendations, based on the experience of the
University of Illinois team in Phase I, are presented to the Phase II
researchers. They include identification of key impact areas or
interrelationships to be investigated in depth and types of data not
available in Phase I that should be generated or obtained to permit
effective assessment within particular impact areas. The recommenda-
tions are listed by impact area within the four major impact categories
that provide the structural basis for this final report.
10.3.2. NATURAL RESOURCES
10.3.2.1. LAND USE
• Refine the land use estimates for resource extraction by
taking into consideration existing coal seams.
• Expand the land use estimates to include acreage required
for or affected by the extraction of limestone and the
disposal of scrubber sludge.
• Expand the land use estimates to include acreage require-
ments associated with transportation (other than electrical
transmission) and the land use changes resulting from
population redistribution associated with energy development.
II-C-302
-------
Develop projections of future baseline land use patterns
in order to estimate change resulting from energy utiliza-
tion and identify higher-order impacts.
Analyze farm productivity and commodity prices in light of
decreasing land available for agriculture and possible
reduced productivity as a consequence of air pollution.
Develop a land use profile for each type of generating
station that includes both initial and maintenance land
use requirements, separated into reversible and irreversible
categories.
Evaluate the impacts associated with power generation on
archeological and historical sites.
10.3.2.2. WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY
• Determine the impact of "reasonably regulated" strip mining
on downstream flooding.
• Determine the impact of water consumption on stream (river)
flow, and the impacts associated with changes in flow, such
as on navigation and other in-stream uses. This requires
the production of a set of projected flows and frequencies
at various points along all rivers for'each scenario.
10.3.3. DEVELOPED RESOURCES
10.3.3.1. TRANSPORTATION
• Develop an analytical queuing model representing the input
and output of a series of locks and dams on a waterway to
permit accurate measurement of the true capacity of the
lock and dam system.
• Develop a complete source versus destination transhipment
model using existing network computer algorithms to investi-
gate capacity and storage restrictions of current and
forecasted multimodal transportation systems.
II-C-303
#
-------
10.3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
10.3.4.1. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATOLOGY
• Conduct detailed modeling to predict the average concentra-
tion of pollutants and the maximum 3-hour and 24-hour levels
likely to accompany each scenario.
• Investigate the possible economic and social impacts that
may result from loss of visibility because of fog created
by release of water vapor from cooling towers.
• Investigate the economic effects on crop production of
decreased sunlight availability as a consequence of air
pollution.
• Investigate the effects of untreated stormwater runoff
containing trace contaminants on the water quality of
rivers and lakes and the possible subsequent impacts on the
biota associated with these bodies.
• Investigate the adequacy and level of enforcement of present
air quality standards.
10.3.4.2. BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
• Estimate the loss in productivity from biological systems in
the study region as a function of various pollutant concen-
trations. Data requirements for this task include concentra-
tions of sulfur dioxide, ozone, and nitrous oxides for each
county; inventories of crops and soils for each county; and
deposition rates of acidic materials in various parts of the
regi on.
• Evaluate different disposal methods for the waste heat pro-
duced during energy conversion to determine the feasibility
of using this heat for agricultural and other purposes.
10.3.5. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
10.3,5.1. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
r,
• Complete the health matrix constructed during the Phase I
work in order to quantify direct health impacts.
• Explore methods of incorporating direct and higher-order
health effects into broader measures of well-being (quality
II-C-304
-------
of life) by integrating health, social, and economic
components into an assessment of the net benefits
(positive or negative) of the various scenarios or types
of energy projects.
10.3.5.2. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
• Develop projections, at county scale, of migration and
population growth resulting from induced employment
associated with energy development.
• Determine the interrelationships of the geographical and
occupational mobility of labor for different functions in
the fuel cycle.
• Determine the distribution of impacts among various
population subgroups and locations within the study region.
• Determine the means available to states and localities for
dealing with growth management issues within the study
region.
• Determine the impacts of energy production on in- and out-
migration in the study region.
10.3.5.3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
• Develop a mechanism to test the sensitivity of conclusions
to various assumptions and scenario parameters.
• Obtain, for purposes of economic assessment, two types of
information for each scenario: the amount of physical/social
degradation that would result, and the costs of maintaining
1977 physical, social, and natural environmental quality.
• Estimate the economic costs of environmental degradation.
• Complete the economic analysis of impacts on transportation,
mining, capital markets, labor markets, and utility rates.
• Select several counties for in-depth assessment of local
economic impacts.
• Assess economic impacts within the framework of regional
economic configurations that are more detailed than the
RTCs used in Phase I.
II-C-305
-------
10.3.5.4. LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND POLITICAL IMPACTS
• Investigate in detail the extent to which tax rates and
levels of public services are correlated, and identify the
particular groups that may bear the brunt of the burden if
inequity exists. This requires before- and after-growth
comparisons of individual communities.
10.4. CONCERNS RELATED TO THE BOM AND FORD TECH FIX SCENARIOS
10.4.1. INTRODUCTION
Because the BOM and Ford Tech Fix national projections were
adopted as scenarios for the ORBES Phase I study, it is not meaningful
to discuss the impacts of these scenarios, or of derivative RTCs, on
themselves. Interesting and crucial questions arise, however, concern-
ing the internal consistency, realizability, and probability of
occurrence of the national scenarios. One possible product of the ORBES
study may be the demonstration that existing constraints prevent a
scenario from materializing. Exploration of national projections for the
purpose of testing feedback loops and adjustment mechanisms, and for
painting a detailed picture of the economy as it grows, usually requires
an elaborate macroeconomic computer model. Such an investigation is
beyond the scope of the present study, but some rough observations can
be made.
Since the BOM projections were not based on an actual model of
the U.S. economy, many significant variables were not considered in the
projections. The issues of capital availability, interest rates, and
capital/labor ratios, as examples, were by-passed completely. When no
specific assumptions are made regarding these variables, it is not
possible to discuss implications of the assumptions; but by drawing on
other more complete models of the U.S. economy that contain an energy
component, it is possible to lend some legitimacy to the BOM projections.
The Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) macroeconomic models have been exercised
under growth rates approximating those in the BOM projections, with no
catastrophic effects (4). However, given the absence of detail in any
of the macroeconomic models and the significant structural changes in
the economy expected to result from energy developments, relatively
little information is available on the detailed appearance of the U.S.
' economy under the BOM scenario.
Since the Ford Tech Fix projections are less severe than those of
the Bureau of Mines, there is justification for greater confidence in
their realizability. Also, the Ford Tech Fix projections were based on
a formal macroeconomic model and greater detail on the implications of
the Ford Tech Fix assumptions is presented in the Ford Foundation Report.
II-C-306
-------
The identification, and in many cases, quantification of impacts
associated with RTCs in Phase I will provide a unique and productive
input to detailed examination of ORBES scenarios and their implications
during Phase II.
All of the technical difficulties discussed above, in connection
with national economic impacts, apply as well to the regional level.
The assessment of regional economic impacts poses further problems
because certain variables, such as national business investment, cannot
be allocated to specific regions of the country. For the ORBES study,
it would be useful to know whether, and how, the ORBES economy differs
from the U.S. economy and how its future growth path diverges from its
historical growth pattern under various scenarios and associated RTCs.
In particular, the behavior of variables such as per capita income,
output mix of goods and services, and employment are of interest. The
production of this information requires the simultaneous development of
both regional and national projections with explicit interactive
regional/national linkages. Such a task would involve a substantial
research effort in the case of the BOM and Ford Tech Fix national
scenarios. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce (OBERS) 1972-E
projections do provide some insight into the regional development of
ORBES (5). A discussion of these OBERS projections is included in
Appendix C. Of particular interest in this area is the validity of
the fixed historical shares assumption adopted in Task 1 of the study.
It was assumed that ORBES future shares of national energy production
and consumption would remain constant and equal to ORBES historical
shares. That assumption foreclosed the possibility of identifying any
future divergences of the ORBES region from its historical trends or
from its historical relationship to the nation. This is an issue of
some importance for the ORBES study, since it has been suggested that
the ORBES region may absorb a disproportionate share of future conversion
facility construction. The OBERS Projections do indicate that the ORBES
region will roughly maintain its historical growth rate and relationship
to the nation through the year 2000. This, of course, neither supports
nor refutes the fixed historical shares assumption, since energy
facility siting was not an explicit consideration in developing the OBERS
projections. In order to address the question of whether the ORBES
region will absorb a disproportionate share of future electrical
generating facilities, it will be necessary to examine a much greater
geographical region and determine whether water and coal resources
and other factors will force disproportionate siting within ORBES.
Such an investigation may be warranted in Phase II. Meanwhile, the
OBERS Projections suggest that the regional generating capacities
projected for ORBES under the BOM "business as usual" scenario could be
on the low side if future sitings in ORBES grow at greater than historical
rates.
II-C-307
-------
10.4.2. CAPITAL AVAILABILITY
Both the BOM and Ford Tech Fix scenarios pose questions about
the availability of sufficient capital to ensure their realizability.
Under the BOM scenario, large amounts of capital will be required for
the construction of energy conversion facilities and the related
mining, processing, and transportation systems. Under the Ford Tech
Fix scenarios, more capital funds will be invested in buildings -- both
residential and commercial -- as a tradeoff for economies in fuel costs
that will be reflected later in savings of operating costs. At issue
in both scenarios is whether capital markets will be able to supply
these funds, and at what cost.
Since neither of the two base scenarios is considered to be an
actual forecast of future energy developments, most previous studies
of capital availability are not directly transferable to the ORBES study
(6,8,9,10). The BOM scenario is a "business as usual" projection of
historical energy growth rates and average GNP growth rates. The
probability that these rates will be maintained in the light of the
capital requirements they imply is not of immediate interest in this
study. Rather, it is desired to know whether the United States
economic system could accommodate these significantly large energy-related
capital demands and simultaneously maintain an historical GNP growth
rate of 3.5%. And if so, what changes and costs would such an accommo-
dation entail? To address these questions properly requires a level of
simulation modeling beyond the scope and resource limitations of Phase I.
From a theoretical point of view, there is no reason to reject
the possibility that energy-related investment could rise from historical
levels of 20% to projected levels of 35% of all new investment in plant
and equipment (6). In practical terms, this growth may require various
promotional macroeconomic policy measures and accommodations by regula-
tory agencies. These measures cannot be specified without some detailed
knowledge of the economic environment in which they will occur, and this
detail is not a part of the BOM scenario. On the other hand, certain
social, political, and economic conditions could exist under which
capital shortages would prevent the materialization of either scenario.
Most such conditions (e.g., recession, war, changes in savings rates or
fertility rates) would also reduce energy demands below those assumed to
hold in the scenario and thereby obviate the problem of finding capital
to finance a defunct scenario.
In general, private companies (including utilities) obtain capital
funds internally through retained earnings and externally through domestic
:and international capital markets. Electric utilities historically have
resorted to private capital markets for approximately two-thirds of their
new capital funds. It is estimated that under a BOM-level scenario, 25%
of all new issues of stocks and bonds will be offered by electric
utilities. This disproportionate share arises because utilities do not
depend on short-term bank loans as do other industries (6).
II-C-308
-------
Sources of funds for the private capital markets arise almost
exclusively from savings by individuals. Total domestic savings, in
turn, depends upon population characteristics, GNP, savings rate
(proportion of income saved), fiscal and monetary policies, and other
factors. Movements in the interest rate tend to adjust supply of and
demand for capital toward equilibrium levels. Shortages occur when the
demand for capital at some particular interest rate exceeds the amount
available at that rate. Usually, despite institutional inflexibility
in some interest rates, available capital is rationed by rising rates
to the most efficient uses, while at the same time increasing the
supply.
Electric utilities must compete with government and other
industries for capital. Under the BOM scenario, electrical energy
consumption is growing more rapidly than the rest of the economy as
a whole and therefore more rapidly than the rate of capital formation.
Such a situation could not continue indefinitely, of course, but is
not impossible over the ORBES 25-year study horizon for two reasons.
First, the differential growth rates of electric utility capital
requirements and average historical capital formation do not differ
substantially. Secondly, electric utilities have averaged less than
20% of all new investment in plant and equipment in the United States.
If only external financing is considered, that estimate is closer to
13%. Were these the only considerations, there could be little cause
for concern over capital availability under the BOM scenario. However,
when capital requirements for all energy extraction and processing
industries, including fuel transport and environmental control
technology, are considered, the picture darkens somewhat.
During the 1947-74 period, energy's total share of Investment
in new plant and equipment averaged 29%, reaching a peak of 34% in
1974 (6). This historical share must be compared with projections of
total energy investment shares of approximately 32% through 1985, and
probably somewhat higher in the period 1985-2000. These estimates
suggest that capital requirements for the energy industry, and electric
utilities in particular, could be met under a BOM-type scenario. To
the extent that other factors in the economy result in a general
capital shortage, the increased energy share of the market will
undoubtedly exacerbate problems. Some low-priority investments may go
unfunded; and though these would not be energy-related investments
by assumption in the BOM scenario, they could easily be such under
some other scenario. Government agencies could do much to ensure
availability of capital to energy industries, even in the event of a
general shortage. Adjustments in rate setting regulations ensuring a
higher rate of return for utilities could achieve this kind of result
if it were necessary (7).
Different problems arise under the Ford Tech Fix scenario, where
it is assumed that substantial amounts of capital will be required to
finance a growing stock of new, more energy-efficient, plant and
equipment. Energy efficiency does not automatically imply greater
initial cost for new equipment, but to the extent that existing stocks
II-C-309
-------
of equipment are made obsolescent by edict or rising energy prices,
there will be an overall increase in the demand for capital by industry.
This increased demand may be ameliorated to a significant extent by the
decrease in demand for energy-related capital. At the present time,
both forces are operating simultaneously, since energy development is
continuing at roughly historical rates and investment in energy-efficient
equipment is increasing. This has been possible to some degree because
private domestic investment continues to lag the current economic
recovery. In general, it appears that no long-term capital availability
problems will arise, especially in the industrial sector, under the FTP
scenario because of conservation-oriented investment in plant and
equipment.
Additional capital is earmarked in the Ford Tech Fix scenario
for the residential and commercial sectors for the purchase and
installation of insulation, storm windows, heat pumps, solar augmentation
of existing heating systems, etc. Because this is a relatively modest
sum in comparison to the energy production capital requirements of the
BOM scenario, no long-term availability problems are expected to arise.
The Ford study appears to assume that these expenditures will occur
more or less uniformly through the year 2000. But if a significant
portion of the total is invested during a period of a few years, short-
term shortages could easily develop. Although such a possibility is
very real, it was not considered in the Ford Tech Fix scenario.
10.5. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. How much energy growth should take place? Who determines
the relative proportion of resource utilization or power
generation in each region with respect to the country as
a whole?
2. Can the heavy demands on land, water, and air resources,
such as those involved in the BOM RTCs, be met while still
. maintaining the agricultural base of the country (and the
ORBES region in particular) and preserving necessities
such as open space and clean air and water?
3. What are the effects of developments undertaken in the
private sector of the economy, such as the construction
and operation of power generating facilities, on the public
sector? Who pays the costs? Who enjoys the benefits?
Do these facilities pay for themselves in the sense of
providing funds to support the additional public services
required to offset the impacts of the facility? How can
residents of energy-producing areas of the country be
assured that the benefits will outweigh the costs?
II-C-310
-------
4. Are the existing political units able to cope with the
social and environmental issues arising from concentra-
tions of power plants, particularly along river
corridors? Will a new political entity be developed to
deal with the interrelated problems associated with
energy development?
The answers to these questions may lie in technological innova-
tion, cultural change, or the better adaptation of known technologies
or institutional frameworks to the problem, but they will be forced
largely by public concern.
It is the hope of the Illinois team that these issues will be
examined during Phase II of the ORBES project. Even though many require
long-term study and debate for resolution or compromise, the investiga-
tion of such substantive and vital questions should provide insights
into possible methods of dealing with the complex energy-related problems
that face present and future generations.
II-C-311
-------
REFERENCES
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II
1. Kazuhiko Kawamura and Alexander N. Christakis. "Methods for
Structural Modeling," paper presented at the 2nd International
Conference on Technology Assessment, Ann Arbor, MI, 24-28 October
1976.
2. Mick McLean and Paul Shephard. "The Importance of Model Structure."
Futures 8 (1976): 40-51.
3. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Coastal Effects of
Off-Shore Energy Systems: An Assessment of Oil^ ancTSas Systems,
Deepwater Ports, and Nuclear Power Plants off the Coast of New
Jersey and Delaware. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 1976.
4. T. E. Baldwin et al. A Socioeconomic Assessment of Energy Development
in a Small Rural County: Coal Gasification in Mercer County, North
Dakota. 2 vols., Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Environmental
Systems Division. Argonne, IL: December 1976.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce. OBERS 1972-E Projections of Economic
Activity in the U.S., 1929-2020. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, April 1977.
6. Federal Energy Administration. 1976 National Energy Outlook.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, February 1976.
7. Congressional Budget Office. Financing Energy Development. Back-
ground Paper No. 12. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
July 26, 1976.
8. Edison Electric Institute. Economic Growth in the Future. New
York: Edison Electric Institute, 1976.
9. New York Stock Exchange. The Capital Needs and Savings Potential of
the U.S. Economy: Projections Through 1985.New York:The flew York
Exchange, September 1974.
10. Allen Sinai and Roger E. Brinner. The Capital Shortage: Near-Term
Outlook and Long-Term Prospects. Economic Studies Series #8^
Data Resources, Inc., 1975.
11-C-312
-------
APPENDIX A
SITING CONFIGURATIONS
Table II-C-A-1
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - BOM SCENARIO 80-20 (4 STATES)
State Coala Nuclear3 Coal Gasification
111inois
Total
Indiana
Total
Brown
Clark
Greene
Hamilton
Jersey
Lawrence
Marshall
•Perry
Pulaski
Schuyler
Scott
Washington
White
Clark
Crawford
Daviess
Dearborn
Dubois
Fountain
Gil son
Greene
Harrison
Jackson
Knox
Lawrence
Martin
Ohio
Perry
Pike
Posey
Spencer
Sullivan
Switzerland
Tippecanoe
Vermillion
Warren
Warrick
Cass
Marshall
Mercer
(2)
(2)
(2)
Perry - High BTU
St. Clair - Low BTU
T27
Daviess
Fountain
Greene
Harrison
Perry
Spencer
(i)
HI
I!
Switzerland (1
(Continued)
II-C-A-1
-------
Table II-C-A-1 (Continued)
State
Kentucky
Total
Ohio
Total
Coal0
Ballard
Bracken
Breckinridge
Butler
Carliste
Gallstin
Greenup
Livingston
Marshall
Mclean
Meade
Owen
Trimble
Trigg
Union
Webster
Athens
Brown
Butler
Clark
Clermont
Franklin
Gallia
Hamilton
Lawrence
Ma honing
Meigs
Miami
Montgomery
Morgan
Pickaway
Ross
Warren
Washington
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
T3T7
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
W)
Nuclear'
Lewi s
Russell
Belmont
Brown
Gallia
Lawrence
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Muskingum
Pike
Ross
Scioto
Washington
Coal Gasification
(1)
(2)
137
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
TW
Numbers of 1000 MW(E) plant* units are in parentheses.
t>Full-scale plant with 250,000,000 cubic feet per day capacity.
II-C-A-2
-------
Table II-C-A-2
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - BOM SCENARIO 50-50 (4 STATES)
State Coal3
Illinois Brown
Clark
Greene
Hami 1 ton
Jersey
Lawrence
Pulaskl
Washington
Total
Indiana Clark
Crawford
Daviess
Fountain
Gibson
Harrison
Martin
Perry
Pike
Posey
Spencer
Sullivan
Switzerland
Vermill ion
Warren
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
TW
PI
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
CD
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
Nuclear0 Coal Gasification
Cass (2) Perry - High BTU
Greene (2) St. Cl air - Low BTU
Hancock (2)
Henderson (2)
Iroquols (1 )
Livingston (2)
Marshall (2)
Mercer (2)
ofy TIT
Clark
Crawford
Daviess
Dearborn
Fountain
Greene
^
^
^
^
D
D
Harrison (2
Jefferson
Ohio
Perry
Spencer
Sullivan
1
^
n
D
D
Switzerland (1)
Tippecanoe (1)
Vermill ion (1)
Total
TT7T
(Continued)
II-C-A-3
-------
Table II-C-A-2 (Continued)
State
Kentucky
Total
Ohio
Total
Coal0
Breckinridge
Carliste
'Livingston
Marshall
Meade
Owen
Trigg
Union
Webster
T
Athens
Brown
Butler
Clark
Clermont
Frankl in
Gallia
Hamilton
Lawrence
Mahoning
Meigs
Miami
Montgomery
Morgan
Pickaway
Ross
Washington
'(
(2)
.(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
T7T
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
-^1
30l
Nuclear
Bracken
Greenup
Lewis
Mason
Russell
Trimble
Belmont
Brown
Gallia
Lawrence
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Muskingum
Pike
Ross
Scioto
Washington
Coal Gasification
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
TiTT
(4)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
T30T
Numbers of 1000 MW(E) plant units are in parentheses.
^Full-scale plant with 250,000,000 cubic feet per day capacity.
II-C-A-4
-------
Table II-C-A-3
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTP - 100% COAL § 100% NUCLEAR - ILLINOIS
Year
1976
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1993
Name of Plant
Duck Creek 1
Wallace 1 and 2
Newton 1
Dallman 3
Havana 6
Lakeside 1 and 2
Marion 4
Hutsonville 1 and 2
Duck Creek 2
LaSalle 1
Fossil Cap.
Newton 2
LaSalle 2
Lakeside 1 and 2
Reynolds 2
Clinton 1
Marion 5
Duck Creek 3
Clinton 2
Newton 3
Plant X#l
Factory 2
Fossil Cap.
Location
Fulton
E. Peoria
Newton
Springfield
Havana
Springfield
Williamson County
Hutsonville
Fulton
Seneca
Unknown
Newton
Seneca
Springfield
Springfield
Clinton
Williamson County
Fulton
Clinton
Newton
Unknown
Springfield
Unknown
MW(E) Capacity
400
42
550
178
450
-25
173
-50
400
1078
20
550
1078
22
50
950
150
600
950
500
600
50
20
Type
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Oil
Coal
Nuclear
Coal
Coal
Nuclear
Oil
Oil
Nuclear
Coal
Coal
Nuclear
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
(Continued)
II-C-A-5
-------
.Table II-C-A-3 (Continued)
FORD TECH FIX - COAL
Year County MW(E) Capacity
1994
1997
Greene
Greene
600
600
FORD TECH FIX - NUCLEAR
1994 Marshall 1000
II-C-A-6
-------
Table II-C-A-4
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTP - 100% COAL § 100% NUCLEAR - INDIANA
Year
1976
1977
1981
1984
1985
1986
1988
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
Name of Plant
Gibson 1
Schahfer 14
Petersburg 3
Gibson 2
Rensselaer 4
Brown 1
Schahfer 15
Gibson 3
Merom 1
Merom 2
Petersburg 4
Marble Hill 1
Rensselaer 13
Brown 2
Undesignated
White Water Valley
Marble Hill 2
Location
Gibson County
Jasper County
Pike County
Gibson County
Jasper County
Posey County
Jasper County
Gibson County
Sullivan County
Sullivan County
Pike County
Jefferson County
Jasper County
Posey County
Wayne County
Jefferson County
MW(E) Capacity
650
477
532
668
-1
265
527
668
490
490
532
1130
5.5
350
650
100
1130
Type
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal ,
Nuclear
Oil (Gas)
Coal
Coal
Coal
Nuclear
(Continued)
II-C-A-7
-------
Table II-C-A-4 (Continued)
FORD TECH FIX - COAL
year County
1995 Warren
1996 Pike
1997 Crawford
1998 Fountain
2000 Posey
MV(E) Capacity
600
600
600
600
600
FORD TECH FIX - NUCLEAR
1995
1997
1999
Perry
Daviess
Harrison
1000
1000
1000
II-C-A-8
-------
Table II-C-A-5
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTP - 1001 COAL § 100% NUCLEAR - KENTUCKY
Year
Name of Plant
Location
MW(E) Capacity Type
1976
1977
1979
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
}986
1987
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
Spur lock 1
Reid 1
Ghent 2
Mill Creek 3
Reid 2
Paddys Run 2
Paddys Run 1
Paddys Run 3
Paddys Run 4
Mill Creek 4
Paddys Run 5
Paddys Run 6
Cane Run 1
Spurlock 2
KU Unit 1
East Bend 2
Trimble County 1
KU Unit 2
Uhdesignated
EK Unit
East Bend 3
Reid 3
East Bend 1
Trimble County 2
KU Unit 3
Winchester
Sebree
Ghent
Louisville
Sebree
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Winchester
Undesignated
Rabbit Hash
Trimble County
Undesignated
Undesignated
Rabbit Hash
Sebree
Rabbit Hash
Trimble County
Undesignated
300
65
500
425
200
-29
-30
-64
-66
495
-7.1
-68
-111
500
500
669
495
500
65
500
800
200
669
495
650
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
(Continued)
II-C-A-9
-------
Table II-C-A-5 (Continued)
FORD TECH FIX - COAL
Year
1995
1996
1998
1999
FORD TECH FIX - NUCLEAR
1995
1997
2000
County
Trimble
Livingston
Union
Union
Meade
Mason
Russell
Mason
MW(E) Capacity
600
600
600
600
600
1000
1000
1000
II-C-A-10
-------
Table II-C-A-6
SITING CONFIGURATIONS - FTP - 100% COAL § 100% NUCLEAR - OHIO
Year
Name of Plant
Location
Capacity Type
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1983
1987
1988
1991
1992
Cones vi lie 5
Martins Ferry
Cardinal 3
Racine
West End 2, 5 and 6
West End 1, 3 and 4
Miami Fort 3 and 4
Miami Fort
Picway 3 and 4
Columbus
Conesville 6
Killen 2
Zimmer 1
Poston 5
Killen 1
Poston 6
Cardinal 4
Conesville
Martins Ferry
Brilliant
Racine
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Hamilton
Hamilton
Columbus
Columbus
Conesville
Wrightville
Clermont County
Wrightville
Brilliant
375
-2
615
40
-111
-108
-130
557
-64
-53
375
661
878
375
661
375
615
Coal
Oil
Coal
Hydro
Gas
Gas
Unknown
Coal
Coal
Unknown
Coal
Coal
Nuclear
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
(Continued)
II-C-A-11
-------
Table II-C-A-6 (Continued)
FORD TECH FIX - COAL
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
County
Miami
Mahoning
Brown
Franklin
Hamilton
Athens
Meigs
Butler
Clermont
Morgan
Clark
Ross
Montgomery
Warren
MW(E) Capacity
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
2000 Brown 600
FORD TECH FIX - NUCLEAR
1995 Belmont 1000
1996 Brown 1000
Gallia 1000
1997 Muskingum 1000
1998 . Monroe 1000
Lawrence 1000
1999 Meigs . 1000
2000 Morgan 1000
Washington 1000
II-OA-12
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNICAL DATA FOR THE FOUR SCENARIOS
1. INTRODUCTION
To quantitatively evaluate the Impacts associated with the
various scenarios, it is necessary to calculate the natural resource
requirements and the pollutants associated with each of the four
scenarios. The amount of coal required, the amount of sulfur dioxide
produced, and the amount of ash produced have been calculated, state
by state, for each year for each of the scenarios. Also, the amount
of uranium ore that must be mined to fuel the nuclear power plants has
been estimated. This data is presented by state in the tables of this
appendix. The assumptions and methods used to compile this data will
be discussed in detail.
2. CAPACITY AND EFFICIENCY CHARACTERISTICS
For the BOM scenarios all the coal and nuclear plants, that will
be Installed after those currently planned, will have a 1000 MW(E) capa-
city. The Ford Tech Fix scenarios assume that the coal plants have a
600 MW(E) capacity, while the nuclear plants have a 1000 MW(E) capacity.
In both scenarios there will be one low-BTU coal gasification
plant sited in each of the four states. For the Ford Tech Fix (100%
nuclear) scenario one less nuclear plant in the ORBES region of each
state is constructed, Instead two gas-fired plants are constructed.
driven by the coal gasification plant. For the Ford Tech Fix (100%
coal) scenario two gas-fired plants in the ORBES region of each state
are driven by the coal gasification plant. (The only exception to this
1s 1n Kentucky where the low-BTU coal gasification plant 1s planned to
provide only process heat. This 1s an assumption of the Kentucky group.)
The parameters taken as characteristic of the new plants in all
the scenarios are:
47.8%' Capacity Factor
37.0% Conversion Efficiency for Coal Plants
31.0% Conversion Efficiency for Nuclear Plants
27.0% Overall Conversion Efficiency for the Low-BTU Coal
Gasification Plant and Associated Power Plant
Capacity factor and conversion efficiency are defined in Section G/H of
the Task 1 report.
II-C-A-13
-------
3. COAL CHARACTERISTICS
To calculate the coal consumption and the levels of various pollu-
tants, specifications are required for the coal that is used. The speci-
fications by state are given 1n Table II-C-A-7.
Table II-C-A-7
COAL SPECIFICATIONS BY STATE
BTU/Ton
State ; % Sulfur % Ash (x 1Q6)
Illinois
Illinois #6 2.60 6.8 21.92
Western (Wyoming) 0.60 5.9 16.60
Ohio & Indiana
Illinois #6 2.60 6.8 21.92
Northwestern 0.85 6.7 17.56
Appalachian Low Sulfur 0.93 11.2 24.20
Appalachian High Sulfur & Ohio 3.07 14.7 23.60
Indiana 2.92 8.9 21.20
Kentucky
Illinois #9
Elkhorn #3
3.15
0.90
10.5
3.9
25.88
28.40
4. ON-LINE DATES OF COAL-FIRED FACILITIES
4.1. FORD TECH FIX SCENARIO
To obtain the annual consumption of coal and annual production of
S02 and ash, it is necessary to determine how many plants will be on line
each year. This has been worked out explicitly for each of the states
under the Ford Tech Fix scenarios. However, under the 100% coal scenario,
three extra plants were sited in Kentucky and three were missing in Ohio.
This was due to an error in earlier work. The corrected counties and
on-line dates used in these calculations are given by state in Table II-C-A-8.
For the states of Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, it 1s necessary to
determine the on-line dates of power plants on a county-by-county basis.
This is necessary because the type of coal required varies with the loca-
tion of the county. For the State of Illinois, it was assumed tnat on the
average all power stations would use a uniform mix of approximately one-
third Western coal and two-thirds Illinois coal.
II-C-A-14
-------
Table II-C-A-8
FORD TECH FIX (100% COAL) SCENARIO
ON-LINE DATES BY STATE AND COUNTY
State
Kentucky
Ohio
Year
1995
1996
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
County
Trimble
Livingston
Union
Union
Meade
Miami
Mahoning
Brown
Franklin
Hamilton
Athens
Meigs
Butler
Clermont
Morgan
Clark
Ross
Montgomery
Warren
Brown
MW(EJ
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
4.2. BOM SCENARIO
To determine the number of plants on-line each year for the BOM
scenarios, the new required capacity from 1986 to 2000 was assumed to be
brought on-line linearly. A new plant was brought on-line when the first
increment of its capacity was required. (The on-line dates and retire-
ments for 1975-1985 are given in the Task 1 report.) The results are
given in Tables II-C-A-9 through 12.
As noted previously, the on-line dates for the Illinois coal plants
were not specified by county. The coal plants for Ohio were assigned on-
line dates randomly. A similar procedure was followed for Indiana's coal
plants. The only exception to this was the county in which the Iqw-BTU
gasification plant was sited. It was assigned randomly, but then switched
with another county so that the coal gasification plant comes on-line at
about the same time (1997 to 2000) for all the scenarios. The counties for
Ohio and Indiana and their corresponding on-line dates are given in
Table H-C-A-13
II-C-A-15
-------
Table II-C-A-9
BOM 80-20 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW COAL PLANTS BY YEAR
Illinois
_,
»— i
o
1
1
a(
— <
re
Ol
-5
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
fo
oi
Oi C
TJ — •
^g 0) • Qt
ac o rt
^•^ — J« W*
m rt <
••-••*<. re
1,599
3,198
4,798
6,397
7,996
9,596
11,194
12,794
14,393
15,993
17,592
19,191
20,290
22,390
23,989
-h*
o
-J TJ
^C Of
re 3
Oi rt
-J «/»
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
z o
i z i
3 c^
— • re o>
Ol -J rt
3 -••
rt O <
v> -h re
2
4
5
7
8
10
12
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
fo
o 3
Ol C
•O — •
2 Ol Oi
£ O rt
^^s ••*• "J*
rn rt <
1,829
3,659
5,489
7,319
9,149
10,979
12,809
14,638
16,468
18,298
20,128
21,958
23,788
25,618
27,448
Indiana
z
-hi
o
-i -o
—< Of
fD 3
O> r*
•^ t/>
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
Z 0
if!
-o cr — »
— ^ re oi
Oi -J rt
3 -J.
rt O <
2
4
6
8
10
11
13
15
17
19
21
22
24
26
27
Kentucky
z
03
Ol C
•o _•
^g Ol Ql
£ O rt
m rt <
2,036
4,072
6,108
8,144
10,180
12,216
14,252
16,288
18,324
20,360
22,396
24,432
26,468
28,504
30,541
-hi
0
.^
—^ o*
re 3
Oi rt
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
z o
i Z i
3 C
— • re oi
o» -» rt
3 -«.
rt 0 <
«/> -•> re
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
re
* 0
O 3
oi EL
2 oi oi .
£ O rt
m rt <
3,152
6,304
9,456
12,608
15,760
18,912
22,064
25,215
28,367
31,519
34,671
37,823
40,975
44,127
47,279
Ohio
3,f
^ "^
-< Of
fl> 3
O> rt*.
-I w
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
ORBES
z o
re z c
£ c 3
3' 5,
— • re o>
Oi -» rt
3 -«•
rt O <
«/> -ttCD
4
7
10
13
16
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
41
45
48
z
-*>i
Q
^ ^O
^^
"^ 01
re 3
Oi rt
11
9
8
9
8
9
9
8
9
8
9
8
8
10
8
z o
i i
££
•o — •
— ' 01
Oi rt
3 -*•
rt <
v> re
11
20
28
37
45
"54
63
71
80
88
97
105
113
123
131
-------
Table II-C-A-10
BOM 50-50 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW COAL PLANTS BY YEAR
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
ORBES
.-.
t •<
1
o
1
^
— <
(V
OI
1
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
fo
0?l
•o — •
3 01 OI
z: o rt-
*—» — 1. — J.
m rt- <
• — *< n
976
1,953
2,959
3,905
4,882
5,858
6,834
7,811
8,787
9,760
10,740
11,716
12,692
13,669
14,645
o
-$ -o
-< o>
tt> 3
Oi r+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
2
•z. • o
* i c
-o cr — •
— « tt> O>
Oi -» rt-
3 -••
rt- O < .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
fo
oi
01 C.
•o — «
3 OI O»
£ O rt-
X— V— J. — 1.
m rt- <
1,143
2,287
3,431
4,574
5,718
6,862
8,005
9,149
10,293
11,436
12,580
13,724
14,867
16,011
17,155
"Z. -Z. 0
?* *|l
-j -o -o cr— •
~4
~< O*
(D 3
O» r+
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
i _• (D oi
Oi I rt-
3 -••
rt- O <
-h tt>
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
17
fo
0?l
-o — •
3 O> O»
ac* O c+
^^^ — *• — J«
nirj <
1,118
2,236
3,354
4,472
5,590
6,708
7,826
8,944
10,062
11,180
12,298
13,416
14,534
15,652
16,771
c?
-» -o
-< OI
(D 3
O> rt-
-J Vt
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
•z. o
' * i c
T3 CT — •
— ' (D OI
Oi -J rt-
^3 ***
rt- O <
W» -h(D
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
fo
O 3
OI C
•o — •
3C Oi O> .
a: o rt-
m rt- <
— «< m
1,976
3,951
5,928
7,903
9,879
11,856
13,832
15,807
17,783
19,759
21,735
23,711
25,687
27,663
29,639
o>
3»*
-? T3
-< OI
O 3
OI rt-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z 0
5 z i
-o ©• — '
— < (D Oi
oi -j rt-
3 -*•
rt- O <
-b
7
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
6
5
z o
c
TJ — «
— « 01
Oi rt-
3 -^
rt- <
(/) (D
7
12
17
22
27
32
38
43
49
54
59
64
69
75
80
-------
Table II-C-A-11
BOM 80-20 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS BY YEAR
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
ORBES
1— 1
I-H
1
O
1
00
•^ •
fD
Ol
T
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
fo
03
Ol C
•o — '
•^ rt| fl)
i£ 0 rt-
m rl- <
• — •«<
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
z o
3 c
"O ^^ ^^
— ' 0) Ol
3 —*•
rt- O <
-h rt>
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
X O
0 3
01 C
•o — •
2 Oi Oi
XI O r+
m ff <
— •*< n>
458
915
1,372
1,830
2,287
2,745
3,202
3,660
4,117
4,575
5,032
5,490
5,947
6,405
6,862
m
o
T "O
^C Ol
ft> 3
Oi rf
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
z o
£ Wa
3 c
•o cr — •
—•not
Oi -J rf
3 -"•
rt-o <
CO -h 0)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
fo
03
01 C
•o — •
35 O, fl>
C O cf
rn cf ^
— «< m
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1 ,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
z
-+>z
0
-j -o
-< Ol
0> 3
0> rt-
-J
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
•Si 0
in
3 c:
-o cr — •
_• n> o>
Ol T r*
3 -••
«/> -»i rt>
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
fo
oi
Ol C
•o — '
3 O> Ol .
a: o c+
m r* <
~-»*< (i>
784
•1,568
2,352
3,136
3,920
4,704
5,489
6,273
7,057
7,841
8,625
9,409
10,193
10,977
11,761
z
-bS
o
"* 22
•< Ol
n> 3
Ol t+
•j
1-
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
z o
(Ejjfi
3 c
-OCT— •
— • to oi
01 1 C+
3 -«•
ri-0 <
~*> (l> .
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
z
-h S
O
1 TJ
^J
-C 01
m 3
Ol rl-
^ w
4
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
0
Z 0
n> c
c
"O — •
••J- Ql
01 C+
3 -fc
c« ^c
U> (D
4
5
8
9
11
13
15
17
19
20
23
24
26
27
28
-------
Table II-C-A-12
BOM 50-50 SCENARIO, CUMULATIVE NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS BY YEAR
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
ORBES
t_t
HH
O
1
«£>
(D
Q»
I
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
fo
-sl
3 Qi Oi
JC O r*
•m r* <
*-**< n>
1,038
2,076
3,114
4,152
5,191
6,229
7,267
8,305
9,343
10,382
11,420
12,458
13,496
14,534
15,573
-Z
o
ft 3
Qi r+
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
z o
n> z c
* i §
-o a- — •
— ' a> QI
Qi -J C*
3 -••
rt O <
0)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
fo
oi
Ql C
S Ql Qi
x: o rt
m c* <
1,143
2,287
3,431
4,574
5,718
6,862
8,005
9,149
10,293
11,436
12,580
13,724
14,867
16,011
17,155
•9*
-i Tj
CD ?
Qi rt
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
z o
— >(D O
Oi -J rt
3 -*•
rt O <
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
17
fo
0?1
•a — •
3J.QI 0|
3EO c*
r^i ^^ ^
^^--^ ID
1,118
2,236
3,354
4,472
5,590
6,708
7,826
8,944
10,062
11,180
12,298
13,416
14,534
15..652
16,771
n>
o*
•* ~o
rt> 3
Q> rt-
-1 W
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
z o
Tj CP ™^
— « ID Ql
Q» T r*
3 -*
r* O <
Ul -*,»
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
n>
S o
oi
Ql C
-0 — •
3 Q» Qi
£ O r+
«i«-"X *^> ^*
'Tl^? ^
1,960
3,920
5,880
7,840
9,800
11,760
13,720
15,681
17,641
19,601
21,561
23,521
25,481
27,441
29,402
z
o*
-$ -a
(D 3
1 V>
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z 0
1 ^n tu
o» -s c*
^3 *™*
c* 0 <
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Z Z 0
n> n c
-hS « 3
o c
__« — I Ql
-< OI O> rt-
(D 3
Qi rt
T «/>
8
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
e 6
4
3 -^
C* <
U> fl>
8
13
18
23
28
33
39
44
50
55
60
65
70
76
80
-------
Table INC-A-13
ON-LINE DATES FOR INDIANA AND OHIO BY COUNTY
Year County
Year County
Indiana BOM 80-20
1986 Gibson, Tippecanoe 1994 Green, Daviess
1987 Spencer, Perry 1995 Dubois, Vermillion
1988 Jackson,! Lawrence 1996 Fountain, Warren
1989 Pike, Martin 1997 Harrison
1990 Daviess, Ohio 1998 Harrison, Sullivan
1991 Knox 1999 Switzerland, Crawford
,1992 Perry, Dearborn 2000 Poseyl
1993 Warrick, Clark
Indiana BOM 50-50
1986 Spencer, Fountain
1987 Martin
1988 Clark
1989 Harrison
1990 Perry2
1991 Switzerland
1992 Crawford, Daviess
Ohio
1986 Clark, Lawrence, Lawrence,
Ross
1987 Butler, Meigs, Morgan
1988 Athens, Athens, Butler
1989 Meigs, Miami, Washington
1990 Brown, Gallia, Mahoning
1991 Butler, Clermont,
Montgomery, Washington
1992 Franklin, Franklin, Gallia
Ohio
1986 Clermont, Montgomery
1987 Morgan, Ross
1988 Clark, Clermont
1989 Athens, Athens
1990 Butler, Washington
1991 Mahoning, Miami4
1992 Clark, Hamilton
,1993 Lawrence, Mahoning
1 993 Perry
1994 Pike
1995 Harrison
1996 Sullivan
1997 Gibson
1998 Vermillion
1999 Warren, Posey2
BOM 80-20
1993 Meigs, Miami, Pickaway
1994 Brown, Morgan, Pickaway
1995 Clermont, Hamilton, Ross
1996 Hamilton, Mahoning, Montgomery
1997 Brown, Mahoning, Morgan3
1998 Clark, Gallia, Washington
1999 Athens, Clermont, Lawrence,
Warren
2000 Ross, Warren, Warren
BOM 50-50
1994 Meigs, Washington
1995 Butler, Franklin
1996 Miami, Ross
1997 Brown, Morgan4
1998 Meigs, Pickaway
1999 Franklin, Montgomery
2000 Brown, Gallia
1
Interchanged to bring coal gasification plant on-line in year 2000.
'Interchanged to bring coal gasification plant on-line in year 1999.
Powered by low-BTU coal gasification plant.
Interchanged to bring coal gasification plant on-line in 1997.
II-C-A-20
-------
The on-line dates for the Kentucky coal plants were provided by
the Kentucky team for the BOM 80-20 scenario. For the BOM 50-50 scenario
the coal plants in Kentucky were assigned randomly as in Indiana and
Ohio. The counties and their corresponding on-line dates are given in
Table II-C-A-14.
Table II-C-A-14
ON-LINE DATES FOR KENTUCKY BY COUNTY
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
County
Kentucky BOM
Ballard
Marshall
Ballard, Greenup
Bracken, Marshall
Greenup, Trimble
Bracken, Trigg
Breckinridge, McLean, Trimble
Breckinridge, Trigg
Kentucky BOM
Livingston, Carlisle
Webster
Union
Livingston
Trigg
Carlisle
Meade
Breckinridge
Year
80-20
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
50-50
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
County
Gal latin, Meade, Trimble
Webster
Gal latin, Meade
Webster
Carlisle, Gal latin
Butler, Livingston, Union
Carlisle, Owen
Livingston, Union
Breckinridge, Union
Trigg
Webster
Marshall
Meade
Owen
Marshall
5. RETIREMENT OF EXISTING CAPACITY
In addition to the new coal plants being brought on-line some of
the existing capacity will be retired each year. The retirements from
1975 to 1985 are given explicitly in the Task 1 report. Also, from the
Task 1 report the following retirement rates for coal plants are expected
for the period 1986 to 2000 in the ORBES region of each state.
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
MW(E)/year
143
164
162
227
No nuclear plants will be retired from 1975 to, 2000.
II-C-A-21
-------
6. METHOD OF CALCULATION
With the dates for siting new plants and the retirement rates for
old plants a composite picture of the coal powered electrical capacity in
the ORBES region can be drawn. Using this information and the general
characteristics of the coal burned, it is then possible to determine the
total tons of coal per year required, the total tonnage of sulfur dioxide
available to be released from the stack per year, and the total tonnage
of ash produced each year.
To calculate the tons of coal required per year it is necessary to
first calculate the BTU input required from the coal:
BTU input = (Installed capacity) (Capacity factor) (Conversion
1 factor for MW(E) years to BTU)*(Conversion efficiency).
Then the tons of coal required are:
Tons of coal per year required =
f coal
To calculate the sulfur dioxide produced it is assumed that all the sulfur
in the coal is oxidized and forms only sulfur dioxide. The process is
described by:
S + 02 - > S02
32g + 2(16g) - * 64g.
Thus, the weight of the sulfur dioxide produced is twice the weight of
the available sulfur, so
Tons of S0£ produced per year = 2(Tons of coal burned per year)
(Percent of sulfur. in the coal/100).
The tons of ash in the coal are found as follows:
Tons of ash formed per year = (Tons of coal burned per year)
(Percent of ash in the coal/100).
Note these equations do not account for scrubbers or precipitators. To
use these equations to calculate coal requirements and the actual sulfur
dioxide produced it is necessary to know the coal mix and the usage of
scrubbers. It is assumed that all scrubbers are 90% efficient.
7. ASSUMED COAL MIX
The coal burned in Illinois from 1975 to 1985 will be Western
(Wyoming) and Illinois coal. The percentage of each, was chosen to be
consistent with present usage patterns, i.e., one-third of the BTUs pro-
duced are assumed to be supplied by Western coal and the remaining
II-C-A-22
-------
two-thirds come from Illinois coal. From 1986 to 2000 the tonnage of
Western coal imported will be the same as that imported 1n 1985.
The scrubbers used in Illinois are assumed to come on-line
linearly over the period 1976 to 1985, that is, in 1976 10% of the new
installed capacity had scrubbers; in 1977 20% of the new installed capa-
city will have scrubbers and so on through 1985. From 1986 to 2000 all
the new capacity will have scrubbers. The new capacity with scrubbers
burns only Illinois coal.
In Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, from 1975 to 1985 only low-sulfur
compliance coal will be burned. For Indiana and Ohio the coal will come
from the northwestern United States. Kentucky will burn only Kentucky
coal. These states will burn some noncompllance high-sulfur coal in new
plants brought on-line from 1986 to 2000, but all these plants will have
scrubbers. The actual coal used in each plant has been specified by
county by the appropriate team.
The low-BTU coal gasification plants are assumed to provide 1500
million cubic feet per day of 180 BTU-per-cubic-foot natural gas. (The
Kentucky plant will have different specifications.) The on-line dates
for the gasification plants and the coal required for each year of opera-
tion are given in Table II-C-A-15.
Table II-C-A-15
ON-LINE DATES FOR COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS
Year
Tons/year (x IP6)
Illinois
BOM
Ford Tech Fix
Indiana
BOM 50-50
BOM 80-20
Ford Tech Fix
Ohio
BOM
Ford Tech Fix
1997
1997
1999
2000
2000
1997
1998
2.41 Illinois #6 coal
2.89 Illinois #6 coal
2.50 Indiana coal
2.50 Indiana coal
1.50 Indiana coal
2.24 Ohio coal
2,69 Ohio coal
In Tables II-C-A-16, etc., capacities of the plants which are driven by
natural gas are included in the total capacity column only. Their coal
requirements or pollutants are not included in the other columns.
II-C-A-23
-------
8. ORE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS
To calculate the fuel requirements for nuclear reactors coming on
line between 1975 and 2000, the Zion reactor^ was assumed to be repre-
sentative. Data from this reactor were used to calculate the annual ore
requirement per 1000 MW(E) of installed capacity. The Zion plant has
operated for 36.4 months at a 75% capacity factor with a total load of
87,210 kg of 3.19% enriched fuel. The total capacity of the plant is
1060 MW(E).
To calculate the amount of natural uranium feed material required
for 1 kg of 3.19% enriched fuel, the following formula was used:
y - y
A - P tail
XF " Xtail
where: A = amount of feed material per 1 kg of product,
235
Xp = amount of U present in 1 kg of product,
235
XF = amount of U present in 1 kg of feed, and
235
Xtail = arnount of U present in 1 kg of tail products.
31 9 - 3
Assuming X. ., = 3 gm, we have: A = y-fy j = ^.03 kg of natural
uranium/1 kg of product.
Thus the feed required for the Zion loading = 87,210 x 7.03 = 613,000 kg
of natural uranium, and yearly feed required is:
613,000 x -oPr = 202,000 kg of natural uranium.
Assuming a capacity factor of 47.8% for the plants coming on line, the
yearly natural uranium requirement per 1000 MW(E) generation capacity is:
202,000 x £y x jjy = 122,000 kg of natural uranium,
where:
CM = capacity factor of model plant = 47.8%
CZ = capacity factor of Zion plant = 75%
PM = MW(E) capacity of model plant = 1000 MW(E)
PZ = MW(E) capacity of Zion plant = 1060 MW(E)
of Chicago).
A Commonwealth Edison plant located at Zion, Illinois (north
II-C-A-24
-------
As LUOg this amount is:
122,000 x 3A" * 8A" = 143,000 kg
J"u
(where Au = At. wt. of U238
A0 = At. wt. of Olgx
In tons (short) this is:
143,000 x = 158 tons
Assuming 0.175% U30g in the ore, ore requirements are:
0 Q^75 = 90,300 tons of ore per year per 1000 MW(E) capacity.
II-C-A-25
-------
Table. II-C-A-16
ILLINOIS BOM 50-50 & 80-20 (1975-1985)
1975 1976 1977 197S 1979
Total. MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 10,186 10,586 11,314 11,937 12,337
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity — 40 186 373 533
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 10,136 10,546 11,128 11,564 11,304
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal 3.93 4.09 4.37 4.61 4.77
(x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for ~ 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.21
Plants with Scrubbers (x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 3.93 4.07 4.30 4.47 4.56
Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
Tons of Western Coal (x 106) 7.90 3.21 8.77 9.26 9.57
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 11.97 12.44 13.29 14.02 14.49
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with — 0.07 0.33 0.66 0.94
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without H-97 12.37 12.96 13.37 13.55
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Western 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants — ' 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.004
with Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.70 0.70
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.82
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 1-23 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.55
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-16 (Continued)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 12,337 12,907 12,907 13,657 14,827 14,827
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 533 875 875 1,475 2,528 2,528
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 11,804 12,032 -12,032 12,182 12,299 12,299
without Scrubbers
4.77 4.98 4.98 5.27 5.73 5.73
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x 10l4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.57 0.98 0.98
Plants with Scrubbers (x 10" 4)
_ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 4.56 4.65 4.65 4.71 4.75 4.75
r Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014) ;
> Tons of Western Coal (x 106) 9.57 10.01 10.01 10.59 . 11.50 11.50
3 Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 14.49 15.16 15.16 16.04 17.42 17.42
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with 0.94 1.54 1.54 2.60 4.45 4.45
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without 13.55 13.62 13.62 13.44 12.96 12.96
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Western 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.004 0.008 . 0.008 0.013 0.023 0.023
with Scrubbers (x
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.67 0.67
without Scrubbers (x 10^)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 1.55 1.62 1.62 1.72 1.86 1.96
-------
Table II-C-A-17
ILLINOIS BOM 50-50 (1986-2000)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x 1014)
~ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
-------
Table II-C-A-17 (Continued)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW('E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x 10«)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x Ipl4)
H BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
£> Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
1 - 6
Tons of Western Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106)
Tons of Illinois "Coal Burned with
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western
i -
ro
vo
Coal (x
}2 £r(
106)
Tons of S0£ Produced from Plants
with Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants
without Scrubbers (x 10°)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1991
19.969
8,528
11,441
7.71
3.29
4.42
11.50
26.48
15.03
11.45
0.14
0.078
0.60
0.81
2.48
1992
20,826
9,528
11,298 •
8.04
3.68
4.36
11.50
27.99
16.79
11.20
0.14
0.087
0.58
' 0.81
2.58
1993
21 ,683
10,528
11,155
8.37
4.07
4.31
11.50
29.50
18.55
10.95
0.14
0.096
0 . 57
0.80
2.68
1994
22,540
11,528
11,012
8.71
4.45
4.25
11.50
31.01
20.31
10.70
0.14
0.106
0.56
0.80
2.79
1995
23,397
12,528
10,869
9.04
4.84
4.20
11.50
32.52
.22.07
10.44
0.14
0.115
0.54
0.80
2.89
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-17 (Continued)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
co
o
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x l-ol*)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
Tons of Western Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S0£ Produced from Plants
with Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
24,254
13,528
10,726
9.37
5.22
4.14
11 .50
34.02
23.84
10.19
0.14
0.124
0.53
0.79
2.99
25,111
13,528
10,583
9.31
5.22
4.08
IT. .50
33.78
23.84
9.94
0.14
0.124
0.52
0.78
2.98
25,968
14,528
10,440
9.64
5.61
4.03
11.50
35.29
25.60
9.69
0.14
0.133
0.50
0.77
3.08
26,825
15,528
10,297
9.97
6.00
3.98
11.50
36.80
27.36
9.44
0.14
0.142
0.49
0.77
3.18
28,682
17,528
10,154
10.69
6.77
3.92
11.50
40.07
30.89
9.19
0.14
0.161
0.48
0.78
3.40
-------
o
CO
Table II-C-A-18
ILLINOIS BOM 80-20 (1986-2000)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x IQl4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x 1014)
1986
16,684
4,528
12,156
6.44
1.75
1987
18,541
6,528
12,013
7.16
2.52
1988
19,398
7,528
11,870
7.49
2.91
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without
Scrubbers (x 106)
12.71
12.46
12.21
?lants
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants
without Scrubbers (x 10*)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1989
21,255
9,528
11,727
8.21
3.68
11 96
1990
22,112
10,528
11,
8.54
4.07
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
Tons of western Coal (x 10 )
C.
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 10°) '.-, ,
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with
c *• M * 1 1* Kvk M f • / \j 1 On \
4.70
11.50
20.69
7.98
4.64
11.50
23.96
11.50
4.58
11.50
25.47
13.26
4.53
11.50
28.75
16.79
4.47
11.50
30.25
18.55
11 70
0.041
0.66
0.84
2.09
0.060
0.65
0.85
2.31
0.069
0.63
0.84
2.41
0.087
0.62
0.85
2.63
0.09
0.61
0.84
2.74
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-18 (Continued)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 23,969 25,826 26,683 28,540 29,397
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 12,528 14,528 15,528 17,528 18,528
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 11.441 11,298 11,155 11.012 10,869
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal 9.26 9.97 10.31 11.02 11.35
(x 1014).
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 4.84 5.61 6.00 6.77 7.16
Plants with Scrubbers (x 1014)
£ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 4.42 4.36 4.31 4.25 4.20
(L, Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
Tons of Western Coal (x 106) 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 33.53 36.80 38.31 41.58 43.09
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with 22.07 25.60 27.36 30.88 " 32.65
Scrubbers (x 10^)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without 11.45 11.20 10.95 10.70 10.44
Scrubbers (x 10°)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.115 0.133 0.142 0.160 0.170
with Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.54
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 2.96 3.18 3.28 3.51 3.61
(Continued)
U)
ro
-------
Table II-C-A-18 (Continued)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total- MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 31,254 33,111 33,968 35,825 37,682
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 20,528 21,528 22,528 24,528 26,528
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 10,726 10,583 • 10,440 10,297 10,154
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal 12.07 12.40 12.73 13.45 14.17
(x lO*4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 7.93 8.32 8.70 9.47 10.25
Plants with Scrubbers (x TOl4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 4.14 4.09 4.03 3.98 3.92
Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
Tons of Western Coal (x 106) 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 46.36 47.88 49.38 52.66 55.93
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with 36.17 37.93 39.70 43.22 46.74
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without 10.19 9.94 9.69 9.44 9.19
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.188 0.197 0.206 0.225 0.243
with Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.48
without Scrubbers (x 10^) .
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.86 '0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 3.83 3.93 4.04 4.25 4.48
-------
Table II-C-A-19
ILLINOIS FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR (1975-2000)
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 10,186 10,586 11,314 11,314 11,764 11,764
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity -- 40 186 186 366 366
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 10,186 10,546 11,128 11,128 11,398 11,398
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal 3.93 4.09 4.37 4.37 4.54 4.54
(x 10*4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for .-- 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.14-
Plants with Scrubbers (x 10'4) a
4.07 4.30 4.30 4.40 4.40
-. BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
7 Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
O f
, Tons of Western Coal (x 106) 7.90 8.21 8.77 8.77 9.12 9.12
£ Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 11.97 12.44 13.29 13.29 13.82 13.82
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with -- 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.64 0.64
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without 11.97 12.37 12.96 12.96 13.17 13.17
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Coal (x I06)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants — 364 1,706 1,706 3,355 3,355
with Scrubbers
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.69
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.80
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 1.28 1.33 1.42 1.42 1.48 1.48
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-19 (Continued)
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity H.764 11,764 11,937 11,937 11,937 12,194
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 366 366 504 504 504 904
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 11,398 11,398 11,433 11,433 11,433 11,290
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal 4.54 4.54 4.61 4.61 4.61
14
(x
_ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
7 Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
O . H.
4.71
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35
Plants with Scrubbers (x 10'4)
4.40 4.40 4.42 4.42 4.42 4.36
Tons of Western Coal (x 10°) 9.12 9.12 9.26 9.26 9.26 9.26
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106) 13.82 13.82 14.02 14.02 14.02 14.48
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with 0.64 0.64 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.59
Scrubbers (x
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without 13.17 13.17 13.13 13.13 13.13 12.88
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 3,355 3,355 4,620 4,620 4,620 8,281
with Scrubbers
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.67
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.79
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 1.48 1.48 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.53
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-19 (Continued)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x 1014)
_ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
7 Plants without Scrubbers (x 1014)
to
Tons of Western Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Illinois Coal (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned with
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of Illinois Coal Burned without
Scrubbers (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Western
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants
with Scrubbers
Tons of S02 Produced from Plants
without Scrubbers (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1987
12,071
924
11,147
4.66
0.36
4.31
9.26
14.26
1.63
12.63
0.11
8,473
0.66
0.78
1.52
1988
12,478
1,474
11,004
4.82
0.57
4.25
9.26
14.97
2.60
12.38
0.11
13,514
0.64
0.77
1.56
1989
12,335
1 ,474
10,861
4.77
0.57
4.20
9.26
14.73
2.60
12.13
0.11
13,514
0.63
0.76
1.55
1990
12,342
1,624
10,718
4.77
0.63
4.14
9.26
14.73
2.86
11.87
0.11
14,904
0.62
0.74
1.55
1991
12,799
2,224
10,575
4.94
0.86
4.08
9.26
15.54-
3.92
11.62
0.11
20,377
0.60
0.74
1.60.
1992
12,656
2,224
10,432
4.89
0.86
4.03
9.26
15.29
3.92
11.37
0.11
20,377
0.59
0.72
1.59
1993
13,68
3,39'
10,28'
5.28
1.31
3.97
9.26
17.10
5.98
11.12
0.11
31 ,09
0.58
0.72
1.71
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-19 (Continued)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
with Scrubbers
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
without Scrubbers
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal
(x lO*4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
Plants with Scrubbers (x 10'4)
~ BTU Input to be Supplied by Coal for
-------
Table II-C-A-20
INDIANA BOM 80-20 & 50-50 (1975-1985)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
10,587
11,714
12,246
12,914
14,374
14,374
15,354
15,886
15,886
16,236
16,986
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
4.09
4.52
4.73
4.99
5.55
5.55
5.93
6.14
6.14
6.28
6.56
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal
(x 106)
23.29
25.77
26.94
28.41
31.62
31.62
33.77
34.94
34.94
35.75
37.36
Tons of S02
Produced from
Northwestern
Coal
(x 106)
0.40
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.54
0.54
0.57
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.64
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
1.56
1.73
1.80
1.90
2.12
2.12
2.26
2.34
2.34
2.40
2.50
II-C-A-38
-------
Table II-C-A-21
INDIANA BOM 50-50 (1986-2000)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using:
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by: (x 10
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
^ Ohio Coal
~ Indiana Coal
o Illinois #6 Coal
J Tons of: (x 106)
v Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of SO? Produced from: (x 10 )
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
14,
1986
18,822
17,822
-
-
-
1,000
6.88
_
-
_
0.39
39.20
_
_
1.76
0.67
-
-
0.01
0.68
2.80
1987
19,658
17,658
-
-
1,000
1,000
6.82
-
-
0.39
0.39
38.84
-
_
1.82
1.76
0.66
-
-
0.01
0.01
0.68
2.77
1988
20,494
17,494
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
6.76
_
0.39
0.39
0.39
38.48
-
1.16
1.82
1.76
0.65
- •
0.01
0.01
.0.01
0.68
3.10
1989
21,330
18,330
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
7.08
_
0.39
0.39
0.39
40.32
-
1.16
1.82
1.76
0.69
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.72
3.22
1990
22,166
19,166
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
7.40
_
0.39
0.39
0.39
42.16
-
1.16
1.82
1.76
0.72
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.75
3.35
1991
23,002
19,002
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
7,34
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
41 .80
1.60
1.16
1.82
1.76
0.71
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.77
3.5Q,
1992
24,838
19,838
1,000
1,000
2,000
1,000
7.66
0.39
0.39
0.77
0.39
43.64
1.60
1.16
3.64
1.76
0.74
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.81
3.79
1993
25,674
20,674
1,000
1,000
2,000
1,000
7.99
0.39
0.39
0.77
0.39
45.47
1.60
1.T6
3.64
1.76
0.77
0.03
0.01
0.02
O.<01
0.84
3.91
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-21 (Continued)
o
-e»
o
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using:
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by: (x 1014)
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of: (x 106)
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of S02 Produced from: (x 10 )
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Total Tons of SOg Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1994
26,510
20,510
. 1,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
7.92
0.39
0.39
1.16
0.39
45.11
1.60
1.16
5.47
1.76
0.77
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.85
4.05
1995
27,346
21,346
1,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
8.24
0.39
0.39
1.16
0.39
46.95
1.60
1.16
5.47
1.76
0.80
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.88
4.17
1996
28,182
21,182
1,000
1,000
3,000
2,000
8.18
0.39
0.39
1.16
0.78
46.59
1.60
1.16
5.47
3.52
0.79
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.88
4.27
1997
29,018
21,018
1,000
1,000
4,000
2,000
8.12
0.39
0.39
1.55
0.78
46.23
1.60
1.16
7.29
3.52
0.79
0.03
0.01
•0.04
0.02
0.89
4.41
1998
30,854
20,854
1,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
8.05
0.39
0.39
1.55
1.16
45.87
1.60
1.16
7.29
5.29
0.78
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.89
4.50
1999
32,690
21,690
1 ,000
1,000
4,000
4,000
8.38
0.39
0.39
1.55
1.55
47.71
1.60
1.16
7.29
7.05
0.81
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.93
4.74,
2000
32,526
21,526
1,000
1,000
4,000
4,000
8.31
0.39
0.39
1.55
1.55
47.35'
1.60
1.16
7.29
7.05
0.80
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.92
4.72
-------
Table II-C-A-22
INDIANA BOM 80-20 (1986-2000)
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
?
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using:
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by: (x 1014)
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of: (x 106)
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of S02 Produced from: (x 10 )
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Total Tons of 502 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
18,822
17,822
1,000
6.89
0.39
39.20
1.82
0.67
0.01
0.68
2.79
20,658
19,658
1,000
7.60
0.39
43.24
1.82
0.74
0.01
0.75
3.06
22,494
19,494
3,000
7.53
1.16
42.88
5.47
0.73
0.03
0.76
3.36
24,330
19,330
5,000
7.47
1.93
42.52
9.11
0.72
•0.05
0.77
3.66
26,166
19,166 .
1,000
6,000
7.40
0.39
2.32
42.16
1.60
10.93
0.72
0.03
0.06
0.81
3.98
27,002
19,002
1 ,000
7,000
7.34
0.39
2. 70
41.80
1.60
12.75
0.71
0.03
0.07
0.81
4.11,
28,838
19,838
2,000
7,000
7.66
0.77
2.70
43.64
3.19
12.75
.0.74
0.06
0.07
0.87
4.42
(Continued)
30,67'
19,67'
2,00(
1 ,00(
8,00(
7.60
0.77
0.39
3.09
43.27
3.19
1.64
14.58
0.74
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.90
4.79
-------
Table II-C-A-22 (Continued)
o
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using:
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by: (x 1014)
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
i Tons of: (x 10°)
^ Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Tons of SOo Produced from: (x 10 )
Northwestern Coal
Applachian Low Sulfur Coal
Ohio Coal
Indiana Coal
Illinois #6 Coal
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1994
32,510
19,510
2,000
1,000
10,000
-
7.54
0.77
0.39
3.86
-
42.91
3.19
1.64
18.22
-
0.73
0.06
0.01
0.11
-
0.91
5.09
1995
34,346
19,346
2,000
1,000
11,000
1 ,000
7.47
0.77
0.39
4.25
0.39
42.55
3.19
1.64
20.04
1.76
0.72
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.92
5.35
1996
36,182
19,182
2,000
1,000
11,000
3,000
7.41
0.77
0.39
4.25
1.16
42.19
3.19
1.64
20.04
5.29
0.72
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.03
0.94
5.57
1997
37,018
20,018
2,000
1,000
11,000
3,000
7.73
0.77
0.39
4.25
1.16
44.03
3.19
1.64
20.04
5.29
0.75
0.06
0.01
•0.12
0.03
0.97
5.69
1998
38,854
20,854
2,000
1,000
11,000
4,000
8.05
0.77
0.39
4.25
1.55
45.87
3.19
1.64
20.04
7.05
0.78
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.04
1.01
5.93
1999
40,690
21 ,690
3,000
1,000
11,000
4,000
8.38
1.16
0.39
4.25
1.55
47.71
4.79
1.64
20.04
7.05
0.81
0.09
0.01
0.12
0.04
1.07
6.24,
2000
42,526
21,526
3,000
1,000
12,000
4,000
8.31
1.16
0.39
4.63
1.55
47.35
4.79
1.64
21.86
7.05
0.80
0.09
0.01
0.13
0.04
1.07
6.37
-------
Table II-C-A-23
INDIANA FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR (1975-1994)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
10,587
11,714
12,246
12,246
12,246
12,246
12,914
12,914
12,914
13,179
13,706
14,210
14,046
14,372
14,708
15,076
14,912
15,092
15,548
15,484
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 101*)
4.08
4.52
4.73
4.73
4.73
4.73
4.98
4.98
4.98
5.09
5.29
5.48
5.42
5.55
5.68
5.82
5.75
5.83
6.00
5.98
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal
(x 106)
23.28
25.76
26.93
26.93
26.93
26.93
28.40
28.40
28.40
28.98
30.14
31.25
30.89
31.61
32.35
33.16
32.80
33.20
34.19
34.05
Tons of S02
Produced from
Northwestern
Coal c
(x 106)
.39
.43
.45
.45
.45
.45
.48
.48
.48
.49
.51
.53
.52
.53
.54
.56 .
.55
.56
.58
.57
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
1.56
1.72
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.94
2.01
2.09
2.07
2.11
2.16
2.22
2.19
2.22
2.29
2.28
II-C-A-43
-------
Table II-C-A-24
INDIANA FTP 100% COAL (1995-2000)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 15,920 16,356 16,792 17,228 17,064 18,100
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 15,320 15,156 15,592 15,428 15,264 15,700
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using — 600 600 600 " 600 60'0
Indiana Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 600 600 600 1,200 1,200 . 1,200
Illinois #6 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North- .59 .58 .60 .59 .58 .58"
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Indiana — .23 .23 .23 .23 .23
Coal (x lOl*)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois .23 .23 .23 .46 .46 .46
#6 Coal (x
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 106) 33.69 33.33 34.29 33.93 33.57 33.21
Tons of Indiana Coal (x 106) — 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Tons of Illinois #6 Coal (x 106) 1.06 1.06 1.06 2.12 2.12 2.12
Tons of S02 Produced from Northwestern .57 .56 .58 .57 .57 .56
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Indiana — .006 .006 .006 .006 .006
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Illinois .005 .005 .005 .010 .010 .010
#6 Coal fx 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) .578 .579 .594 .594 .588 .582
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 2.32 2.40 2.50 2.51 2.49 2.46
-------
Table II-C-A-25
INDIANA FTP 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
15,320
15,156
14,992
14,828
14,664
15,100
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
5.91
5.85
5.79
5.72
5.66
5.60
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal c
(x 106)
33.69
33.33
32.97
32.61
32.25
31.89
Tons of S02
Produced from
Northwestern
Coal g.
Ox 106)
.57
.56
.56
.55
.54
.54
Tons of
Ash
Produced
Ox 106)
2.25
2.73
2.20
2.18
2.16
2.13
II-C-A-45
-------
Table II-C-A-26
KENTUCKY BOM 80-20 & 50-50 (1975-1984)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
11,111
11,411
12,336
12,336
12,972
13,472
15,006
15,006
15,435
18,031
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
4.29
4.41
4.76
4.76
5.01
5.20
5.80
5.80
5.96
6.96
Tons of
Elkhorn
#3 Coal
(x 106)
15.11
15.52
16.78
16.78
17.64
18.32
20.41
20.41
20.99
24.52
Tons of S02
Produced
from Elkhorn
#3 Coal
(x 106)
0.272
0.279
0.302
0.302
0.318
0.330
0.367
0.367
0.378
0.441
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
0.589
0.605
0.654
0.654
0.688
0.715
0.796
0.796
0.820
0.956
II-C-A-46
-------
Table II-C-A-27
KENTUCKY BOM 50-50 (1985-2000)
1985
1986
1987 1988
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 18,570
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using ,„ „„
Elkhorn #3 Coal . Ia>:>/u
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Illinois #9 Coal
£ BTU Input to be Supplied by Elkhorn
^ #3 Coal (x 1014) 7.17
i, BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois
>• #9 Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Elkhorn #3 Coal (x 10 ) 25.26
Tons of Illinois #9 Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Elkhorn #3 - .....
Coal (x 106) °-455
Tons of SO? Produced from Illinois #9
Coal (x TO6)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 10 ) 0.455
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 0.985
20,408
18,408
2,000
7.11
0.77
25.04
2.98
0.451
0.019
0.469
1.290
21 ,24i
18,24i
3,00!
7.05
1.16
24.82
4.48
0.44
0.02!
0.47!
1.431
1989
1990 1991
1992
21,246 22,084 22,922 23,760 24,598 25,436
18,246 18,084 17,922 17,760 17,598 17,436
3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
6.98
1.55
6.92
1.93
6.86
2.32
6.80
2.70
6.73
3.09
24.82 24.60 24.37 24.15 23.93 23.71
5.97 7.46 8.95 10.45 11.94
0.447 0.443 0.439 0.435 0.431 0.427
0.038 0.047 0.056 0.066 0.075
0.480 0.486 0.491 0.497 0.502
1.438 1.586 1.734 * 1.882 2.030 2.178
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-27 (Continued)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 26,274 28,112 28,950 29,788 30,626 31,464 32,302 33,140
Us1n§ 17>274 17>112 16>950 16>788 16>626 16>464 17«302 17'140
USl"9 9.000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 16,000
~ BTU Input to be Supplied by Elkhorn
o #3 Coal (x 101*) 6.67 6.61 6.55 6.48 6.42 6.36 6.68 6.62
3> ' ' ' •
i. BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois
00 #9 Coal (x 1014) 3.48 4.25 4.64 5.02 5.41 5.79 5.79 6.18
Tons of Elkhorn #3 Coal (x 106) 23.49 23.27 23.05 22,83 22.61 22.39 23.53 23.31
Tons of Illinois #9 Coal (x 106) 13.43 16.42 17.91 19.40 20.89 22.39 22.39 23.88
Tons of SO? Produced from Elkhorn #3
Coal (x 106) 0.423 0.419 0.415 0.411 0.407 0.403 0.424 0.420
Tons of SOp Produced from Illinois #9
Coal (x ID6) 0.085 0.103 0.113 0.122 0.132 0.141 0.141 0.150
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.508 0.522 0.528 0.533 0.539 0.544 0.565 0.570
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) 2.327 2.631 2.780 2.928 3.076 "3.2-24 3.268 3.416
-------
Table II-C-A-28
KENTUCKY BOM 80-20 (1985-2000)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
»— 1
t— t
1
0
1
1
ID
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Elkhorn #3 Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Illinois #9 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by Elkhorn
#3 Coal (x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois
#9 Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Elkhorn #3 Coal (x 106)
Tons of Illinois #9 Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Elkhorn #3
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Illinois #9
Coal (x TO6)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 10 )
19,570
18,570
1,000
7.17
0.39
25.26
1.49
0.455
0.009
0.464
1.14
20
18
2
7
0
25
2
0
0
0
1
,408
,408
,000
.11
.77
.04
.98
.451
.019
.469
.29
22
19
3
7
1
26
.4
0
0
0
1
,246
,246
,000
.43
.16
.18
.48
.471
.028
.499
.49
24,084
20,084
4,000
7.76
1.55
27.32
5.97 .
0.492
0.038
0.529
1.69
25,922
20,922
5,000
8.08
1.93
28.46
7.46
0.512
0.047
0.559
1.89
27,760
21,760
6,000
8.40
2.32
29.59
8.95
0.533
0.056
0.589
2.09
30,598
21,598
9,000
8.34
3.48
29.37
13.43
0.529
0.085
0.613
2.56
32,436
21,436
11,000
8.28
4.25
29.15
16.42
0.525
0.103
0.628
2.86
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-28 (Continued)
»— 1
t—l
1
0
3>
in
o
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Elkhorn #3 Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Illinois #9 Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by Elkhorn
#3 Coal (x 1014)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois
#9 Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Elkhorn #3 Coal (x 106)
Tons of Illinois #9 Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Elkhorn #3
Coal (x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Illinois #9
Coal (x TO6)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 10 )
1993
35,274
22,274
13,000
8.60
5.02
30.29
19.40
0.545
0.122
0.668
3.22
1994
36,112
22,112
14,000
8.54
5.41
30.07
20.89
0.541
0.132
0.673
3.37
1995
37,950
22,950
15,000
8.86
5.79
31.21
22.39
0.562
0.141
0.703
3.57
1996
38,788
22,788
16,000
8.80
6.18
30.99
23.88
0.558
0.150
0.708
3.72
1997
40,
23,
17,
9.
6.
32.
25.
0.
0.
0.
3.
626
626
000
13
57
13
37
578
160
738
92
1998
43,464
23,464
20,000
9.06
7.73
31 .91
29.85
0.574
0.188
0.762
'4.38
1999
45
24
21
9
8
33
31
0
0
0
4
,302
,302
,000
.39
.11
.05
.34
.595
.197
.792
.58
2000
47,140
24,140
23,000
9.32
8.88
32.83
34.33
0.591
0.216
0.807
4.88
-------
Table II-C-A-29
KENTUCKY FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR (1975-1994)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
11,111
11,411
12,336
12,336
12,477
12,477
12,347
12,842
12,771
12,703
12,592
12,930
13,268
13,106
14,108
14,446
14,284
15,622
16,624
17,112
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x lOl*)
4.29
4.41
4.76
4.76
4.82
4.82
4.77
4.96
4.93
4.91
4.86
4.99
5.12
5.06
5.45
5.58
5.52
6.03
6.42
6.61
Tons of
Elkhorn
#3 Coal
(x 106)
15.11
15.52
16.78
16.78
16.97
16.97
16.79
17.47
17.37
17.28
17.13
17.59
18.04
17.82
19.19
19.65
19.43
21.25
22.61
23.27
Tons of S02
Produced
from Elkhorn
#3 Coal
(x 105)
.27
.28
.30
.30
.31
.31
.30
.31
.31
.31
.31
.32
.32
.32
.35
.35
.35
.38
.41
.42
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
.59
.61
.65
.65
.66
.66
.65
.68
.68
.67
.67
.69
.70
.70
.75
.77
.76
.83
.88
.91
II-C-A-51
-------
Table II-C-A-30
KENTUCKY FTP 100% COAL (1995-2000)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 17,550 17,988 17,826 18,264 19,302 19,140
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 16,950 16,788 16,62.6 16,464 16,302 16,140
Elkhorn #3 Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 600 1,200 1,200 1,800 3,000 3,000
Illinois #9 Coal
~ BTU Input to be Supplied by Elkhorn 0.655 0.648 0.642 0.636 0.630 0.623
o #3 Coal (x "1C4
BTU Input to be Supplied by Illinois 0.231 0.463 0.463 0.695 1.159 1.159
#9 Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Elkhorn #3 Coal (x 106) 23.06 22.82 22.61 22.39 22.18 21.94
Tons of Illinois #9 Coal (x 106) 0.89 1.79 1.79 2.69 4.48 4.48
Tons of S02 Produced from Elkhorn #3 .41 41 41 40 40 40
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SOo Produced from Illinois #9 .01 .01 .01 .02 .03 .03
Coal (x I06)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) -42 .42 .42 .42 .43 .43
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106) -99 1.08 1.07 1.15 1.33 1.33
-------
Table II-C-A-31
KENTUCKY FTP 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
16,950
16,788
16,626
16,464
16,302
16,140
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x io"*)
6.55
6.48
6.42
6.36
6.30
6.23
Tons of
Elkhorn
#3 Coal
(x 106)
23.05
22.83
22.61
22.39
22.17
21.95
Tons of S02
Produced
from El khorn
#3 Coal
(x 106)
.41
.41
.41
.40
.40
.40
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
.90
.89
.88
.87
.86
.86
II-C-A-53
-------
Table II-C-A-32
OHIO BOM 50-50 & 80-20 (1975-1985)
BTU Input
Year
1975
11976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
20,713
21,088
21,703
22,635
22,635
22,571
23,607
23,607
24,643
25,258
25,258
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
8.000
8.145
8.383
8.743
8.743
8.718
9.118
9.118
9.518
9.755
9.755
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal .
(x 106)
45.56
46.38
47.74
49.79
49.79
49.65
51.93
51.93
54.20
55.56
55.56
Tons of S02
Produced from
Northwestern.
Coal (x 106)
.775
.789
.812
.846
.846
.844
.883
.883
.921
.944
.944
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
3.053
3.108
3.198
3.336
3.336
3.326
3.479
3.479
3.632
3.722
3.722
II-C-A-54
-------
Table II-C-A-33
OHIO BOM 80-20 (1986-2000)
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
en
en
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ,,
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Northwestern
Coal (x I06)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of S02 Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
29,031
25,031
31,804
24,804
34,577
24,577
37,350
24,350
40,123
25,123
4,000
0.97
1.54
6,000
2.32
0.39
7,000
2.70
1.16
8,000
3.09
1.93
8,000
1,000
0.96
3,000
0.95
5,000
0.94
7,000
0.97
3.09
2.70
55.06
6.55
—
.94
.04
—
.98 .
4.65
54.56
9.82
1.60
.93
.06
.03
1.01
5.28
54.06
11.46
4.79
.92
.07
.09
1.08
5.84
53.56
13.09
7.98
.91
.08
.15
1.14
6.41
55.26
13.09
11.17
.94
.08
.21
1.23
6.88
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-33 (Continued)
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ,.
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x. 10 )
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons .of SO? Produced from Northwestern
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of S02 Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1Q6)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x
1991
43,896
25,896
10,000
8,000
1.00
3.86
3.09
56.96
16.37
12.77
.97
.10
.24
1.31
7.65
1992
46,669
25,669
12,000
9,000
0.99
4.63
3.48
56.46
19.64
14.36
.96
.12
.27
1.35
8.28
1993
49,442
25,442
14,000
10,000
0.98
5.41
3.86
55.96
22.91
15.96
.95
.14
.30
1.39
8.91
1994
52,215
26,215
16,000
10,000
1.01
6.18
3.86
57.66
26.19
15.96
98
.16
.30
1.44
9.50
1995
54,988
27,988
17,000
10,000
1.08
6.57
3.86
61.56
27.82
15.96
1.04
.17
.30
1.51
10.00
-------
Table II-C-A-33 (Continued)
o
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ,.
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Northwestern
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of S02 Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 10&)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1996
57,761
28,761
18,000
11,000
1.11
6.95
4.25
63.26
29.46
17.56
1.08
.18
.33
1.59
10.54
1997
60,534
29,534
18,000
12,000
1.14
6.95
4.63
64.96
29.46
19.15
1.10
.18
.36
1.64
10.83
1998
63,307
29,307
19,000
14,000
1.13
7.34
5.40
64.46
31.10
22.34
1.10
.19
.42
1.71
11.40
1999
67,080
30 ,080
21,000
15,000
1.16
8.11
5.79
66.16
34.37
23.94
1.12
.21
.45.
1.78
12.17
2000
69,853
29,853
24,000
15, OOP
1.15
9.27
5.79
65.66
39.28
23.94
1.12
.24
.45
1.81
12.86
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-34
OHIO BOM 50-50 (1986-2000)
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
o
tJI
oo
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ,.
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 106)
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Northwestern
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of SO? Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
27,031
26,031
1,000
--
1.01
0.39
--
57.26
1.64
--
.97
.01
—
.98
4.08
28,804
25,804
3,000
--
1.00
1.16
- --
56.76
4.91
--
.96
.03
—
1.00
4.52
30,577
26,577
4,000
--
1.03
1.54
'
58,46
6.55
--
.99
.04
--
1.03
4.88
32,350
26,350
4,000
2,000
1.02
1.54
0.77
57.96
6.55
3.19
.99
.04
.06
1.08
5.20
34,123
26,123
5,000
3,000
1.01
1.93
1.16
57.46
8.18
4.91
.98
.05
.09
1.12
5.59
(Continued)
-------
Table II-C-A-34 (Continued)
o
I
3=
cn
vo
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1Q15)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ,.
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons of SOo Produced from Northwestern
Coal .(x I06)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & 6
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of SO? Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x "c%
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
1991
35,896
25,896
6,000
4,000
1.00
2.32
1.54
56.96
9.82.
6.38
.97
.06
.12
1.15
5.97
1992
37,669
26,669
7,000
4,000
1.03
2.70
1.54
58,66
11.46
6.38
1.00
.07
.12
1.19
6.33
1993
39,442
26,442
8,000
5,000
1.02
3.09
1.93
58.16
13.09
7.98
.99
.08
.15
1.22
6.72
1994
41,215
26,215
8,000
7,000
1.01.
3,09
2.70
57.66
13.09
11.17
.98
.08
.21
1.27
7.04
(Continued)
1995
42,988
25,988
10,000
7,000
1.00
3.86
2.70
57.16
16.37
11.17
.97
.10
.21
1.28
7.49
-------
Table II-C-A-34 (Continued)
o
>
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North-
western Coal (x 1015)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & ..
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 10 )
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
(x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Northwestern
Coal (x 106)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of S02 Produced from Appalachian
Low Sulfur Coal (x
1996
44,761
25,761
12,000
7,000
1.00
4.63
2.70
56.66
19.64
11.17
.96
1997
46,534
26,534
12,000
7,000
1.02
4.63
2.70
58.36
19.64
11.17
.99
1998
48,307.
26,307
13,000
8,000
1.02
5.02
3.09
57.86
21.28
12.77
.98
1999
50,080
26,080
15,000
8,000
1.01
5.79
3.09
57.36
24.55
12.77
.98
2000
51,853
26,853
15,000
9,000
1.04*
5.79
3.48
59.07
24.55
14.36
•1.00
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106)
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 106)
.12
.21
1.29
7.93
.12
.21
1.32
8.05
.13
.24
1.35
8.43
.15
.24
1.36
8.88
.15
.27
1.42
9.18
-------
Table II-C-A-35
OHIO FTP 100% COAL & 100% NUCLEAR (1975-1994)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
20,713
21 ,088
21,703
21 ,703
21 ,703
22,196
22,196
22,196
22,571
22,571
22,571
22,344
22,778
22,926
22,699
22,472
23,281
23,669
23,442
23,215
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
8.000
8.145
8.383
8.383
8.383
8.573
8.573
8.573
8.718
8.718
8.718
8.630
8.798
8.855
8.767
8.680
8.992
9.142
9.054
8.967
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal g.
(x 106)
45.56
46.38
47.74
47.74
47.74
48.82
48.82
48.82
49.65
49.65
49.65
49.15
50.10
50.43
49.93
49.43
51.21
52.06
51.56
51.06
Tons of S02
Produced. from
Northwestern
Coal f.
(x 106)
.775
.789
.812
.812
.812
.830
.830
.830
.844
.844
.844
.836
.852
.857
.849
.840
.871
.885
.877
.868
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
3.053
3.108
3.198
3.198
3.198
3.271
3.271
3.271
3.326
3.326
3?326
3.293
3.357
3.379
3.345
3.312
3.431
3.488
3.455
3.421
H-C-A-61
-------
Table II-C-A-36
•OHIO FTP 100% COAL (1995-2000)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity 24,788 25,761 27,334 28,907 32,280 32,653
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 23,588 23,961 23,734 24,107 23,880 24,253
Northwestern Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 600 1,200 1,800 1,800 3,600 3,600
Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur Coal
MW(E) Installed Coal Capacity Using 600 600 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal
BTU Input to be Supplied by North- g.n 9.25 9.17 9.31 9.22 9.37
western Coal (x 10'4)
BTU Input to be Supplied by Ohio & .. 0.23 0.46 0.70 0.70 1.39 1.39
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
i, BTU Input to be Supplied by Appalachian 0.23 0.23 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
^ Low Sulfur Coal (x 1014)
^ Tons of Northwestern Coal (x 105) 51.88 52.70 52.21 53.02 52.53 53.35
Tons of Ohio & Appalachian High Sulfur 0.98 1.96 2.95 2.95 5.89 5.89
Coal (x 106)
Tons of Appalachian Low Sulfur Coal 0.96 0.96 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87
(x 106)
Tons of S02 Produced from Northwestern 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.92
Coal (x I06)
Tons of SO? Produced from Ohio & fi 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.018 0.018
Appalachian High Sulfur Coal (x 10 )
Tons of S02 Produced from Appalachian 0.018 0.018 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
Low Sulfur Coal (x 106)
Total Tons of S02 Produced (x 106) 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.98
Total Tons of Ash Produced (x 10s) 3.78 3.93 4.25 4.31 4.71 4.76
o
-------
Table II-C-A-37
OHIO FTP 100% NUCLEAR (1995-2000)
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total MW(E)
Installed
Coal
Capacity
22,988
22,761
22,534
23,507
23,280
23,053
BTU Input
to be
Supplied
by Coal
(x 1014)
8.87
8.79
8.70
8.61
8.52
8.44
Tons of
Northwestern
Coal '
(x 106)
50.56
50.06
49.56
49.06
48.56
48.06
Tons of S02
Produced from
Northwestern
Coal g.
(x 106)
.85
.85
.84
.83
.82
.81
Tons of
Ash
Produced
(x 106)
3.38
3.35
3.32
3.28
3.25
3.22
II-C-A-63
-------
Table II-C-A-38
BOM 80-20—ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000)
Illinois
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
S 1980
& 1981
i, 1982
i 1983
*• 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
1 ,865
1,865
1 ,865
2,943a
4,021a
4,021
4,971b
4,971
4,971
5,92lb
5,921
6,921
6,921
7,921
7,921
8,921
8,921
8,921
9,921
9,921
10,921
10,921
10,921
11,921
11,921
11,921
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.466
0.563
0.363
0.649
0.449
0.449
0.735
0.535
0.825
0.625
0.915
0.715
1.006
0.806
0.806
1.096
0.896
1.186
0.986
0.986
1.276
1.076
1.076
Indiana
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,130C
2,260C
2,260
3,260
3,260
4,260
4,260
5,260
5,260
6,260
6,260
7,260
7,260
8,260
8,260
8,260
9,260
9,260
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.302
0.404
0.204
0.494
0.294
0.585
0.385
0.675
0.475
0.765
0.565
0.856
0.656
0.946
0.746
0.746
1.036
0.836
Kentucky
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
1 ,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o .
0.290
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.381
0.181
0.181
0.181
0.181
0.471
0.271
0.271
0.271
0.271
Ohio
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
878d
878
878
878
878
878
878
1,878
2,878
3,878
4,878
4,878
5,878
6,878
7,878
8,878
8,878
9,878
10,878
11,878
1 1 ,878
12,878
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.279
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.370
0.460
0.550
0.640
0.440
0.731
0.821
0.911
1.002
0.802
1.092
1.186
1.273
1.073
1.363
a!078 MW(E) addition CJ130 MW(E) addition
b 950 MW(E) addition d 878 MW(E) addition
-------
Table II-C-A-39
BOM 50-50--ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000)
Ohio
Illinois
Year
1975
lQ7fi
1977
lQ7ft
1979
~ i960
I IQftl
i. 1982
i, 1983
01 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
nwitj
1,865
1,865
*2,943a
2,943
4,02la
4,021
4,971b
4,971
4,971
5,921b
5,921
7,921
8,921
9,921
10,921
11,921
12,921
13,921
14,921
15,921
16,921
17,921
18,921
19,921
20,921
20,921
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 10°)
0.168
0.168
0.466
0.266
0.563
0.363
0.649
0.449
0.449
0.735
0.535
1.115
1.006
1.096
1.186
1.276
1.368
1.457
1.547
1.638
1.728
1.818
1.909
1.999
2.089
1.889
India
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capaci ty
MVI(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,130
2,260°
2,260
4,260
5,260
6,260
7,260
8,260
9,260
11,260
12,260
13,260
14,260
15,260
16,260
17,260
19,260
19,260
ma
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
.0
0.0
0.0
.0
.0
0.0
0.0
0.302
0.404
0.204
0.785
0.675
0.765
0.856
0.946
1.036
1.417
1.307
1.397
1.488
1.578
1.668
1.759
2.139
1.739
Tntal
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.381
0.471
0.561
0.652
0.742
0.832
0.922
1.013
1.393
1 .284
1.374
1.464
1.555
1.645
1.735
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0 H
878d
878
878
878
878
878
878
2,878
4,878
6,878
8,878
10,878
12,878
14,878
16,878
18,878
20,878
22,878
24,878
26,878
28,878
30,878
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.660
0.840
1.021
1.202
1.382
1 .563
1.743
1.924
2.105
2.285
2.466
2.646
2.827
3.008
3.188
*Should come on line in 1978
-------
Table II-C-A-40
FTP 100% COAL--ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Illinois
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865.
2,943a
2,943
4,021?
4,971b
4,971
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.466
0.266
0.563
0.649
0.449
0.735
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
Indiana
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacl ty
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 „
1,1 30C
1,130
1,130
1,130
2,260C
2,260
2,260
2,260
2,260
2,260
2,260
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.302
0.102
0.102
0.102
0.404
0.204
0.204
0.204
0.204
0.204
0.204
Kentucky
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
Cx 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ohio
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capaci ty
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
-------
Table II-C-A-41
FTP 100% NUCLEAR—ORBES-NUCLEAR CAPACITY (1975-2000)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
~ 1980
o 1981
i. 1982
& 1983
" 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
nii
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
1 1 »! \ W g
1 ,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1,865
1 » WWW
2,943a
2,943
4,021a
* K
4 971
~ 5 ^ / 1
4,971
* • u
5 921 D
W J 3 k 1
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
5,921
nois
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
0,466
0.266
0.563
0.649
0.449
0.735
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
0.535
Indiana
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,130C
1,130
1,130
1,130
2,260C
3,260
3,260
4,26.0
4,260
4,260
4,260
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 10°)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o •
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.302
0.102
0.102
0.102
0.404
0.294
0.294
0.585
0.385
0.385
0.385
Kentucky
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
3,000
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
Of\
.0
Of\
.0
Of\
.0
OlY
.0
Of\
.0
0/\
.0
Of\
.0
Of\
.0
0/\
.0
Of\
.0
Of\
.0
Of*
.0
Of\
.0
Of\ •
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Of\
.0
0.0
0.290
0.090
0.381
0.181
0.181
0.471
Ohio
Total
Installed
Nuclear
Capacity
MW(E)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
878
1,878
3,878
4,878
5,878
6,878
8,878
Tons
Uranium
Ore Mined
(x 106)
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.170
0.750
0.640
0.531
0.821
1.202
-------
II-C-A-68
-------
APPENDIX C
BASELINE FUTURES
In order to meaningfully assess particular impacts associated with
RTCs during the period 1976^2000, it is necessary to have some descrip-
tion or characterization of the future environment in which the impacts
are expected to occur. For example, to the extent that air pollution ef-
fects are cumulative, the assessment of 1990 conversion facility impacts
requires the use of 1990 ambient emission levels as a base. Ambient le-
vels in 1976 produce an inappropriate base. Development of useful base-
line futures is therefore a significant element of the ORBES Phase I ef-
fort.
A regional study ideally would employ scenarios disaggregated at
the regional and subregional levels; but such scenarios do not exist for
the ORBES region. The BOM and Tech Fix scenarios provide baseline futures
at a national level only, which in raw form are not suitable for use in
regional or subregional impact assessment. Three possible solutions to
this deficiency are summarized below.
1. Apply a fixed historical share disaggregation
of national baseline futures to the ORBES re-
gion. This approach assumes that there are no
regional divergences from national trends and
characterizes future ORBES/US development in
static historical terms.
2. Redevelop ORBES scenarios so as to provide na-
tional projections as aggregations of indepen-
dent regional projections. This is a methodo-
logically superior approach but poses serious
technical difficulties and constitutes a re-
search effort greater than that involved in
the construction of the original BOM and Tech
Fix national scenarios.
3. Develop independent regional and subregional
projections consistent or reconcilable with
existing BOM and Tech Fix national scenarios
and projections.
The third approach has been selected for the ORBES project as a productive
compromise between the other two. Independent regional and subregional
projections to the year 2000 have been developed by the U.S. Department
of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the U.S. Water
Resources Council. These 1972 OBERS Projections of Economic Activity in
II-C-A-69
-------
the U.S. provide information by Economic Area (BEA), Water Resources Re-
gion and Subarea, State, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
and non-SMSA portions of the BEAs, both historical and projected, for the
period 1929-2020 (1,*2).
Although the OBERS Projections are not based on any explicit energy
assumptions, they are fully consistent with the BOM scenario in three es-
sential areas.
1. Both are "Business as Usual" projections.
2. Both assume 3.35% annual growth in Gross National
Product (GNP).
i
3. Both adopt Census 1972-E Population Projections.
These business as usual baseline futures are appropriate to the ORBES
project because departures from such baselines can be used to assess impacts
of alternative RTCs and policy options. Assessments based on departures
from a baseline tend to be more reliable than those based on the estima-
tion of absolute magnitudes.
Moreover, the Tech Fix scenario also adopts Census 1972-E Popula-
tion Projections and assumes a 1975-1985 GNP growth rate of 3.5% and a
1985-2000 GNP growth rate of 3.19%. These are not materially different
from the 3.35% rate upon which the OBERS Projections are based. The
OBERS baseline futures, therefore, may be considered valid under both
scenarios for the ORBES project.
The following tables provide summary data derived from the OBERS
1972 projections (1). Although the data are not tailored specifically
to ORBES requirements, they are nonetheless useful in their present form
and are the "best" data of their type available. Since no regional pro-
jections exist for the ORBES region as defined in this study, it has been
necessary to aggregate projections for Bureau of Economic Analysis eco-
nomic areas (BEAs). Each BEA consists of several counties forming a quasi-
autonomous economic region. The primary criterion applied in defining a
BEA was that commuting to employment across BEA boundaries be minimized.
Thus there is usually a single large commercial center in each BEA, with
a ring of counties surrounding it and exchanging goods and services almost
exclusively with it. Sometimes there is an additional ring of counties
beyond the first ring which engage in economic exchange with the inner
counties. Defined in this manner, the BEAs are useful for socioeconomic
impact assessment, but BEA boundaries do not generally coincide with ORBES
regional boundaries. Since comparable projections are not available at
the county level of disaggregation, this difficulty suggests that ORBES
boundaries be reexamined with a view toward making them more consistent
with BEA boundaries.
II-C-A-70
-------
Figure II-C-A-1 is a map of the ORBES region with the relevant
BEAs identified by number. Tables II-C-A-67 and II-C-A-68 present summary
data for each of these BEAs for the years 1970, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 2000.
Simple calculations were performed to illustrate how the output mix and
prosperity of each BEA are projected to change over time. Also, data are
provided to illustrate the projected divergences between each BEA and the
U.S., and between ORBES and the U.S. In order to temporarily overcome
the problem of different BEA and ORBES boundaries, two sets of ORBES re-
gional projections are provided in Tables II-C-A-67 and II-C-A-68. In
Table II-C-A-67, only those BEAs totally within the ORBES boundaries are
aggregated. In Table II-C-A-68, BEAs totally and partially within the
ORBES boundaries are aggregated. Although a complete resolution of the
boundary problem is not at hand, some further improvement is possible.
This may involve, for example, separating out the Chicago and St. Louis
SMSA portions of the relevant BEAs. Another alternative is to consider
entire states in the ORBES region, since OBERS data is available by state.
Calculations for the BEA summary tables were performed as follows:
BEA Agricultural Share _ BEA Agricultural Earnings
of Total Earnings ~ BEA Total Earnings
Share of U.S. Agriculture = BEA Agricultural Earnings
U.S. Agricultural Earnings
For ORBES summary tables, calculations were performed as follows:
ORBES Per Capita Income = £ (BEA Per Capita Income X BEA Population)
(BEA Population)
ORBES Earnings/Worker = z (BEA Earnings/Worker X BEA Employment)
(BEA Employment)
ORBES Agriculture = (BEA Agricultural Earnings)
ORBES Share E (BEA Agricultural Earnings)
U.S. Agriculture U.S. Agricultural Earnings
Agriculture Share Z (BEA Agricultural Earnings)
of ORBES Total (BEA Total Earnings)
II-C-A-71
-------
It should be noted that some anomalies in the raw OBERS data have
been observed and are currently being investigated.
Users of the OBERS baseline projections should be aware that most
of the earnings categories are disaggregated into specific subcategories
in the published data for BEAs. those projections for coal mining, rail-
road transportation, and public utilities may be of particular interest
in impact assessments.
Allocation of projected conversion facility siting to the various
BEAs by year and type ,of facility would be necessary if the OBERS projec-
tions are utilized in Phase II of ORBES.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Commerce. OBERS'1972-E Projections of Economic
Activity in the U.S.. 1929-2020, Washington, D.C.: April, 1974.
2. "Tracking the BEA State Economic Projections." Survey of Current
Business 4 (April 1976): 22-29.
II-C-A-72
-------
Figure II-C-A-1
BEAs IN ORBES REGION
BEAs TOTALLY WITHIN ORBES
053 Lexington, Kentucky
054 Louisville, Kentucky
055 Evansvllle, Indiana
056 Terre Haute, Indiana
057 Springfield, Illinois
058 Champaign, Illinois
059 Lafayette, Indiana
060 Indianapolis, Indiana
061 Anderson, Indiana
062 Cincinnati, Ohio
063 Dayton, Ohio
064 Columbus, Ohio
BEAs PARTIALLY WITHIN ORBES
052 Huntington, West Virginia-
Ashland, Kentucky
066 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
067 Youngstown-Warren, Ohio
068 Cleveland, Ohio
069 Lima, Ohio
075 Fort Wayne, Indiana
076 South Bend, Indiana
077 Chicago, Illinois
079 Davenport, Iowa-Rock'
Island & Moline, Illinois
113 Quincy, Illinois
114 St. Louis, Missouri-
minois
115 Paducah, Kentucky
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, OBERS 1972-E Projections, 1974.
II-C-A-73
-------
Table II-C-A-42
MUMMY DATA fO» IRA HCCtON 052, Hunt Inntoa. Went Vlr.lnl.-
raoM it72-i oras nojKTtoM) A*kl«U.
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BIA SHAM U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PBl CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARHIHC8/VOBJCER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
1,311,848
0.006*
388.222
0.30
2.526
0.73
6.570
0.93
1980
1.324,300
0.0059
427,200
0.32
3,400
0.73
8.100
0.93
1985
1.300.400
0.005S
426,400
0.33
4,000
0.74
9.100
0.94
1990
1.276,900
0.0052
432.300
0.33
4,600
0.75
10.300
0.94
:ooo
1.207.600
0.0046
418.700
0.36
6,300
0.78
13,200
0.94
IV THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL BAniNCS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGUCDLTOBAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE Or TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MAHUrACTURIMC EARNINGS
SHARE Or TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE or TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OP TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
njUHCE. INSURANCE. REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE. ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SNARE Or TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA ••*•• 0 s (VW7RMn]|T
2.550.562
0.0050
19.578
0.01
0.0010
340.77.8
0.13
0.0603
201.550
0.08
0.0058
597,386
0.23
0.0038
257.023
0.10
0.0064
382,999
0.15
0.0041
75,515
0.02
0.0026
n •> «i
0.12
n.rnm
363,211
0.14
0.0037
3,468,800
0.0041
18,100
0.01
0.0009
419,800
0.12
0.0646
261,500
0.08
0.0050
802,800
0.23
0.0037
329,000
0.09
0.0056
501.000
0.14
0.0037
121,800
0.04
0.0025
snn onn
0.15
a.OOli
505,500
0.15
0.0034
3,914,100
0.0039
18.100
0.003
0.0008.
453,000
0.12
0.0657
289,200
0.07
0.0048
892,800
0.23
0.0035
363,300
0.09
0.0033
553,500
0.14
0.0036
143,900
0.04
0.0024
«na inn
0.16
0.0032
589.400
0.15
0.0033
4,416,600
0.0038
18.100
0.004
0.0008
488.800
0.11
0.0668
319,800
0.07
0.0043
992.900
0.22
0.0034
401 , 300
0.09
0.0049
611.600
0.13
0.0034
170.000
0.04
0.0023
T>(. f,nn
0.16
0.0031
687,300
0.16
0.0032
5.737,000
0.0033
19,400
0.003
0.0008
577.800
0.10
0.0688
397.300
0.07
0.0041
1.257,100
0.22
0.0032
502.400
0.09
0.0044
771.900
0.13
0.0032
237.800
0.04
0.0022
i nn inn
0.18
0.0029
935,600
0.16
0.0030
II-C-A-74
-------
Table H-C-A-43
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION OH. I.PKli.i't.m, Kentucky
(ADAFTF.D FROM 1972-K OBERS 1'ROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
1970
755,037
0.0017
257,695
0.34
. 2.421
0.70
5,706
mo
BftS.i'OO
0.0019
327,400
0.38
3,300
0.71
7,100
1985
917,900
0.0039
350,500
0.38
3,900
0.72
8,100
1990
970, ',00
0.0039
375,300
0.39
4 , 500
0.74
9,200
2000
1,0)0,800
0.0019
420,200
0.41
6,200
0.77
12,000
BEA RELATIVE (U.S.-LOO) j 0.80 | 0..82_. [ 0.83 | 0.84
0.85
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ARC1C.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARP. U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHAKE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL F.ARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADF.
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
F.ARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SF.RVIRKS EARNINGS
SIIARF. OF TOTAL KAHNINCS
BKA SHARK U.S. SF.KV1CF.S
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OK TOTAL KAHNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
1,470,338
0.0026
150,568
0.1024
0.0077
56,392
0.0389
0.0100
97,311
0.0662
0.0028
331,048
0.2252
0.0021
83,853
0.0570
0.0021.
207,403
0.14H
0.0022
47.117
0.032
0.0016
196,827
0.1319
0.002J
(99,696
0.20)8
o.omo
2,345,200
0.0028
161,000
0.0687
0.0076
70,800
0.0302
0.0109
162,000
0.0691
0.0031
593,600
0.2531
0.0027
130,000
0.0554
0.0022
318,000
0.1356
0.0024
87,700
0.0174
0.0018
154,000
0.1509
0.0024
'.67,500
0.1993
0.0012
2,859,200
0.0029
163,900
0.0573
0.0074
80,900
0.0283
0.0117
194,300
0.0680
0.0032
735,800
0.2571
0.0029
158,400
0.0554 .
0.0023 .
380,600
0.1131
0.0025
111,900
0.0121
0.0019
'.54,900
0.1305
0.0024
ri74,2(IU
0.1647
0.0012
3,485,900
0.0010
166,800
0.0478
0.0072
92,600
0.0266
0.0127
233,000
0.066S
0.0013
912,100
0.2617
0.0011
192,600
0.0553
0.0024
455,600
0.1307
0.0025
142,900
O.O'.IO
0.0020
584,600
0. 1677
0.0025
705,300
0.2023
0.00 VI
5,050,800
0.0030
182,400
0.0361
0.0071
117,300
0.0212
0.0140
325,100
0.0644
0.0033
1,317,500
0.2608
0.0034
278,600
0.0552
0.0025
644,000
0.1275
0.0026
221,300
0.0418
0.0021
923,700
0.1829
0.0026
1 ,040,700
0 . 2060
0.0011
II-C-A-75
-------
•Table II-C-A-44
SlMIAItY DATA FOR BEA REGION OV>, l...ul»vllU'. Ki-ntm-ky
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. '1.00)
1970
1,223,040
0.0060
475.575
0.39
3,270
0.94
6,886
0.97
1980
1,391,900
0.0062
604,000
0.43
4,500
0.95
8,400
0.97
1985
1,501,100
0.0064
654,600
0.44
5,200
0.96
9,500
0.97
1990
1. 618.800
0.0066
709 , 500
0.44
5,900
0.96
10,700
0.97
2000
1,802,600
0.0068
816,700
0.45
7,800
0.97
13,700
0.98
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ARC 1C.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. HG .
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALED RETAIL TRADK EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EAKNIilCS
»EA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
3., 274, 802
0.0058
98,115
0.03
0.0050
8,320
0.003
0.0015
200,901
0.06
0.0058
1,092,340
0.33
0.0070
227,468
0.07
0.0057
502,258
0.15
0.0054
142,965
0.04
0.0050
395,261
0.12
0.0046
607,167
0.19
0.0061
5,113,700
0.0061
112,900
0.02
0.0053
10,300
0.002
0.0016
325,100
0.06
0.0063
1,696,900
0.33
0.0077
337,000
0.07
0.0057
775,600
0.15
0.0058
262,900
0.05
0.0054
744,700
0.15
0.0050
848,000
0.16
0.0058
6,252,700
0.0063
117,700
0.02
0.0053
11 , 300
0.002 .
0.0016
392,700
0.06
0.0065
2,054,100
0.33
0.0081
401,700
0.06
0.0058
926,300
0.15
0.0060
332,200
0.05
0.0056
966,200
0.15
0.0051
1,046,000
0.17
0.0059
7,645,200
0.0065
122,700
0.02
0.0053
12,400
0.002
0.0017
474,300
0.06
0.0066
2,486,500
0.33
0.0085
479,000
0.06
0.0059
1,106,400
0.14
0.0062
419,700
0.05
0.0058
1,253,500
0.16
0.0053
1 ,290,300
0.17
0.0060
11,200.300
0.0068
138,300
0.01
0.0053
15,000
0.001
0.0018
674,500
0.06
0.0069
3,541,400
0.32
0.0091
677,600
0.06
0.0060
1,568,200
0.14
0.0064
642,400
0.06
0.0060
2,025,400
0.18
0.0056
1.917,300
0.17
0.0061
II-C-A-76
-------
Table II-C-A-45
SUMMARY DATA FOR BEA REGION 055, F.v.inavllle, Ind Un.i
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS'PRUj'ECr'lUNS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPU1.ATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S.- I. 00)
1970
772,738
0.0038
281,111
0.36
2,836
0.82
6,214
0.88
1980
868. '100
0.0039
353,200
0.41
3,900
0.83
7,700
0.89
1985
901,300
0.0038
370,000
0.41
4,500
0.84
8.700
0.89
1990
935,500
0.0038
387,600
0.41
5,200
0.85
9,900
0.90
2000
977,200
0.0037
422,600
0.43
7,100
0.87
12,700
0.91
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ARC 1C.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATF.
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. FINANCE, 1C 1C.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BF.A SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARP, yg, CQ.VERNMtNT
1,746,881
0.0031
88,779
0.05
0.0045
126,365
0.07
0.0224
114,257
0.07
0.0033
530.837
0.30
0.0034
111,105
0.06
0.0028
268,804
0.15
0.0029
50,810
0.03
0.0018
219,138
0.13
0.0026
236,787
0. 14
0.0024
2,729,600
0.0033
141,500
0.05
0.0067
150,700
0.06
0.0232
187,500
0.07
0.0036
834,400
0.31
0.0038
163,400
0.06
0.0028
394,600
0.14
0.0029
90,900
0.03
0.0019
398,900
0.15
0.0027
367, 100
0.13
0.0021
3,240,600
0.0033
146,700
0.05
0.0066
164,800
0.05
0.0239
219,000
0.07
0.0036
990,500
0.31
0.0039
192,800
0.06
0.0028
458,700
0.14
0.0030
113,300
0.03
O.G019
501,700
0.15
0.0027
4'<9,500
O.I'.
0.0025
3,847,200
0.0033
152,100
0.04
0.0066
180,300
0.05
0.0246
255,800
0.07
0.0036
1,175,700
0.31
0 . 0040
227,400
0.06
0.0028
533,200
0.14
0.0030
141,300
O.O'i
0.0020
630,900
0.16
0.0027
*>'>(), 100
0.14
0.0025
5,386,800
0.0033
. 170,200
0.03
0.0066
216,900
0.04
0.0258
345,300
0.06
0.0035
1,624,900
0.30
0.0042
315,600
0.06
0.0028
725^00
0.13
0.0030
212,600
0.04
0.0020
971,400
0.18
0.0027
80'. , 200
0.15
0.0026
II-C-A-77
-------
Table II-C-A-46
SUMMARY DATA FOR MA REGION p5<>, _Terry Haute. Indiana
(ADAPTED r»OM 1972-E OBF.RS~PROJRCTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPU1.ATION
BEA SHAKE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO «
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BKA REI.ATIVE (U.S. -1. 00)
1970
253,349
0.0012
94,585
0.37
2.917
0.84
5,837
0.83
1980
264,500
0.0012
108,200
0.41
4,000
0.85
7,300
0.84
1 1985
270,500
0.0012
112,100
0.41
4,600
0.86
8,300
0.85
1990
276,500
0.0011
116,100
0.42
5,400
0.88
9,500
0.86
2000
285,500
0.0011
125,900
0.44
7,300
0.90
12,200
0.87
IN THOUSANDS OF 19IS7 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AKGIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
. BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUN I CATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIKS EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TKANS. , ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, RF.AI. ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARK OF TOTAL KARNINNS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
»EA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
556,778
OiOOlO
38,156
0.07
0.0019
19,311
0.03
0.0034
56,198
0.10
0.0016
142.008
0.26
0.0009
45,806
0.08
0.0011
99,922
0.18
o.ooii
15,983
0.01
O.OOOh
60,995
0.11
0.0007
77,799
0.14
0.0008
797,200
0.0010
58,100
0.07
0.0027
20,300
0.03
0.0031
55,100
0.07
0.0011
217,500
0.27
0.0010
59,100
0.07
0.0010
137,900
0.17
0.0010
26,400
0.03
0.0005
105,900
0.13
0.0007
1 16,500
0.15
0.0008
938,300
0.0009
61,000
0.07
0.0028
21,100
0.02
0.0031
63,700
0.07
0.0010
260,000
0.28
0.0010
68,900
0.07
0.0010
155,500
0.17
0.0010
32,600
0.03
0.0006
132,500
0. 14
0.0007
141,400
0.15
0.0008
1,104,200
0.0009
64,000
0.06
0.0028
21,800
0.02
0.0030
73,700
0.07
0.0010
310.800
0.28
0.0011
80,400
0.07
0.0010
175,500
0.16
0.0010
40,300
0.04
0.000*.
165,700
0.15
0.0007
171.500
0.16
0.0008
1,545,200
0.0009
72,800
0.05
0.0028
24,600
0.02
0.0029
99.200
0.06
0.0010
438,100
0.28
O.OOH
111,506
0.07
0.0010
231,200
0.15
0.0009
60,600
0.04
0.0006
256,200
0.17
0.0007
250,700
0.16
0.0008
II-C-A-78
-------
TablelI-C-A-47
SUMMAKY DATA FOR BEA KKUION 057, Si»rli»-.l'i»ltl.
'
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS')
INDICATOR
POPUIATION
BEA SHAKE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT / POPU LAT ION
.RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (l9f.7S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S.- 1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. =1.00)
1970
492,008
0.0024
197,639
0.40
3,59$
1.03
6,860
0.97
1980
557,500
0.0025
250,400
0.45
5,000
1.06
8,600
0.99
1985
593,800
0.0025
268,400
0.45
5,700
1.06
9,700
0.99
1990
632,400
0.0026
287,700
0.46
6,500
1.06
10,900
0,99
2000
692,300
0.0026
324,600
0.47
8,600
1.06
13,900
0.99
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACKIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTKUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC .
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARF. U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FlilANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EAKNIW.S
SHARE OF TOTAL KAIlNIHCS
BEA SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OK TOTAL KAKNIMCS.
BEARSHARE U^St _CaVERIlMENI_
1.355,723
0.0024
93,395
0.07
0.0048
13,258
0.01
0.0023
92,068
0.07
0.0027
348,635
0.26
0.0022
114,862
0.08
0.0029
202.697
0.15
0.0022
65,909
0.05
0.0023
176,895
0.13
0.0021
248,006
Q.1H
0.0025
2.157.400
0.0026
146,300
0.07
0.0069
13,700
0.01
0.0021
141,600
0.07
0.0027
550.100
0.25
0.0025
163,800
0.08
0.0028
305,600
0.14
0.0021
114,800
0.05
0.002'.
325,700
-OJ5
0.0022
395,300
Q.1H
0.0027
2.606,300
0.0026
1 54 , 200
0.06
0.0070
14,300
0.01
0.0021
168.600
0.06
0.0028
668,500
0.26
0.0026
192,600
0.07
0.0028
361,400
0.14
0.0023
143,000
0.05
0.0024
416,100
0,16
0.0022
484,500
0.19
0.0074
'1.140,600
0.0027
162,600
0.05
0.0083
14,900
0.005
0.0020
200,700
0.06
0.0028
812,400
0.26
0.0028
226,500
0.07
0.0028
427,400
0.14
0.0024
178,100
0.06
0.0025
512 ,000
0.17
0.002 1
591,600
0.19
0.0027
4,515,800
0.0027
185,500
0.04
0.0072
16,900
0.004
0.0020
278,100
0.06
0.0028
1,145,800
0.25
0.0029
313,900
0.07
0.0028
595,000
0.13
0.0024
265,800
0.06
0.0025
8)5,600
0.19
0.0023
878,900
0.2
0.0028
II-C-A-79
-------
Table II-C-A-48
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION 058, Ch,-i«pnlnn-Urli;ina, llllnoU
(ADAPTED FKOM 1972-K OiERS'PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHAKE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -I. 00)
1970
391.202
0.0019
159.585
0.41
3.171
0.91
6,075
0.86
1980
414,800
0.0019
183,100
0.44
4,300
0.92
7,700
0.89
1985
429,000
0.0018
190,100
0.44
5,000
0.92
8,700
0.90
1990
443,600
0.0018
197,400
0.45
5.700
0.93
9,900
0.90
2000
463,900
0.0018
214,000
0.46
7,600
0.94
12,700
0.91
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE' U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., F.TC.
WHOLESALED RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES KAKNi:ir;S
SHARK OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
969,432
0.0017
77,217
0.08
0.0039
4,292
0.004
0.0008
59,549
0.06
0.0017
216,836
0.22
0.0014
59,866
0.06
0.0015
142,226
0.15
0.0015
23,101
0.02
0.0008
114,748
0.12
0.0013
271,594
0.28
0.0027
1,419,900
0.0017
103,000
0.07
0.0048
4,100
0.003
0.0006
92,100
0.07
0.0018
308,700
0.22
0.0014
79,400
0.06
0.0014
195,600
0.14
0.0015
39.200
0.03
0.0008
197.100
0.14
0.00ft
400,200
0.28
0.0027
1,670,900
0.0017
108,100
0.07
0.0049
4,400
0.003
0.0006
106,900
0.06
0.0018
356,600
0.21
0.0014
91,900
0.06
0.0013
225.700
0.14
0.0015
48,600
0.03
0.0008
246,400
0.15
0.0013
480.300
0.29
0.0027
1,966,200
0.0017
113,400
0.06
0.0049
4,600
0.002
0.0006
124,100
0.06
0.0017
412,000
0.21
0.0014
106.400
0.05
0.0013
260.500
0.13
0.0015
60,300
0.03
0.0008
308,100
0.16
0.0013
576,400
0.29
0.0027
2,736,800
0.0017
128.600
0.05
0.0050
5 , 300
0.002
0.0006
167,100
0.06
0.0017
546,100
0.20
0.0014
145.500
0.05
0.0013
352,900
0.13
0.0014
91.000
0.03
0.0009
474,000
0.17
0.0013
826.000
0.30
0.0026
II-C-A-80
-------
Table II-C-A-49
SUMMARY DATA FOR BKA KKC10N 059, Lafayuttu. Indiana
(ADAPTED FROH 1972-E OBERS :
INDICATOR
POPULATION
• BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/ POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967 S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
251,500
0.0012
101,218
0.40
3.113
0.90
5,990
0.84
1980
260,800
0.0012
115,000
0.44
4.400
0.93
7,700
0.89 •
1985
267,700
0.0011
118,500
0.44
5,000
0.93
8.700
0.90
1990
274,800
0.0011
122,100
0.44
5,700
0.94
9,900
0.90
2000
286,400
0.0011
131,800
0.46
7,700
0.95
12,700
0.91
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. KG.
TRANSPORTATION, COHMI'NICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCEi REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL F-AKMTNGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. KlNANCIi. ETC.
SERVICES KAMI INGS
SHARE OK TOTAL KAKMN'tt
BEA SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKII 1 N'.S
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
606.295
0.0011 :
60,737
0.10
0.0031
1,993
0.003
0.0004
32,493
0.05
0.0009
193,506
0.32
0.0012
32,892
0.05
0.0008
85,467
0.14
0.0009
25,015
0.04
O.OOf'"
68, 2:'
0.11
0.0'.
10V-"
0.18
0.0011
891.800
0.0011
85,600
0.10
0.0040
3.100
0.003
0.0005
44,700
0.05 .
0.0009
284,800
0.32
0.0013
42,500
0.05
0.0007
117,400
0.13
0.0009
42,000
0.05
0.0009
114,500
0.13
0.0008
156,700
0.18
0.0011
1.041.400
0,0010
89,300
0.09
0.0040
3,800
0.004
0.0006
52,500
0.05
0.0009
334,000
0.32
0.0013
48,800
0.05
0.0007
134,800
0.13
0.0009
50,900
0.05
0.0009
142,400
0.14
0.0008
183,600
0.18
0.0010
1.216.200
0.0010
93,100
0.08
0.0040
4,600
0.004
0.0006
61,600
0.05
0.0009
391,600
0.32
0.0013
56,100
0.05
0.0007
154,600
0.13
0.0009
61,700
0.05
0.0009
177,200
0.15
0.0008
215,200
0.18
0.0010
1.686.100
6.0010
104,600
0.06 .
0.0040
6,300
0.004
0.0007
84,400
0.05
0.0009
538.000
0.32
0.0014
76,400
0.05
0.0007
209.500
0.12
0.0009
89,900
0.05
0.0008
272,300
0.61
0.0008
304 , 500
0.18
0.0010
II-C-A-81
-------
Table II-C-A-50
IUWARY DATA FOR »F.A HECTON 060, Indian,ipol In. Indtnnn
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBEKS PROJECTfoNS) .
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
1,617,677
0.0079
650,352
0.40
3,499
1.01
7.272
1.03
1980
1.828,400
0.0082
829,300
0.45
4,800
1.01
8,800
1.02
1985
1,944,400
0.0083
883,400
0.45
5,500
1.02
10,000
1.02
1990
2,067,800
0.0084
941,000
0.46
6,200
1.02
11.200
1.02
2000
2,266,800
0.0086
1,060,400
0.47
8,200
1.01
14 , 200
1.02
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 S
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACR1C.
MINING EARNINGS .
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARF. U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION , COMMUN [CATIONS ,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATF.
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
. BEA SHARK U.S. FINANCE, lire.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KARNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL liAKNINCS
REA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
4,729,091
0.0084
108,877
0.02
0.0055
13,702
0.003
0.0024
281,602
0.06
0.0082
1,711,936
0.36
0.0110
327,666
0.07
0.0082
783,693
0.17
0.0084
262,226
0.06
0.0091
542.184
0.12
O.OOW
697,202
0.15
0.0070
7,375,100
0.0088
141,000
0.02
0.0066
15,100
0.002
0.0023
440,900
0.06
0.0085
2,613,800
0.35
0.0119
495,400
0.07
0.0084
1,145,600
0.16
0.0086
416,700
0.06
0.0086
997.600
0.14
0.0066
1,108,700
0. 15
0.0075
^,840,300
0.0089
146,200
0.02
0.0066
15.300
0.002
0.0022
523,500
0.06
0.0086
3,075,500
0.35
0.0122
586,500
0.07
0.0085
1,339,300
0.15
0.0086
509,300
0.06
0.0086
1.272.400
0.14
0.0068
1,366,200
0.15
0.0077
10,596,500
0.0090
151,500
0.01
0.0066
15.600
0.001
0.0021
621,700
0.06
0.0087
3.618,600
0.34
0.0124
694,300
0.07
0.0085
1,565,800
0.15
0.0087
622,400
0.06
0.0086
1.622.800
0.15
0.0069
1,683,500
0.16
0.0078
15,134,700
0.0091
169,300
0.01
0.0065
17,100
0.001
0.0020
865,900
0.06
0.0089
4,963,300
0.33
0.0128
973,600
0.06
0.0086
2,156,200
0.14
0.0089
919.200
0.06
0.0086
2.570,800
0.17
0.0071
2,498,900
0.16
0.0080
II-C-A-82
-------
Table II-C-A-51
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A HKCION 061, AnderHon. Indiana
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBKRS~i>ROJKCTIUNS)
INDICATOR
POPUUTION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/ POPULAT I ON
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S.-l.OO)
1970
553.238
0.0027
214.567
0.39
3,181
0.92
6,826
0.96
1980
599,600
0.0027
260,600
0.43
4,400
0.92
8,300
0.96
1985
610,500
0.0026
265,800
0.44
5,000
0.93
9.400
0.96
1990
621,600
0.0025
271,200
0.44
5,700
0.93
10,600
0.97
2000
641,600
0.0024
289,900
.0.45
7,600
0.94
13,600
0.97
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. COHSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS.. ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE. INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. KLNAMJK. ETC.
SERVICES EARNINCiS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAkNINCS
BEA SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SIIAKK OF TOTAL KAi-.NIMCS
BEA SHARE US. COVKk'iMKNT
1,464,628
0.0026
49,098
0.03
6.0025
2,319
0.002
0.0004
57,380
0.04
O.U017
782,632
0.53
. 0.0050
62,052
0.04
0,0016
180.534.
0.12
0.0019
37,492
0.03
0.0013
146,258
0.10
0.0017
146,617
0.10
0.0015
2,188,400
0.0026
55,500
0.02
0.0026
2,100
0.001
0.0003
89,400
0.04
0.0017
1,132,700
0.52
0.0052
89,600
0.04
0.0015
261,700
0.12
0.0020
64,700
0.03
0.0013
259,000
0.12
0.0017
2)j,400
0.11
0.0016
2j518,800
0.0025
58,100
0.02
0.0026
2,200
0.001
0.0003
103,500
0.04
0.0017
1,274,100
0.51
0.0050
104,100
0.04
0.0015
297,100
0,12
0.0019
78,600
0.03
0.0013
317,900
0.13
0.0017
2BI .000
0.11
0.0016
2,899.000
0.0025
60,900
0.02
0.0026
2,300
0.001 . .
0.0003
119,800
0.04
0.0017
1,433,200
0.49
0.0049
121,000
0.04
0.0015
337,400
0.12
0.0019
95,500
0.03
0.0013
390.300
0.13
0.0017
338,300
0.12
0.0016
3,947,400
0.0024
68.700
0.02
0.0027
2,600
0.001
0.0003
163,600
0.04
0.0017
1.866,200
0.47
0.0048
.167,300
0.04
O.OOIS
452,200
0.11
0.0019
141,200
0.04
0.0013
591,700
0.15
0.0016
493,6'-0
0.12
0.0016
II-C-A-83
-------
Table II-C-Ar52
SUWIAKY DATA FOR BRA REGION 062. Cincinnati. Ohio
(ADAPTED WON 1972-K OBERS'YKOJECTIUNS)
INDICATOR
POPUIATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PKR CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINCS/.VORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
1,894,760
0.0093
711,198
0.38
3,464
1.00
7,255
1.02
1980
2,066,000
0.0092
869,500
0.42
4,800
1.01
8,800
1.02
1985
2,154,500
0.0092
912,400
0.42
5,400
1.01
9,900
1.02
1990
2,246,700
0.0091
957,300
0.43
6,200
1.01
11,200
1.02
2000
2,384,000
0.0090
1,055,400
0.44
8,200
1.01
14 , 200
1.01
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TKANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANT, RKAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OK TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCK, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNIWi.S
BEA SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OF TOTAL EAI'.NI.'iCK
BEA SHARE U.S. CuVERHMKNT
5,159,898
0.0092
91,681
0.02
0.0047
7,925
0.002'
0.0014
330,712
0.06
0.0096
1,950,757
0.38
0.0125
387,145
0.07
0.0097
850,050
0.16
0.0091
234,588
0.05
0.0081
702,436
0.14
0.0083
604 , 602
0.12
0.0061
7,717,200
0.0092
96,200
0.01
0.0045
8,200
0.001
0.0013
486,100
0.06
0.0094
2,679,300
0.35
0.0122
572,300
0.07
0.0098
1,230,000
0.16
0.0092
412,300
0.05
0.0085
1,272,900
0.16
0.0085
959,400
0.12
0.0065
9,111,900
0.0092
99,000
0.01
0.0045
8,500
0.001
0.0012
567,200
0.06
0.0093
3,072,000
0.34
0.0121
674,300
0.07
0.0098
1,414,900
0.15
0.0091
502,200
0.05
O.OOB5
1,589,300
0.17
0.0085
1.177,700
0.1J
0.0066
10,758,700
0.0091
101,800
0.01
0.0044
8,900
0.001
0.0012
661,700
0.06
0.0093
3,522,300
0.33
0.0121
794,400
0.07
0.0098
1,627,600
0.15
0.0091
611,800
0.06
0.0085
1,984,200
0.18
0.0085
1,445,500
0.13
0.0067
15,034,200
0.0091
112.800
.0.01
0.0044
9,900
0.001
0.0012
898,600
0.06
0.0092
4,650,800
0.31
0.0120
1,105,300
0.07
0.0098
2,190,600
0.15
0.0090
891,100
0.06
0.0083
3,033,800
0.20
0.0084
2,140,900
0.14
0.0068
II-C-A-84
-------
Table II-C-A-53
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION 063_, Dayton, Ohio
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E UBKkS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS /WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. =1.00)
1970
1,163,751
0.0057
463,730
0.40
3,608
1.04
7,694
1.09
1980
1,272,800
0.0057
563,700
0.44
4,900
1.04
9,300
1.07
1985
1,335,600
0.0057
592,500
0.44
5,600
1.04
10,500
1.07
1990
1,401,500
0.0057
622,700
0.44
6,300
1.04
11,700
1.07
2000
1.507,600
0.0057
690,900
0.46
8,400
1.03
14,800
1.06
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, 'INSURANCE, RKAI. ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL F.ARNTNCS
BEA SHARK U.S. FINANCE, F.TC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNINKS
BEA SHARK U.S. SEKVICF.S
GOVERNMENT
SHARK OK TOTAL KAKNIWiS
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
3,567,889
0.0063
74,641
0.02
0.0038
5,404
0.002
0.0010
172,908
0.05
0.0050
1,469,285
0.41
0.0094
154,543
0.04
0.0039
468, 890
0.13
0.0050
98,754
0.03
0.0034
419,394
0.12
0.0049
704,073
0.20
0.0071
5,277.900
0.0063
77.600
0.01
0.0036
6,200
0.001
0.0010
. 258.700
0.05
0.0050
2,004,300
0.38
0.0091
245,400
0.05
0.0042
694,900
0.13
0.0052
182,700
0.03
0.0038
781,400
0.15
0.0052
1,026.300
0.19
0.0070
6,224,800-
0.0063
80,900
0.01
0.0037
6,600
0.001
0.0010
304,700
0.05
0.0050
2,294,300
0.37
0.0091
293,200
0.05
0.0042
805,400
0.13
0.0052
225,600
0.04
0.0038
979,700
0.16
0.0052
1,210,000
0.20
0.0069
7,341,600
0.0062
84,400
0.01
0.0037
6,900
0.001
0.0009
358,900
0.05
0.0050
2,626,200
0.36
0.0090
350,300
0.05
0.0043
933,500
0.13
0.0052
278,700
0.0'.
0.0039
1,228,200
0.17
0.0052
1,474,200
0.20
0.0068
10,277,300
0.0062
95,100
0.01
0.0037
7,900
0.001
0.0009
497,300
0.05
0.0051
3, 176,900
0.34
0.0090
498,800
0.05
0.0044
1,277,600
0.12
0.0052
419,900
0.04
0.0039
1.M7.700
0.18
0.0053
7,105,700
0.20
0.0067
II-C-A-85
-------
Table II-C-A-54
SUtWAKY DATA FOR BEA KKCIOM 064, CnlumhiKi. Ohio
(ADAPTED KROM 1972-K OBERS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/ POPU LATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (19675)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA REI.ATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
1,768,726
0.0087
674,169
0.38
3,130
0.90
6,773
0.96
1980
2.054,300
0.0091!
875,100
0.43
4,300
0.91
8,300
0.96
1985
2,189,600
0.0093
938^500
0.43
4,900
0.92
9,400
0.96
1990
2,333,800
0.0095
1,006,400
0.43
5,600
0.92
10,600
0.96
2000
2.554,300
0.0097
1.143,900
0.45
7,600
0.93
13,500
0.96
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMl'HICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARP. U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, RKAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KARIIIIIi;S
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES KAKN1NGS
SHARK OF TOTAL F.AKNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. SKHVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. GOVERNMENT
4,566,352
0.0081
80,018
0.02
0.0041
47,353
0.01
0.0084
314,597
0.07
0.0091
1,441 ,669
0.32
0.0092
320,728
0.07
0.0080
738,079
0.16
0.0079
238.281
0.05
0.0083
615,277
0.13
0.0072
770,347
0.17
0.0078
7,302,800
0.0087
85,500
0.01
0.0040
58,000
0.01
0.0089
486,100
0.07
0.0094
2,158,200
0.30
0.0098
497,900
0.07
0.0085
1,148,900
0.16
0.0086
426,400
0.06
0.0088
1,213,000
0.17
0.0081
1,228,400
0.17
O.OOH4
8,839,700
0.0089
87,900
0.01
0.0040
62,400
0.01
0.0090
580,000
0.07
0.0095
2,548,300
0.29
0.0101
594,600
0.07
0.0086 .
1,355,900
0.15
0.0088
529,600
0.06
0.0089
1,51>3,400
0.18
0.0083
1,521,300
0.17
0.0085
10,700,000
0.0091
90,400
0.01
0.0039
67,100
0.01
0.0092
691,900
0.07
0.0097
3,008,800
0.28
0.0103
710,000
0.07
0.0087
1,600,100
0.15
O.OOR9
657,900
O.Of,
0.00'Jl
1,989,200
0.19
0.0085
1,884,100
'0. 18
0.0087
15,509,400
0.0094
100,100
0.01
0.0039
78,000
0.005
0.0093
969,400
0.06
0.0099
4 , 158 , 100
0.27
0.0107
1,006,000
0.07
0.0089
2,235,900
0.14
0.0092
990,800
0.06
0.0093
3.155,200
0.20
0.0088
2,815,600
0.18
0.0090
II-C-A-86
-------
Table II-C-A-55
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION 07H , Pcorl.-i, Illinois
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARK U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPUUTION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -I. 00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
629.902
0.0031
251,828
0.40
3,491
1.00
6,979
0.9H
1980
686.000
0.0031
299,800
0.4',
4,900
1.04
9,000
1.04
1985
716,500
0.0031
314,900
0.44
5,600
1.04
10,200
1.04
1990
748,500
0.0030
330,700
0.44
6,400
1.04
11,400
1.04
2000
789 , 700
0.0030
361,200
0.46
8,400
1.04
14,500
1.03
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S.' AGR1C.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION F.ARN1NCS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BF.A SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARK Or TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BE^ SHARE U . S GOVERNMENT
1,757,510
0.0031
96,114
0.05
0.0049
20,820
0.01
0.0037
120,425
0.07
0.0035
624,594
0.35
0.0040
111 ,880
0.06
0.0028
274,409
0.16
0.0029
95,876
0.05
0.0033
208,569
0.12
0.0021
204.823
0.12
0.0021
2,723,600
0.0030
138,800
0.05
0.0065
21,200
0.01
0.0033
194.400
0.07
0.0037
944,100
0.35
0.0043
156,100
0.06
0.0027
397,600
0.15
0.0030
159,900
0.06
0.0031
382,800
0.14
0.0023
328.100
0.12
0.0022
3,214,500
0.0032
143,900
0.04
0.0065
22,400
0.01
0.0032
225,200
0.07
0.0037
1,101,200
0.34
0.0044
181,800
0.06
0.0026
459,000
0.14
0.0010
194,200
0.06
0.0033
480,100
0.15
0.0026
403.100
0.12
0.0023
3,793,800
0.0032
149,200
0.04
0.0065
23,700
0.01
0.0032
261,000
0.07
0.0037
1,284,500
0.34
0.0044
211,700
0.06
0.0026
529,800
0.14
0.0010
215,900
0.06
0.0013
602,600
0.16
0.0026
4'I5.000
0.13
0.0023
5,241,400
0.0032
166,900
0.03
0.0065'
27,400
0.005
0.0013
345,900
0.07
0.0035
1,711,900
0.33
0.0044
289,100
0.05
0.0026
709,500
0.13
0.0029
145,200
0.07
0.0032
919,000
0.17
0.0026
726.100
0.14
0.0023
II-C-A-87
-------
Table II-C-A-56
SUWURY DATA FOR BEA REGION OW>, Pittsburgh. PcnniiYlvanla
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-C OBLKS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
3.738,298
0.0183
1.320,953
0.35
3.321
0.96
7.350
1.04
1980
3.785,800
0.01*9
1.490.200
0.39
4,600
0.98
9,000
1.04
1985
3,804,000
0.0162
1,513,300
0.40
5,300
0.98
10,200
1.04
1990
3,822,400
0.0155
1,536,700
0.40
6,000
0.98
11,400
1.04
2000
3.BJ9.900
0.0145
t, 6:i, 600
0.42
8,100
0.99
14,500
1.03
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 S
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACR1C.
HIKING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTKUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS.
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARK U.S. .FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICE1! EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
IEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
9,709,178
0.0173
66,081
0.01
0.0034
341,471
0.03
0.0605
638,323
0.07
0.0185
3,600,342
0.37
0.0230
765,506
0.08
0.0192
1,461,167
0.15
0.0157
357,297
0.04
0.0124
1,423,214
0.15
0.0167
1.055.773
0.11
0.0106
13,537,000
0.0162
61,000
0.005
0.0029
409,100
0.03
0.0630
922,000
0.07
0.0178
4,537,500
0.33
0.0207
l,04f>,200
0.08
0.0178
2,014,000
0.15
0.0150
591,500
0.04
0.0122
2,400,900
0.18
0.0160
1.5 5'.. 500
0.11
0.0106
15,446,700
0.0156
62,400
0.004
0.0028
438,200
0.03
0.0635
1,035,800
0.07
0.0170
5,020,400
0.32
0.0198
1,185,400
0.08
0.0172
2,246,800
0.14
0.0145
702,400
0.04
0.0119
2,892,600
0.19
0.0154
1.851.300
0.12
0.0104
17,625.800
0.0150
63,800
0.004
0.0028
469.500
0.03
0.0641
1,163.500
0.07
0.0163
5,554,800
0.31
0.0190
1,343,100
0.08
0.0165
2,506,700
0.14
0.0140
834,000
0.05
0.01 15
3,485.100
0.20
0.0149
2.204.800
0.12
0.0102
23.531,300
0.0142
70.300
0.003
0.0027
551,000
0.02
0.0656
1,499,100
0.06
0.0154
7,007,800
0.30
0.0180
1,763,900
0.07
0.0156
3,244,200
0.14
0.0133
1.178,700
0.03
0.0110
5,068,900
0.21
0.0141
J. 147. 100
0.1'J
0.0100
II-C-A-t
-------
Table II-C-A-57
SUMMARY DATA FOR BKA REGION (107- _ iuuncatli
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OHEKS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHAKE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967S)
BKA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -I. 00)
1970
774,010
0.0038
285,727
0.37
3,383
0.97
7,442
1.05
19BO
838,100
0.0037
344,700
0.41
4,600
0.97
9,000
1.04
198S
857,400
0.0037
355,100
0.41
5,200
0.97
10,200
1.04
1990
877,100
0.0036
365,700
0.42
6.000
0.97
11 .400
1.04
2000
894,800
0.0034
389 , 300
0.44
8,000
0.98
14,500
1.03
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGR1C.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORT AT I ON , COMM1W 1 CAT 1 ONS ,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. TKADF.
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICES-
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. COVEKMMJiHT
IN THOUSANDS
2,126,300
0.0038
17,931
0.008
0.0009
7,904
0.004
0.0014
136,246
0.06
0.0040
1 .065.895
0.50
0.0068
129,297
0.06
0.0032
288,586
0.14
0.0031
56,978
0.03
0.0020
254,990
0.12
0.00)0
168,485
0.08
0 . 00 1 7
OF 1967 $
3,128,100
0.0037
17,500
0.006
0.0008
8,300
0.003
0.0013
176,800
0.06
0.0034
1,519,900
0.49
0.0069
190,900
0.06
0.0033
405,800
0.13
0.0030
96,200
0.03
0.0020
450,600
0.14
0.0010
261 ,700
0.08
0.0018
3,622,200
0.0036
18,200
0.005
0.0008
8,200
0.002
0.0112
203,300
0.06
0.0033
1 ,718,000
0.47
0.0068
218,100
0.06
0.0032
462,100
0.13
0.0030
117,400
0.03
0.0020
55'. ,400
0.15
0.0030
319.MJO
0.09
0.0018
4, 194., 400
0.0036
18,900
0.005
0.0008
8,200
0.002
0.0011
233,800
0.06
0.0033
1 ,941 ,800
0.46
O.OO.W
249,100
0.06
0.00'il
526,300
0.12
0.0029
143,300
0.03
0.0020
682,100
0.16
0.0029
'I'M), 400
0.09
0.0018
5,649,200
0.0034
21,200
0.004
0.0008
8,800
0.002
0.0010
308,500
0.05
0.0032
2,491 ,100
0.44
0 . 0064
330,700
0.06
0.0029
694,000
0.12
0.0029
208,600
0.04
0.0020
1,013,600
0.18
0.0028
•>;2,'iOO
0.10
0.0013
II-C-A-89
-------
Table II-C-A-58
SUWtARY DATA KOR BF.A KECION (V,8, _ ri,v,.|.md. Ohio
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBKRS 'PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION.
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -I. 00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
4,269,961
0.0209
1,680,008
0.39
3,692
1.06
7,689
1.08
1980
4,558,300
0.0204
2,000,000
0.44
5.000
1.06
9,300
1.07
1985
4,676,300
0.0199
2,056,900
0.44
5,700
1.06
10,400
1.07
1990
4,797,200
0.0195
2,115,400
0.44
6,500
1.06
11,700
1.06
2000
5,012,200
0.0190
2,286,500
0.46
8,500
1.05
14,800
1.06
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGKIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE Of TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARP. OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RKTAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BKA SHARK U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
REA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
1?, 916, 867
0.0230
123,160
0.01
0.0063
49,291
0.004
0.0087
781.986
0.06
0.0227
5,496,627
0.43
0.0352
864,957
0.07
0.0217
2,063,970
0.16
0.0020
496,130
0.04
0.0172
1,732,668
0. 13
0.0204
1,308,074
0.10
0.0132
18,706,100
0.0223
129,200
0.01
0.0061
56,300
0.003
0.0087
1,078,000
0.06
0.0208
7,294,300
0.39
0.0332
1,234,000
0.07
0.0210
2,903,900
0.16
0.0217
862,300
0.05
0.0178
3,079,200
0.16
0.0205
2,063,300
0.11
0.0140
21,588,900
0.0217
133,300
0.01
0.0060
59,000
0.003
0.0086
1,235,200
0.06
0.0203
8,169,100
0.38
0.0323
1,416,700
0.07
0.0205
3,274,700
0.15
0.02H
1,032,800
0.05
0.0174
3,764,400
0.17
0.0200
2,4flH,200
0.11
0.0140
24,916,000
0.0212
137,500
0.01
0.0060
61.800
0.002
0.0084
1^415,200
0.06
0.0198
9,148,700
0.37
0.0314
1,626,500
0.06
0.0200
3,686,500
0.15
0.0216
1 ,237,000
0.05
0.0171
4,602,100
0.18
0.0196
1,000,400
0.12
0.0139
33,981,000
0.0205
152,800
0.004
0.0059
69,800
0.002
0.0083
1.890,400
0.06
0.0194
11.785.500
0.35
0.0303
2 , 200 , 500
0.06
0.0195
4,852,100
O.U
0.0199
1,776,400
0.05
0.0166
6,878,300
0.20
0.0191
4,374,900
0.13
0.0139
II-C-A-90
-------
Table II-C-A-59
SUMMARY DATA l-'l'R HEA KEC ION (!(,<). l.lm.i. (IllI
(ADATTED FKUM 1972-E OHKHS PROJECTIONS)
INniCATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHAKF. U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -I. 00)
1970
277,084
0.0014
104,957
0.38
3,264
0.94
6,761
0.95
1980
291,900
0.0013
126,700
0.43
4,600
0.97
8,300
0.96
1985
306,600
0.0013
132,900
0^43
5,300
0.98
9,300
0.96
1990
319,900
0.0013
139,500
0.44
6,000
0.98
10,600
0.96
2000
339,200
0.0013
152,900
0.45
8,000
0.98
13.500
0.96
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHAKE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BKA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARK OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARK U.S. GOVERNMENT
709,619
0.0013
54,336
0.07
0.0028
1,550
0.002
0.0003
52,756
0.07
0.0015
301,763
0.42
0.0019
33,712
0.05
0.0008
106,300
0.15
0.0011
22,9*6
0.03
0 . 0008
75.093
0.11
0.0009
61,144
0.09
0 . OOOd
1,055,400
0.0013
60,600
0.06
0.0028
1,500
0.001
0.0002
59,600
0.06
0.0011
445,500
0.42
0.0020
49,900
0.05
0.0009
157,400
0.15
0.0012
39 , 700
0.03
0.0008
141.600
0.13
0.0009
99 , 300
0.09
0.0007
1 ,249,800
0.0013
63,400
0.05
0.0029
1,500
0.001
0.0002
70,100
0.06
0.0012
521,400
0.42
0.0021
58 , 500 .
0.05
0.0009
182,100
0.15
0.0012
9
49,200
0.04
0.0008
178.500
0.14
0.0010
123.500
0.10
o.ono?
1 ,480,000
0.0013
66,300
0.04
0.0029
1,500
0.001
0.0002
82,400
0.06
0.0012
610,100
0.41
0.0021
69,200
0.05
0.0009
210,600
0.14
0.0012
60,900
0.04
0.0008
224. 90Q
0.15
0.0010
151,1.00
0.10
0.0(107
2 , Pd9,600
0.0012
75,100
0.04
0.0029
1,700
0.001
0.0002
113,000
0.05
0.0012
826.800
0.40
0.0021
96.500
0.05
0.0009
2 85. 000
0.14
0.0012
90,900
0.04
0.0009
3-V8.000
0.17
0.0010
212,200
0.11
0.0007
II-C-A-91
-------
Table II-C-A-60
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION 075, _ K.irt Wayne. Indlnn.i
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E ObERS PROJECTIONS')
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHAKE U.S.
EMP1.0YMENT
EHPLOYMENT/POPUI.ATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
599.095
0.0029
243,828
0.41
3,407
0.98
7,006
0.99
1980
675,800
0.0030
312,300
0.46
4,700
1.00
8,500
0.99
1985
724,100
0.0031
33.'i,900
0.46
5,400
1.00
9,600
0.99
1990
775,900
O.OOlll!
359.300
0.46
6,100
1.00
10,900
0.99
2000
861,800
0.0033
408,300
0.47
8,100
1.00
13,800
0.99
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OK TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
. CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS-
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BKA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION. COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OK TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARK OK TOTAL KAKNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. SERVICE
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OK TOTAL KARNIHC.'S '
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
1,708,217
0.0030
74,259
0.04
0.0038
3.224
0.002
0.0006
94,823
0.06
0.0028
766.692
0.45
0.0049
104,975
0.06
0.0026
2M ,168
0.15
0.0028
«5,273
0.04
0.0023
185,970
0.11
0.0022
151,832
0.09
0.0015
2,685,100
0.0032
82,300
0.03
0.0039
4,000
0.001
0.0006
146,700
0.05
0.0028
1 ,176,700
0.44
0.0054
158,100
0.06
0.0027
385,900
0.14
0.0029
118,800
0.04
0.0025
353,900
0.13
0.0024
258/400
0.10
0.0018
3,245,400
0.0033
84,600
0.03
0.0038
4,300
0.001
O.OOOi)
176,300
0.05
0.0029
1,398.000
0.43
0.0055
189,000
0.06
0.0027
456,300
0.14
0.0029
149,200
0.05
0.0023
456j400
0.14
0.0024
327,000
0.10
0.0018
3,922,500
0.0033
86,800
0.02
0.0038
4,700
0.001
0.0006
211,900
0.05
0.0030
1,660.800
0.42
0.0057
226.000
0.06
0.0028
539,600
0.14
0.0030
187,500
0.05
0.0026
588,600
0.15
0.0025
'.16.000
0.11
0.0019
5,668,100
0.0034
96,000
0.02
0.0037
5,700
0.001
0.0006
300,800
0.05
0.0031
2,301,900
0.41
0.0059
322,800
0.06
0.0029
757,600
0.13
0.0031
286,100
0.05
0.0027
947,500
0.17
0.0026
649,200
O.ll
0.0021
II-C-A-92
-------
Table II-C-A-61
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A REGION 076. _ So.itli Bund, Indiana
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E ORKRS'VRUJEalONS)
INDICATOR
POPUI.ATION
BEA SlIAKF. U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA REI.ATIVE (U.S. "1.00)
1970
749,245
0.0037
300,701
0.40
3,402
0.98
6,853
0.97
1980
752,816
O.OO.H
353,500
0.45
4,700
0.99
8.400
0.97
1985
7') 1,000
0.0034
366,700
0.45
5,300
0.99
9,500
0.97
1990
81'l,400
0.0033
380,500
0.45
6.000
0.99
10,700
0.97
2000
848.700
0.003:
410,300
0.46
8,000
0.99
13,600
P. 97
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 S
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AC.RIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC .
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARK OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, liTC .
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARK OF TOTAL EAKNKICS
BF.A SHAKE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OF TOTAL KAHNIIICS
BF.A SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
2.060.812
0,0037
66.711
0.03
0.0034
1,999
0.001
0.0004
101,375
0.05
0.0029
996,198
0.48
0.0064
101 ,907
0.05
0.0026
303,867
0.15
0.0033
70,564
0.03
0.0024
248,425
0.12
0.0029
I69.7U,
0.08
0.0017
2.931.200
0.0036
79 , 500
0.03
0.0037
2,500
0.001
0.0004
155,600
0.05
0.0030
1,356,600
0.45
0.0062
147,600
0.05
0.0025
426,300
0.14
0.0032
119.000
0.04
0.0025
424,200
0.14
0.0028
2 6'), ',00
0.0')
O.OOIS
3.489.000
0.0035
82,300
0.02
0.0037
2,800 .
0.001
0.0004
181.500
0.05
0.0030
1,553,200
0.44
0.0061
173,300
0.05
0.0025
488,300
0.14
0.0032
145,200
0.04
0.0025
527,900
0.15
0.0028
I'll, 400
0.09
0.0019
4.083.200
0.0035
85.300
0.02
0.0037
3,100
0.001
0.0004
2 1 1 , 800
0.05
0.0030
1,778,200
0.43
0.0061
203,400
0.05
0.0025
559.300
0.14
0.0031
177.-300
0.04
0.0024
Ii56,900
0.16
0.002H
407,600
0.10
0.0019
5.609.600
0.0034
95,400
0.02
0.0037
3.700
0.001
0.0004
287,100
0.05
0.0029
2,330t900
0.42
0.0060
280,400
0.05
0.0025
746,800
0.13
0.0031
259,900
0.05
0.0024
997,100
0.18
0.0028
607,900
0.11
0.0019
II-C-A-93
-------
Table II-C-A-62
SIM4ARY DATA FOR BF.A RKC10N 077, Chicago. Illtnola
(ADArreD FROM \
-------
Table II-C-A-63
SUMMARY DATA FOR UFA KKC.ION 07", frivfinmrt. l.iw.-i-Rciyk iHl.iml & Mn
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS"i'ROJKCI IONS) Illinois
. INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. =1.00)
1970
606. 414
0.0030
237,580
0.39
3,531
1.02
6,947
0.98
1980
627,800
0.0028
274,600
0.44
4,900
1.03
8,500
0.98
1985
634,400
0.0027
278,200
0.44
5,500
1.03
9,600
0.98
1990
641 ,200
0.0026
281,800
0.44
6,300
1.02
10,800
0.98
2000
648,100
0.0025
294,000
0.45
8,300
1.02
13,800
0.98
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC .
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUN (CATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., KTC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNINCS
BEA SHARK U.S. SERVICES
COVEKNNLNT
SHARE OF TOIAI. EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. COVERNMKNT
1.650.355
0.0029
110,331
0.07
0.0056
4,154
0.003
0.0007
104,679
0.06
0.0030
604,508
0.37
0.0039
92,991
0.06
0.0023
254,084
0.15
0.0027
55,872
0.0')
0.0019
175,146
0.11
0.0021
248,390
0.15
0.0025
2.344.600
0.0028
i:t5,200
0.06
0.0064
5,300
0.002
0.0008
147,100
0.06
0.0028
831,900
0.35
0.0038
126.800
0.05
0.0022
350,000
0.15
0.0026
95,000
0.0'.
0 . 0020
299,900
0.11
0.0020
151,000
0.15
0.0024
2,677.900
0.0027
139,600
0.05
0.0063
5.800
0.002
0.0008
165,900
0.06
0.0027
912, 100
0.35
0.0037
144,600
0.05
0.0021
390,500
0.15
0.0025
113.000
0.04
0.0019
365,200
0.14
0.0019
418,400
0.16
0.0023
). 058. 700
0.0026
144,200
0.05
0.0063
6 , 400
0.002
0.0009
187,100
0.06
0.0026
1 ,044,800
0.34
0.0016
165,000 •
0.05
0.0020
415,600
0.14
0.0024
134,500
0.04
0.0019
444,800
0.14
0.0019
496,000
0.16
0.0021
4.060.700
0.0025
160,300
0.04
0.0062
7,700
0.002
0.0009
241 ,100
0.06
0.0025
1,332,600
0.33
0.0034 •
217,300
0.05
0.0019
559,100
0.14
0.0023
190,100
0.05
0.0018
656,000
O.H,
0.0018
696,000
0.17
0.0022
II-C-A-95
-------
Table H-C-A-64
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A RKGtON 1 n, ihilnrv. Illinois
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBKRS "PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
SEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKKK (1967S)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
299;750
0.0015
115, 439
0.39
3.134
0.90
6,117
0.86
1980
309,000
0.0014
132,900
0.43
4,300
0.92
7,500
0.87
1985
314,300
O.OOtJ
136,400
0.43
5.000
0.93
8,600
0.88
1990
319,800
0.0013
1 '19,900
0.44
5.800
0.94
9,700
0.89
2000
329,800
0.0013
150,000
0.46
7,700
0.95
12,500
0.90
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION,' COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RF.TAII. TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, RF.AL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARK U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES FARMINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNTNCS
BRA SHARE U.S. SERVICES
GOVERNMENT
SHARE OF TOTAL EARN 1 DCS
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
706,090
0.0013
106,096
0.15
0.0054
3,539
0.005
0.0006
35,781
0.05
0.0010
229,595
0.32
0.0015
40,274
0.06
0.0010
105,965
0.15
0.0011
18,066
0.03
0.0006
90,969
0.13
0.0011
75,800
0.11
0.0008
1,008,700
0.0012
116,000
0.11
0.0055
4,800
0.005
0.0007
54,200
0.05
0.0010
325,700
0.32
0.0015
57,500
0.06
0.0010
148,900
0.15
0.0011
29,600
0.03
o . onoh
155,700
0.15
0.0010
115,800
0.11
0.0008
1,175,800
0.0012
120,600
0.10
0.0055
5,400
0.005
0.0008
62,900
0.05
0.0010
381,900
0.32
0.0015
64,500
0.05
0.0009
169.600
0.14
0.0011
36,300
0.01
0.0006
192,100
0.16
0.0010
140,700
0.12
O.OOOH
1,370,700
0.0012
125,300
0.09
0.0054
6,000
0.004
0.0008
73,000
0.05
0.0010
447,900
0.13
0.0015
72,400
0.05
0.0009
193:300
0.14
0.0011
44,500
0.01
0.0006
236,900
0.17
0.0010
170,900
0. 12
0.0008
1,889,600
0.0011
140,600
0.07
0.0054
7,400
0.004
0.0009
99,000
0.05
0.0010
611.500
0.32
0.0016
95,900
0.05
0.0008
258.300
0.14
0.0011
66,800
0.03
0.0006
358,200
0.19
0.0010
251,500
0.13
O.OOOR
II-C-A-96
-------
Table II-C-A-65
SUMMARY DATA FOR BF.A KF.G10N 114, St. Loula. Htmiouri-Ill Inols
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OlIERS" PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BF.A SHAKE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOMK (1967$)
BEA REI.ATIVF. (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
3,257,917
0.0160
1,237,909
0.38
3,487
1.00
7.234
1.02
1980
3,465,100
0.0155
1,467,600
0.42
4,800
1.01
fi.800
1.0?
1985
3,550,800
0.0151
1,511,000
0.43
5,400
1.01
9,900
1.01
1990
3,638,500
0.0148
1,555,600
0.43
6.200
1.01
11,200
1.01
2000
3,757.600
0.0142
l,n67,'JOO
0.44
8,200
1.01
14,200
1.01
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. AGRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MG.
TRANSPORTATION , COMMUN r CATIONS ,
PUBLIC UTILITIES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS.. ETC. '
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, RKAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KARNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES KARNINCS
SHARE OF 1CITAL KAHNINCS
BF.A SHARK U.S. SERVICES
COVKKUMKIIT
SHAKE OK 1 HI At. EARN INC.1;
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
8.954,521
0.0159
187,209
0.02.
0.0095
144,432
0.02
0.0256
576,468
0.06
0.0167
2,777,194
0.31
0.0178
736,442
0.08
0.0184
1,527,361
0.17
0.0164
388,629
0.04
0.0135
1,206,35ft
0.13
0.0142
1,410,429
0.16
0.0142
12.987.600
0.0155
199,000
0.01
0.0094
175,800
0.01
0.0271
837,200
0.06
0.0161
3.831,800
0.29
0.0175
1,018,900
0.08
0.0174
2, 138, SCO
0.16
0.0160
655,800
0.05
0.0135
2.128.5OO
0.16
0.0142
2,riOI,K'.iO
0.1 'J
0.011ft
15.046.200
0.0152
202,300
0.01
0.0091
189,900
0.01
0.0275
957,700
0.06
0.0157
4,336,300
0.29
0.0171
1,164,300
0.08
0.0169
2.410,300
0.16
0.0156
785,800
0.05
0.0133
2,609,100
0.17
0.0139
2. 180.300
O.lh
0.0134
17,431,100
0.0148
205,700
0.01
0.0089
205,100
0.01
0.0280
1,095,400
0.06
0.0154
4,907,300
0.28
0.0168
1 ,330,400
0.08
0.0164
2,716,500
0.16
0.0152
94 1 , 600
0.05
0.0130
3,198,100
O.IB
0.0136
?. I'M). 500
O.lh
0.0111
23.679.500
0.0143
224,900
0.009
0.0087
242,500
0.01
0.0289
1.443.100
0.06
0.0148
6,354,600
0.27
0.0164
1 ,777,900
0.07
0.0157
3,545.000
0.15
0.0146
1,339,100
0.06
0.0125
4,757.500
0.20
0.0132
|1.»1.'.,50()
0.17
0.012;
II-C-A-97
-------
Tablfc II-C-A-66
SWtlAKY DATA FOR BEA KRCION U5, Padiicnh, Kentucky
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBERS PROJECTIONS)
INDICATOR
POPULATION
BEA SHARE U.S.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION
RATIO
PER CAPITA INCOME (1967$)
BEA RF.UTIVK (U.S. -1.00)
EARNINGS/WORKER (1967$)
BEA RELATIVE (U.S. -1.00)
1970
559,917
0.0027
188,988
0.14
2,451
0.71
5,408
0.76
1980
612,000
0.0027
225.700
0.37
3,300
0.71
6,800
0.78
1985
627,600
0.0027
235,000
0.37
3,900
0.73
7,700
0.79
1990
643,600
0.00?6
244,600
0.38
4,500
0.74
8,900
0.80
2000
658,200
0.0025
264,900
0.40
6,300
0.77
11,500
0.82
IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $
TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BF.A SHARE U.S. ACRIC.
MINING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KARNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. MINING
CONSTRUCTION EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. CONSTRUC.
MANUFACTURING EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. MC.
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES KARNINCS
SHARE OF TOTAL F.ARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRANS., ETC.
WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE KARNINCS
SHARE OF TOTAL EARNINGS
BEA SHARE U.S. TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE
EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KARNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. FINANCE, ETC.
SERVICES EARNINGS
SHARE OF TOTAL KAKNfNCS
BEA SHAME U.S. SKKVICF.S
GOVERNMENT
SHAKE OF TOTAL EAKNINCS
BEA SHARE U.S. GOVERNMENT
1 ,022,066
0.0018
143;260
0.14
0.0073
9.747
0.01
0,0017
79,480
0.08
0.0023
249,054
0.24
0.0016
61,701
0.06
0.0015
171,548
0.17
0.0018
27,044
0.03
0.0009
119.237
0.12
0.0014
160,996
0.16
0.0016
1,542,300
0.0018
170,600
0.11
0.0080
13,000
0.01
0.0020
104,300
0.07
0.0020
439,000
0.28
0.0020
83,900
0.05
0.0014
241,200
0.16
0.0018
46,400
0.03
0.0010
203.800
0.13
0.0014
239,700
0.15
0.0016
1,832,400
0.0018
175,400
0.10
0.0079
14.200
0.01
0.0021
122,000
0.07
0.0020
533,100
0.29
0.0021
97,200
0.05
0.0014
279.400
0.15
0.0018
58,200
0.03
0.0010
256,600
0.14
0.0014
293,000
0.16
0.0016
2,177,100
0.0019
180,300
0.08
0.0078
15,600
0.01
0.0021
142,800
0.07
0.0020
647,400
0.30
0.0022
112,600
0.05
0.0014
323,800
0.15
0.0018
73.000
0.03
0.0010
323.100
0.15
0.0014
358.200
O.lf.
0.0017
3,065,200
0.0018
199,300
0.06
0.0077
18,700
0.01
0.0022
194,000
0.06
0.0020
921,300
0.30
0.0024
152,500
0.05
0.0013
439,600
0.14
0.0018
111 ,600
0.04
0.0010
503,100
0.16
0.0014
524,700
0.17
0.0017
II-C-A-98
-------
Table II-CrA-67
ORBES PROFILE: 1970-2000
BEAs TOTALLY WITHIN ORBF.S REGION
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E 01IKRS PROJECTIONS)
(ECONOMIC DATA IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 $)
INDICATOR
Population (Mld-Year)-OKUES
ORBES Sharp of U.S.
Employment - ORBKS
ORBES Share of U.S.
Per Capita Income - ORBKS
ORBES Relative Co U.S.
Earnings/Worker - ORBKS
ORBES Relative to U.S.
Total Earnings - ORRES
ORBKS Share of U.S.
Arglculture - ORBES
Share of ORBF.S Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Mining - ORBES
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Construction - OKBl'.S
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Manufacturing - OKBES
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Transportation, Communica-
tion, Public Utilities -
ORBES
Share of OKBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Wholesale/Retail Trade
ORBES
Share of ORBES Total
ORBF.S Share of U.S.
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate - ORBES
Share of ORBF.S Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Services - ORBKS
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Government - OkllKS
Share of ORBF.S Total
ORBF.S Share of U.S.
1970
11,766,9^8
0.0577
* ,533,252
0.0572
3,269
0.94
6,888
0.97
31,223,617
0.0555
1,107,396
0.0355
0.0564
327,454
0.0101
0.05HO
1,930,401
0.0f>18
0.0560
10,836,683
0.3471
0.0693
2,039,866
0.0653
0.0511
4,804,482
0.1539
0.0516
. 1,338,117
0.0429
0.0463
3,866,229
0.'l2W
0.0454
4, 102,1' 32
0.1378
0.0433
1980
13,133,100
0.0588
5,639,300
0.0587
4,497
0.96
8,454
0.97
48,039,800
0.0574
1,403,000
0^0292
0.0660
370,100
0.0077
0.0570
2,963,700
0.0617
0.0571
16,018,400
0.3334
0.0730
3,031,900
0.0631
0.0517
7,123,400
0.1483
0.0532
2,326,600
0.0484
0.0480
J_j\ ', 7j_500
0. KH8
0.0476
7, 631., 0011
0.1590
0.0519
1985
13,832.400
0.0590
5,971,700
0.0591
5,144
0.95
9,593
0.98
57,419,400
0.0578
1,456.900
0.0254
0.0659
418,000
0.0073
0.0606
3,501,800
0.0160
0.0575
18,764,900
0.3268
0.0742
3,589,600
0.0625
0.0520
8,314,600
0.1448
0.0537
2,872,000
0.0500
0.0485
9,053,400
0. 15/7
0.0482
V138jH»0_j
0.162ft
0.0524
1990
14,571,900
0.0592
6,325,000
0.0595
5,865
0.96
10,774
0.98
68,503,100
0.0582
1,512,900
0.0221
0.0657
455,700
0.0067
0.0623
4,138,200
0.0604
0.0580
21,994,700
0.3211
0.0754
4,250,100
0.0620
0.0523
9,707,400
0.1417
0.0542
3,546,500
0.0518
0.0490
1 1,4M, )UO
O.K.74
0.0489
Uj'i.rjjOOO
0.1668
0.0529
2000
15,682,700
0.0594
7,057,500
0.0599
7,835
0.97
13,734
0.98
97,266,208
0.0587
1,695.300
0.0174
0.0656
545.200
0.0056
0.0649
5,714,400
0.05H8
0.0586
29,979,000 .
0.3082
0.0772
5,959,200
0.0613
0.0527
13,348,100
0.1372
0.0548
5,291,000
0.0544
0.0495
17,92(1,800
0.1843
0.04')8
16.nD3.10D
0.1728
0.0535
II-C-A-99
-------
Table II-C-A-68
•ORBES PROFILE: 1970-2000
BRAa TOTALLY AND PARTIALLY WITHIN ORBES REGION
(ADAPTED FROM 1972-E OBFRS PROJECTIONS)
(ECONOMIC DATA IN THOUSANDS OF 1967 S)
INDICATOR
Population (Mtd-Year)-ORBES
ORBES Share of U.S.
Employment - ORBES
ORBES Share of U.S.
Per Capita Income - ORBES .
ORBES Relative to U.S.
Earnings/Worker - ORBES
ORBES Relative to U.S.
Total Earnings - ORRF.S
ORBES Share of U.S.
Agriculture - OHBKS
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Mining - ORBES
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S:
Construction - ORBES
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Manufacturing, - ORBKS
Share of ORBFS Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Transportation, Communica-
tion, Public Utilities -
ORBF.S
Share of ORBF.S Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Wholesale/Retail Trade -
ORBES
Shan? of ORI1F.S Total
ORBES Share or U.S.
Finance, Insuranrc, Real
Estate - ORBKS
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Services - ORBES
Share of. ORBF.S Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
Government - ORBKS
Share of ORBES Total
ORBES Share of U.S.
1970
36,421.945
0.1787
14,018.186
0.1768
3,527
1.01
7,406
1.04
103,117^173
0.1834.
2,265,770
0.0220
0.1154
1,299,010
0.0126
0.2300
6,595.793
0.0640
0.1914
37,272,375
0.3615
0.2385
7,446,224
0.0722
0.1865
16,909,347
0.1640
0.1817
4,565,802
0.0443
0.1581
13,991,828
0.1357
0.1645
12,809,flH6
0.1242
0.1 21600
0.1507
0.1400
II-C-A-100
-------
APPENDIX D
BASELINE DATA FOR ILLINOIS
1. PHYSICAL BASELINE DATA
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Illinois has the largest reserves of bituminous coal of any state
in the United States. These coal resources; plentiful water from the
Mississippi, Ohio and Wabash Rivers; and the state's location in the highly
industrialized and densely populated north central sector of the nation
place Illinois in a favorable position for the production of large quanti-
ties of electrical energy. This section summarizes selected aspects of
the physical landscape of Illinois pertinent to energy development and
resultant impacts.
1.2. . PHYSICAL SETTING
More than three-fourths of Illinois is situated within the Till
Plains section of the Central Lowland Province (Figures II-C-A-2 and
II-C-A-3). The Great Lakes section and the Wisconsin Driftless section,
occupying the northeast and northwest corners of the state respectively,
are also included in the Central Lowland Province. The surface features
of this area, except in the Wisconsin Driftless section, are essentially
the product of repeated Pleistocene glaciation, with post-glacial stream
erosion of local significance only. The topography is generally level to
undulatory interrupted only occasionally by low, broad ridges or stream
valleys. The landforms of this province include ground moraines, lacus-
trine plains, morainic ridges, sand dunes and glacial lakes (mostly in
the northeast). Relief is generally slight except along the Mississippi
anrl Illinois Rivers. Much of the area was at one time poorly drained but
agricultural practices have eliminated this as a major problem. The
Wisconsin Driftless section was not glaciated and consequently shows more
relief than most of the Central Lowland Province. The area consists of a
low, flat plateau which is maturely to submaturely dissected by several
well-developed dendritic drainage systems. The highest point in the state
is located in the Wisconsin Driftless section on Charles Mound (1235 feet
or 376 meters). A small part of the Dissected Till Plains section is in
extreme western Illinois (Hancock, Adams and Pike Counties). This is an
area of high relief developed in a section of thin Kansan drift.
A thin strip of southwestern Illinois bordering Missouri is within
the Lincoln Hills section and the Salem Plateau section of the Ozark Pla-
teaus Province. The Lincoln Hills section is a partially drift-covered
dissected plateau just north of the confluence of the Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers. Calhoun County, which is in this area, has the most
rugged topography in the state. The Salem Plateau section (the eastern
II-C-A-101
-------
o
i
o
ro
Flruro II-C-A-2
MAJOR PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS IN CENTRAL UNITED STATES
SUPERIOR. '
UPLAND
DRIFTLESS
SECTION
1 DISSECTED TILL PLAIMS
SECTION
TILL PLAINS
^, LINCOLN f
.IV-HILLS
SECTION
SOURCE: Lcirhton ct al.
,•. r (1).
-------
Figure II-C-A-3
PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS OF ILLINOIS
! TIU, PLAINS SECTION '
GREAT LAKE
.1 SECTION
tX-^:>vl OzorK Plateaus Province
W///M Interior Low Plateaus Province
I I Central Lowland Province
&SS& Coastal Plain Province
II-C-A-103
-------
edge of the Ozark dome) consists of a single central ridge comprised of
sections of a maturely dissected cuesta.
The southernmost counties of Illinois are located within the
northern extension of the Coastal Plain Province. The area is domi-
nated by the alluvial plains of the Mississippi, Ohio and Cache valleys
but also includes an area of maturely dissected low plateau known as the
Cretaceous hills. The lowest point in the state is 285 feet above sea
level (87 meters) at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
The Interior Low Plateaus Province is represented in southern
Illinois by the western part of the Shawnee Hills section. This un-
glaciated area lies along the southern rim of the Illinois basin and
represents the largest single assemblage of bedrock-controlled topogra-
phic features in the state. The Shawnee Hills section is generally
maturely dissected by surface streams and contains greater maximum local
relief (600 feet, 183 meters) than any other part of the state.
For further information on the physiographic provinces and sec-
tions mentioned above, as well as further divisions of their units, see
Leighton, Ekblaw and Horberg, 1948.
II-C-A-104
-------
1.3. GEOLOGY
1.3.1. GLACIAL
The great majority of Illinois' landscape is the product of re- .
peated Pleistocene glacial advances. With the exception of limited drift-
less areas in southern, southwestern and northwestern Illinois (Figure
II-C-A-4), the pre-Pleistocene bedrock formations have been either severely
modified by abrasion and plucking beneath the ice or buried by the products
of glacial erosion. It has been estimated that the ice ground about 100
feet (30 meters) of the bedrock into clay, silt and sand-size particles
(2, p. 11). These glacial erosion products have been deposited over the
surface of the glaciated area to an average depth of about 100 feet (30
meters). The distribution of the major surface landforms of glacial ori-
gin is shown in Figure II-C-A-5.
1.3.2. STRUCTURAL
The dominant structural feature in the state is the spoon-shaped
Illinois Basin which also extends into western Kentucky and southwestern
Indiana. The marine sediments above the Precambrian basement complex
were deposited during the Paleozoic Era and subsequently deformed into a
basin by repeated tectonic movements. The basin is bordered on the east
by the Cincinnati arch, on the north and northeast by the Wisconsin and
Kankakee arches, on the west and northwest by the Mississippi arch, on
the southwest by the Ozark dome, and on the southeast by the Nashville
dome (Figure II-C-A-6). The deepest part of the basin is in Wayne,
White and Hamilton counties. The La Salle Anticlinal Belt divides the
Illinois basin into eastern and western parts of approximately equal size
(Figures II-C-A-7 and II-C-A-8).
1.3.3. SEISMIC
Most of Illinois is in the Central Stable .Region Tectonic Province,
which the U.S. Geological Survey classifies as a "minor damage" seismic
probability zone. However, southern Illinois is in the seismically active
Mississippi Embayment earthquake zone and has a probability of "moderate
damage" to "major damage" (Figure II-C-A-9). The Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission's classification of the state according to suitability for nuclear
energy generation centers reflects these differences (Figure II-C-A-10).
Whereas earthquakes may occur anywhere in the state, clearly the risk of
damage to generating stations is much greater in southern Illinois.
Proximity to the seismically active New Madrid, Missouri area,
where the largest earthquake in continental United States history was
centered, is the major concern. Aftershocks of the 1811-1812 New Madrid
earthquake sequence may have occurred as far north as the Rough Creek
II-C-A-105
-------
Figure II-C-A-4
i
GENERALIZED DRIFT THICKNESS IN ILLINOIS
E;%>.:.1 Oriftlet* area
f I Leu than 50 ft thick,
I I exposed in some arei
' •••• i f
BctWMn SO and 200 ft thick
More than 200 ft thick
Cretaceous tedimmt
to drift (modified from Frye
Willman, and Glass,
Limit of glaciation
lar
GOLirCE: Pisl^n and Borgstron (1?75) p. 15.
II-C-A-106
-------
Figure II-C-A-5
GLACIAL GEOLOGY OF ILLINOIS
(nodifled from naps by K'illman and Frye.. 1970)
SOURCE: Piskin and Bergstrom (1975) p. 6.
II-C-A-107
-------
Figure II-C-A-6
PRINCIPAL GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES OF ILLINOIS
A A1 Lin. of
Cra» Mclioit
'Miitiuippi Embaymww
SOURCE: Willnnn ct al. (1975) p. 24.
II-C-A-108
-------
Figure II-C-A-7
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS IN ILLINOIS
o
I
o
0-Owoftrwi T-T«rlior»
K-C'«lot«oul S-Sibcnui OCV-0.voi.on
CC'-Coti-vctt c/o» Hclian, Btllcvilli M Ca'«>
SOURCE: Uillnan ot al.'(.lS75) p. 25.
-------
Figure II-C-A-8
GENERALIZED AREAL GEOLOGY OF THE BEDROCK SURFACE
Pleistocene and
Pliocene not shown
TERTIARY
|jj£::| CRETACEOUS
I . PENNSYLVANIAN
I Pj I Bond and Mottoon Formotioi
Includes narrow belts of
older formations along
LoSolle Anticline
l;::Pi:::| PENNSYLVANIAN
'"" Corbondole and Modesto Formations
t;;.';fi2...| PENNSYLVANIAN
Caseyville, Abbott, and Spoon
Formations
f M j MISSISSIPPIAN
Includes Devonian in
Hardin County
[ 01 ] DEVONIAN
Includes Silurian in Douglas,
Champaign, and western
Rock Island Counties
[_, Ji ] SILURIAN
Includes Ordovician and Devonian in Calhoun
Greene,and Jersey Counties '
ORDOVICIAN
CAMBRIAN
Des Ploines Complen - Ordovicion to Pennsylvanian
Fault
SOURCE: Willman et al. (1975) p. 21.
II-C-A-110
-------
Figure II-C-.V9
SEISMIC PRODACILITY MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
. COAST AND CtOOETIC SURVEY
SEISMIC PROBABILITY MAP OF
THE UNin U STATES
Zone 0 - no damage
Zone 1 • minor damage .
Zone 2 - moderate damage
Zone 3 - major damage
Liwion. L. Don LecC. D. 1. Line-
bin. S. I.. I. B Micelwine. S. ]..
A. L. Millei. C. F. Richlef. V. C
Slechichulle. S J. vul H. O.
Wood. Rnticd in Oclotxi 1949.
Seismic probability map of the United Stain. This map is commonly used to establish seismic design criteria; the following
nuAiinurn ground accelerations are associated »ith the zones: Zone 3,13 *'. g; Zone 2. 16 %t; Zone I. 8 '/. g: Zone 0. 4 % g. In Zone 3
close la a major active fault the maiimum ground acceleration is minuted lo be approximately SO'/, i
SOURCE: Kovacs (1972) p. 2.
-------
Figure II-C-A-10
SEISMIC SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY CENTERS
LEGEND
ZONE I SUITABLE SITES CAN BE FOUND WITH LITTLE
DIFFICULTY.
ZONE 2 DETAILED SITE-SPECIFIC STUDIES WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY.
ZONE 3 COSTS AND TIME REQUIRED FOR INVESTIGATIONS
MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL TO CONSIDER THIS ZONE FOR
NUCLEAR ENERGY CENTERS.
NOT* THESE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT AREAS OF
f OUAL SEISMIC RISK BUT THE DEC REE OF
DIFFICULTY IN ESTABLISHING THE SEISMIC RISK
SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1976).
II-C-A-112
-------
Fault area in southern Illinois (Figures II-C-A-11 and II-C-A-12). This
indicates that the New Madrid area is seismically linked by fault systems
to parts of southern Illinois. There is a great deal of controversy over
the question of whether this active seismic zone extends only as far north
as the Rough Creek Fault area or whether it extends across the Rough Creek
system and north through the Wabash Valley system. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's conservative stand on this issue requires utility companies
to design nuclear power plants to withstand the ground accelerations which
would result from an intensity XII (Modified Mercalli scale) earthquake
centered in the Wabash Valley area as far north as Crawford County, Illinois.2
2
Although material contained in the text is not specifically re-
ferenced, the information was taken from the same sources as the accom-
panying maps.
II-C-A-113
-------
Figure II-C-A-11
SEI SMI CITY AND STRUCTUSILMP,
SEISMICITY AND STRUCTURE MAP
HQiNP
• lAIIMOUJkll MAXIMUM INFINtllT V • VII
QlAIIHOUAXI MAXIMUM INIINIIIT VII • VHI
o ami
mlJt*. WIT
!„ u,c
SOURCE: Kovacs (1972) p. 12.
II-C-A-114
-------
Figure II-C-A-12
89°
REGIONAL FAULTING MAP OF SOUTHEASTERN ILLINOIS
88°
39°
38°
r\ ' ' . > /-——-L^-Ly^
y'Hamsburg /Shavmeetown-
( j Area where dikes
have been observed
89°
Area
mapped
(after Willnan and others,
1967)
SOURCE: Heigold (19G3) p. f>.
II-C-A-115
-------
1.4. RESOURCES
1.4.1. COAL
Coal, the major fuel resource of Illinois, underlies approximately
two-thirds of the state. Coal is interbedded with layers of sandstone,
siltstone, shale, limestone and clay in the Pennsylvania System (Figure
II-C-A-13). The most important coal seams in the sequence are the
Herrin (No. 6) and the Harrisburg-Springfield (No. 5) (Figures II-C-A-14
and II-C-A-15). These seams lie near the middle of the stratigraphic se-
quence and are seperated by an interval of from 10 feet (3 meters) to
more than 120 feet (37 meters). Herrin coal averages 5.5 feet (1.7 meters)
thick and Harrisburg-Springfield coal averages 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) thick.
The seams outcrop near the margins of the Illinois Basin but lie at a
depth of more than 1,200 feet (366 meters) in the deepest part of the
basin (Figures II-C-A-16 and II-C-A-17). About 20 percent (estimated 33
billion tons (30 billion metric tons)) of the total coal resources in
Illinois is classified as recoverable reserves. Of this, an estimated
10 to 15 percent is recoverable by surface mining near the margin of the
basin. The remainder must be recovered by underground methods. Mining
conditions are generally favorable in Illinois because of the occurrence
of extensive areas of relatively flat lying seams of minable thickness.
The coal occurs in geologic strata furnishing good roof and floor condi-
tions and in association with relatively small amounts of gas and water.
Herrin and Harrisburg-Springfield coals are of high-volatile bituminous
rank, ranging in heating value from 10,500 Btu/lb to over 14,000 Btu/lb.
The heat value of Illinois coal is therefore lower than most Appalachian
coaT but higher than most western coal. The major disadvantage to the
development of Illinois coal is its relatively high (3 to 5 percent) sul-
fer content. Some low sulfur seams do occur in the Herrin and Harrisburg-
Springfield coals (Figures II-C-A-18 and II-C-A-19). Remaining coal re-
serves by county and coal seam are given in Table II-C-A-69.3
3
Although material contained in the text is not specifically re-
ferenced, the information was taken from the same sources as the accom-
panying maps.
II-C-A-116
-------
Figure II-C-A-13
THICKNESS OF THE PENNSYLVANIAM SYSTEM
Pennsylvonion
Thickness
.gO' Isopoch intervol
' 200 ft
^ Smoll outlier
E -Eroded
SOURCE: William et al. (1975) p. 164.
II-C-A-117
-------
Figure II-C-A-14
CLASSIFICATION OF HERRIN COAL RESERVES
G«3ii prwaarp
Cl*>i I co»l > 42 inclwt thick
coil >42 inch** thick
Areas of coal
not included in study
I mi n cwl < 42 incltn thick GT
»^
SOURCE: Snlth and Stall (1975) p. 9.
II-C-A-118
-------
Figure II-C-A-15
CLASSIFICATION OF HARRISCURG-SPRIf'GFIELD COAL RESERVE
a^aP Coal missing
C Eroded
("i"
Areas of coal ^^^
included in study
S85I Class I coal > 42 inches thick »»x\. / '««»*jfc. :< i.»j_ >
__^ NV w *^.,<-»X(
Sj Class n coal > 42 inches thick X kJafi^ ..
^v COLX
r1
Areas of coal
not included in study
EJi&ii Classes I and n coal < 42 inches thick
Insufficient data
SOURCE: Smith and Stall (1975) p. 10.
II-C-A-119
-------
Figure II-C-A-16
GENERALIZED DEPTH OF HERRIN COAL
Regions used in text
descriptions of
CM! seams:
A - Central and Southern
B -Western
C - Northern
0 - Eastern
-------
Figure II-C-A-17
GENERALIZED DEPTH OF THE HARRISBURG-SPRIMGFIELD COAL
*^- Coal limit
V Underground mine
"A Strip mine
® Under construction
. Depth line; 200 feet \
Regions used in text
descriptions of
coal seams:
A - Central and Southern
B - Western
C - Northern
0 - Eastern
GmraliMd d«pth of th> H.rri«burg-Sprii>gfi.ld Coil. Mimt Mtiv* in Ihi Hirritburg-SpringfitM Mn
on January 1. 1975, ara loeatad.
""<
A ' T^^N
•» 100 *"
*«.* T:~-
SOURCE: Smith and Stall (1975) p. 27.
II-C-A-121
-------
Figure II-C-A-18
OCCURRENCE OF LOW-SULFUR COAL IN THE HERRIN SEAM
ILLINOIS LOW-SULFUR RESERVES IN GROUND
Coil
Hvrln (No. ()
|< 2.5*1
•v. 1.SK.
*¥ b» ill
County
Clinton
Franklin
Jicfcun
Jtlnvun
MKOupin
MwSison
Pwry
Si. CUir
•illimon
Million* of lon»
2J
22*
37
469
391
245
35
3S1
59
rjts
NBWN (NO. 6) COAL
LOW-SULFUR AREAS
«M« Coalmiuing
^^^ Split or thin coil
I'' ] Coil miiwd out
* \f* wlkir njpomtf rn MMT«| of mm* «
Oceunme* d lowwiHur o
-------
Figure II-C-A-19
OCCURRENCE OF LOW-SULFUR COAL.IN THE HARRISBURG-SPRINGFIELD SEAT
IUINOIS LOW-SULFUR RESERVES IN GROUND
Htrrisburg-Springfiald
(No. 5)
(<2.SX S.
•v.-».
*» basis)
Edwards
Franklin
Hsrnilion
Salina
•abash
Waynt
Whila
•illiamson
54
243
563
627
262
83
626
-dB-
•HARRISBURG • SPRINGFIELD
(NO. S) COAL LOW-SULFUR AREAS
Low-sulfur coal
Coal missing
Split or thin coal
Coal mined out
Oocurrano* of towwlfur C»a4 in ttra Harrjaburg-GpringfMd i
SOURCE: Smith and Stall (1975) pp. 63-65.
II-C-A-123
-------
Table II-C-A-69
-REMAINING COAL RESERVES IN ILLINOIS. BY COUNTY AND COAL SEAM, JANUARY 1975*
i (in millions of tons)
O
ro
-p.
County
Adams
Bond
Brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
day
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
De Wilt
Douglas
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardrn
Henderson
Henry
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Kinlukce
Dtnvillc Herrin
(No. 7) (No. «)
2.451.950
424.110 645.286
181.884
61.454 J ,429.950
316.655 11.848
916.819
3.233.922
312.112 153.769
211.152 571.817
162.249
698.279
950.564 721.363
684.316
622.072
296.023 2,773.953
1,932.538
58.882 242.309
1.311.641
97.274
2,611.967
58.878 260:289
204.036
1, 861.661
2.699418
10.4*2 71.256
Klrrilburg-
Sprinffidd Sununom
(No. 5) (No. 4)
299.867
104.933
1,336.120
511.149
702.311
552.248
44.046
929.166
171.260
173.619
11.011
441.259
1.031.565
1,164.351
159.646
1.977.950
630.310 5.448
1.298.862
25.199
32.912
2.192.953
216.742
1.415.200
2.442.508
35.845
Colchester
(No. 2) DC Kovco
624.556
2.092
385.672
1.221.789
15.015
452.957
362.147
1,293,242
650.600
583.351
843.040
3.557
54.299
1.177
53.111
668.819
197.747
83.903
Rock
Wind Misc.
Dwb (No. 1) eoah
2.472
86.660
379.885
736.948
3.845
10.063
878.903
1.248
0.595
507.878 64.989
5.266
856.675 6.836
5.336
2.421
16.374
265 .34*5
23*42
Total
Percent itrippdMe
Totil nrippible coal
624.556
2.756.381
385,672
2,291.185
15.015
557.890
181.884
4,914.180
1,219.537
1.619.130
3,786.170
509.927
2,449.083
337.354
173.619
719.353
2.992.089
1,715.881
1,787.671
3.231.617
4,845.492
2,235457
4.124.613
705.824
875.952
4.813.809
54.299
3.598
53.111
1,004.359
686.124
3.276.861
5.166.164
279.485
119.748
99.1
0.0
100.0
19.6
100.0
43.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
86.2
5.6
84.7
39.3
0.0
54.9
0.0
100.0
56.1
$4.1
O.O
0.5
78.9
19.8
618.690
0.0
385.672
448.266
15.013
244.903
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.U2
2.385
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.248
1.995
2.949
1,926.658
229.238
$97.777
344.214
0.0
29.829
0.0
53.111
$63.665
171.489
0.0
23442
220.441
23.637
-------
Table II-C-A-69—Continued
I
o
I
ro
en
County
Knox
La Salic
Lawrence
Livingston
Logan
McDonough
McLean
Macon
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mason
Menard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Moultrie
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
Pike
Putnam
Randolph
Richland
Rock Island
St. Clair
Saline
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Tazewell
Duwfllc
(No. 7)
2.523
489.782
223.427
257.569
603.370
15.510
337.381
24.972
282.537
197.035
78.422
125.267
57.703
4.152
Herein
(No. 6)
214.221
217.016
1.186.698
354.555
162.928
3,932.400
1.917.752
1,216.002
9.749
6.726
3.721.394
621.585
355.524
1,044.423
2.107.053
78.676
424.499
1,191.832
2.278.792
1,327.901
2.139.717
6.120
1,183.577
427.678
69.686
ruumsouTy*
Springfield Summura
(No. 5) (No. 4)
643.471
985.024
16.060
2,588.664
316.337
1,689.960
75.354
748.495
23.271
1.598.550
609.721
18.021 22.531
1,189.911
400.565
10.698
171.947
932.509
621.565
917.924 6.885
3.324.204
113.394
304.861
129.019
Colchester
(No. 2) DC Koven
803.634
1,430.898
2,351.608
584.320
296.406
1,657.211
660.361
858.033
23.775
17.859
558.844
1.322.351
429.868
144.401
467.893
7.768 691.250
280.804
597.672
249.499
25.781
202.528
Rock Total
Island Misc. Percent ftrippable
Dtvii (No. 1) coils Total ttrippablc coal
57.526 1,721.375
2,137.696
424.738 2.950.929
2,979.792
2,588.664
584.320
1.216.113
1.852.888
126.363 697.334 6,504.160
4.675 8.015 2,590.802
1.964.497
1,205.163
23.271
1,622.325
53.959 71.818
6.726
133.353 513.415 5.561.691
1,984.488
355.524
2.946.739
2,507.618
10.698
144.401
743.604
596.396
5.192 2,129.533
62.133 62.133
2,900.357
1.133.060 3.178 4.166.387
4.086 5.748.801
711.066
255.619
90.945 1,704.650
511.162
405.385
89.2
13.1
0.0
1.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
23.8
0.0
9.6
0.0
33.7
96.1
100.0
0.0
41.7
0.0
72.6
35.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
64.4
0.2
67.6
36.2
11.8
7.3
100.0
88.7
5.0
100.0
37.0
1,535.181
280.404
0.0
49.226
0.0
584.320
0.0
0.0
275.605
615.350
0.0
116.023
0.0
545.943
69.024
6.726
0.0
827.534
0.0
2.138.070
885.104
0.0
144.401
0.0
384.323
5.192
420OO
1,048.720
491.469
418.366
711.066
226.609
84.570
511.124
150.005
-------
Table 11-C-A-69—Concluded
I
o
I
•
ro
en
. County
Vermilion
Wabash
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Will
Williamson
Woodford
Total
Additions to
reservest
Revised total
Duville
(No. 7)
1,677^61
57.022
38.560
7,173.473
7.17J.47J
Hertin
(No. 6)
698.070
575.908
3.461.731
2.349.795
2,364.131
634.708
64.832.960
3.558.602
68,391.562
H*rrl«burg-
Sprlngfield
(No. 5)
880.457
0.807
2.275.301
2.248.345
910.562
144.770
39,347.823
11,098.763
50.446.586
Sum mum
(No. 4)
650
2.
3.075.
3.075.
598
648
118
118
Colchester
(No. 2) De Koven
415.271
13.823
9.460
742.119
990.850
20,866.625 2.464.672
20.866.625 2,464.672
Rock
Mind
D»vi» (No. 1)
38.928
17.204
615.894
3,402.857 1.225.322
3,402.857 1.225.322
Miw.
coalf
44.521
158.473
188.386
4,599.915
4.599.91 S
Tout
2.420,552
1.614.838
455.006
4.112.328
4,625.094
4,643.496
9.460
3,151.337
1.174.180
146,988.765
14.657.365
161^46.130
Tout
Percent icnppibto
Krippible coal
8.7
9.8
88.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
17.9
0.0
13.4
12.1
209.9SOI
158.471
402.59}
' 0.0
0.0
0.0
9.44*
564.06*
0.0
19,637.68?
19.637.6W
Slnppatl* toali imtludt cotlt 18 hub*t or men thick under ISO /tit or If a evrrbmitn.
| MM *Mrf •• ituttt ttmty.
-------
•1.4.2. WATER
.Illinois has abundant water resources. In addition to the sur-
face water generated by rainfall in the state, Illinois can utilize the
waters of the Mississippi, Ohio and Wabash Rivers. The' network of sur-
face streams and associated floodplains in the state, and the average
discharge and 7-day 10-year low flow for selected points along the major
streams are shown in Figures II-C-A-20 and II-C-A-21 and in Table
II-C-A-70. A large supply of ground water is also available in Illinois
(Figure II-C-A-22).
1.4.3. OTHER RESOURCES
Mineral fuels account for the major part of total mineral value
in Illinois (Table II-C-A-71). Coal is the leading mineral commodity.
It accounted for 50.1 percent of the state total in 1973 although the
quantity of coal produced decreased from 1972 to 1973. Crude petroleum
production, which also declined during this period, is the second most
important mineral product of the state. Natural gas production is a
minor component of Illinois' mineral production. Proved reserves of
crude petroleum (December 31, 1973) were estimated at 152,343,000 bar-
rels and proved natural gas reserves were estimated at 380,525 cubic
feet. Mineral products by county are shown in Table II-C-A-72.^
4
Although material contained in the text is not specifically re-
ferenced, the information was taken from the same sources as the accom-
panying maps.
II-C-A-127
-------
Figure TT-C-A-20
GENERALIZED MAP OF FLOODPLAINS OF MODERN RIVERS AND STREAMS OF ILLINOIS
— Generalized map of floodplaiiu of modern rivers and streams of Illiooh.
of CahoUa Alluvium.
SOURCE: Willman and Frye (1970) p. 76.
II-C-A-128
-------
Figure II-C-A-21
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY IN ILLINOIS
Ou Page R.
OAVENPORT-noCK
Rock R. f'":-'""''"''
FS5ION
BOUNDARY
REGION
DDUNDAIW
Kankakee R.
Vermillion R,
1 ! c6a?Saline *
0£7 I .'H^r
UGCHD
fUctl el 100.000 01 mart
«> PUCtl el 100.000 or mer« iiir.]6.t<»lt (5J ~\ fff* V>
• fi»et» el 40.000 Iq ICO.OOO «>l jM.ni, \. Kll ']'w""^i^
D CfiM.lt cilift ol 1MS»'« -Jl !«-.»• lhj» SO.OTO .-Mt.lmi, j I l_,\f-~^__
O ritctt ol 7S.OOO lo. SO.OOO w>lub-i
-------
Table II-C-A-70
Flows of Major Rivers In 111 1nots
River
Mississippi R.
Ohio R.
Chicago Sanitary
& Ship Canal
Illinois R.
Rock R.
Pecatonica
Location
Clinton, IA (1)*
Keokuk, IA (2)
Alton, IL (3)
St. Louis, MO (4)
Chester, IL (5)
Thebes, IL (6)
Golcanda (7)
Metropolis (8)
Lockport (9)
Av. D1sen (cfs)
46910
61100
93130
174000
174700
177600
262200-
5455J
Freeport (17)
878
7-day 10 yr
low flow (cfs)
13,970
15.170
21,470
45,970
46,840
47,810
14,000|
46,000D
1,700
Marseilles (10)
Kingston Mines (11)
Meredosia (12)
Rockton (13)
Oregon (14)
Com (15)
Joslln (16)
10710
13430
19590
3702
5024
5237
3,240
3.000
3,500
795
1,100
1,097
1,306
181
S. Branch
Klshwaukee
Klshwaukee
Oes Plalnes R.
Fos R.
DuPage R.
Green Rlv.
Kankakee
DeKalb (18)
Belvldere (19)
Perry vllle (20)
Russel'(21)
Des Plalnes (22)
Riverside (23)
Algonquin (24)
Dayton (25)
WarrenvUle (26)
Shorewood (27)
Arnboy (28)
Genesco (29)
Momence (30)
Wilmington (31)
273
568
104
210
368
760
1506
102
217
528
1820
3740
.11
34.3
62.3
0
4.3
18.4
51
198
13.6
45
4.9
49.2
411
451
SOURCE: Fuessle (1S7G).
II-C-A-130
-------
Table II-C-A-70—Continued
Iriquois R.
Vermill Ion.
Mackinaw
Spoon
Sangamon
LaMoine
Vermill 1 on
.Kaskaskia
Embarass
Little Wabash
81 g Muddy
Chebanse (32)
Lowell (33)
Pontiac (34)
Congerville (35)
Green Valley (36)
Wyoming (37)
Seville (38)
Monti cello (39)
Riverton (40)
S. Fork at
Kincaid (41)
Oakford (42)
Colmar (43)
Rlpley (44)
S. Fork at
Sydney (45)
Danville (46)
Ficklin (47)
Vandal i a (48)
New Athens (49)
Newton (50)
Lawrenceville (51)
Clay City (52)
Carmi (53)
Mt. Vernon (54)
Benton (55)
Murphysburo (56)
1583J
722
374
435
967..
398J
2929
441 3
739
927
1401
3654
882
2493
454
1787
16.6
7.3
.2
.54
25.2
1.2
19
2.1
37.2
.84
206
.78
9
13.5
33
.70
25.7
93
13.2
35
.47
5.7
1.3
30.6
35.2
Saline R.
Harrisberg (57)
Junction (58)
1211
1.1,
2.4-
II-C-A-131
-------
Figure II-C-A-22
WATER AVAILABLE FOR GOAL COMVERSIOn
NORTH
ST*f AM VICIO
•ILLIOM GALLONS It" DA
MILLION GALLONS '(* DAY
• If •
WASTtWATtK HANT YIELD
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
8
Wattr mltebl* for coal eonv»nion.
SOURCE: Srlth and Stall (1975) p. 42.
II-C-A-132
-------
Table II-C-A-71
—Mineral production in Illinois '
1972
Cement :
Portland »
Coal (bituminous)
Fluorspar .
I.i-ad (recoverable
Pent
Petroleum (crude)
Stone
Mineral
thousand short tons _.
do
do
.. _ ilo
short tons --
content of ores, etc.)
short tons
thousand short tons .-
thousand 42-eallon barrels _.
do
Zinc (recoverable content of ores, etc.)
short tons —
Value of items that cannot he disclosed:
Clays (fuller's earth), lime, natural RBS
liquids, silver, dimension ntonc-1972, and
tripoli
Total
Totnl 19C7 c
Quantity
1,571
."0
l.Tlfi
65.523
132,105
NA
1,335
1,194
74
34.174
39,929
;1 SO.ZliO
11,378
XX
XX
XX
Value
(thou-
sands)
$33.121
2..i.i:i
3,:ii4
402. •!.•< 1
9,961
•101
3.?i
',135
121.013
01. MO
'94.225
4.039
35.729
709.737
G.V,.l 19
1973
Quantity
1.672
•cs
1.75.1
61.572
160.30.1
NA
511
1.03.1
72
SO.Cfi'J
43.049
6ti,f,53
5,250
XX
XX
XX
Vnluc
(thoti.
annds)
S3C.nC4
2.901
3. CM
413.309
11.871
2
170
673
1.037
132.490
62.02»
114. OCX
2.1 68
45.306
825.008
i'VOC.101
P Prt-limiiiftry. NA Not Avuilftblv. XX Not npplicftblc.
1 I'rtxdiriion as mrnsurcd by mine shipments, unit's, nr markctnbl* prcnluction ((ncludi^B con-
sumption by pru
-------
Table II-C-A-72
MINERALS YKAHDOOK, 1973
—Value of mineral production in Illinois, by county '
(ThotitumU)
County
1972
1073
Mineral* produced in 1073
in order of value
Alexander
llond -. .- —
Jloonc ..
llnjwn __• _. —
Jtlircau - --
t'alhoun . , _
Carroll
CliampniKn -
Christian - ._
Clark "
Clay -.
Clinton
Cole. - -
Cook
Crawford '..,. ..
Cumberland * -. .
D<: Knlb ...
1>C Wilt -
Douglas
I')u I'aue
KilKar - - -
Kd wards .!
KlIiitghAm ,
Foycttc
]''ranklin - *
Kulton
Cnllntin
(Jreenc -_._.
(imndy . „„--___.
Hamilton .
Hancock
Ilardin _
H*>ml< rnon . . . _. _-__
Henry
Jackson . . . __
J:t«pt-r . .; . . .; '__
Jefferson .
Jersey .
Jo Uuviens _. .„ .
Johnson ._ __
Knne
Kankakec - . .
Kendall
Kimx j .
liake
Ln Snllc
Livingston _
Mi-Dniiolieh ... ........
Mi'llenry
Mel.ean ...._
Maritn
Maroiliiin —
Madison
Marion .. . .
Marshall
Mason .... _• -
Mnssar
Mennrd .... .
Meirer ..
Monroe
Montgomery ........ ± .-
Mnnllrie .
$3,050
W
W
C2n
2f>
43.
W
w
737
W
W
W
W
2.363
42,800
C.4II7
W
W
W
27.353
.1.55.*
3!K)
l.xns
i.oii-i
13,643
W
4X.07M
W
19,011
W
W
4.02X
805
16.3 ir,
ti!-'
W
W
W
2. .'til 2
G2.-IS5
J!»0
3,075
W
G.'*7.'l
6.-J2 1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
HIS
W
W
W
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
iz.r.r.i;
W
$3,334
W
W
G50
'13
6X1 .
W
W
701
W
W
W
W
w
63.423
C.OX1
110
w
w
37.30.1
W
4S4
l.'JCl
1.1M
H.7H5
C2X
46.9X7
W
W
w
w
•1.055
1.0X6
ir,,95fi
W
w
w
w
2.XIO
Gx.ftlo
219
2,214
W
in.n«
6,1-lx
f,'l2
W
W
W
1C 671
W
\V
W
1.054
10.073
7-tr,
fl.1.1
W
3 10'*
W
59
•11
W
W
W
w
w
w
Stone, lime, land and crnvi*!, petro-
leum.
Tripoli, «nml and gravel.
Sand nnd crave), petroleum, clay*.
Stone, Kand anil ci*'lvvl.
Sainl and uravel. elayH. petroleum.
San'«.
pent.
Petroleum. Kami anil travel.
Sand and travel, stone.
Do.
1'etroleiiin. Band and travel.
Nntm.il IMS liquids, coal. Htone, pe-
troleum.
Sand and travel, ctone.
1'eti'oleurn.
Do.
Mo.
I'elroleum, fttonc, snnd and gravel.
rhiys.
Sainl and uruvel.
Conl. petroleum.
Coal, snnd nnd travel.
Conl. petroleum, «and anil Kravrl.
tuiturat HUM.
Slon.-.
Sand nnd gravel, clayt.
1'etroleiini.
Stone.
riimrsuni . si HIM-, x.inc, lend, » liver.
sand find travel.
Stone.
Stone, nand nnd travel.
Sloiu-. coal, sand and trnvel.
I'eli-oleiim, saiul and travel.
(.'fill, petroleum.
Slone.
Snnd and gravel, cine, atone, lead.
Slone. rnnl.
S:m
-------
Table II-C-A-72—Continued
THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF ILLINOIS
—Value of mineral production in Illinois, by county '—Continued
(ThuiinnmU)
Counly
Or.le
1'v'rry , ;,
1'ikc ...i
Pope _ 1-
1'ula.ski
1'ulnam , - .
Randolph . ,
Kichlaml
I'.uck Inland
Si. Cluir
Saline
Sam: a mun
Sclmylcr . .. -
Scut I
Shi-lliy
Stark
Tv/ewvll
tlnii.n .,
Vermilion ..i.-. ,- . . . :
Wabash _,
Washington ..
Wnyne. ...
White ---
Whitrsido
Will
Williamson
Winnehnco .-
Wondforil
Undiblribuled •
1072
W
tlG.124
G4.CIIL'
W
W
W
W
W
J.Hir,
w
4I,!M»1
19,400
W
W
W
w
w
6.12
w
w
2;or.s
w •
w
w
12.10,1
l(*l..'t»u
2.110
10..-1.1
30.0111
1.17.1
207,011)
1973
W
$14.U19
66.412
W
;)
W
11
W
4.0Uf>
^.U-lii
4:1.2011
21.647
Z.filll
W
W
w
w
HIT,
W
W
w
w
w
w
1.1.XU2
1(1,200
W
1 I.I 111
2!l.0'.e-
l!.'.t.*i.1
2.02G
2HX,!19K
Minerals produced in 1073
in order of value
Sand and cravel, stone.
Coal, sand ami t:rnvel. slum*.
(.'ual. petnili-nin.
SUme. siind and tfruvel.
Sand and uruwl.
Salul anil urnvd.
Coal, sluiie., kand and uruvcl, pclro*
luum.
I'elnib'Uiit.
Slone, .sand and tfnivel.
Cual, Ktnnc, petroleum, liund and
cravrl.
Coal, petroleum, nutural uaH.
Sand and gravel, Kltinc.
Do.
Slune, clay.t. R:iti,l nnd vruvi-1.
Stone, sand anil Kravet, petroleum.
dial. Haiul anrl travel.
Stone, satiil and gravel.
Slune. sand nml u'ravi1!.
StoiiM. sand and gravel, elay.i.
1'i-t nilenm. eon), snnd and gravel.
Stone.
I'elnileum. stone.
I'elrnlenm.
I'el rnleiim. flaiul and travel.
Slune, pi-al. snml nnd urnvel.
Stniif. sand ainl gravel.
C.ual. pel rnleiim. natural pas. slonc.
Stone, sand anil gravel.
Sand nnd cravel.
Tolnl *
W Wtthlx'td ft. tvni.I ilis :|'isiitir iin
1 r.-.ss. Mm
IM'trol.Mim is 1
- ValiH- of
Uftitiil smircr
Ki-m stdiM-s, nt
at
IHt
ct
f I
. (IIM! 1'
1 nit /in
ulciini |
iitt C-'MIIM!
ivt-raiTf p
nulurt iiiit
1 valms iixticalril hy
7G0.7.17 H2r,.G08
iviflual f i> pany ronliil'-iilial iluta
jr* aro i
rico JUT 1
hi Cum
n
a
„
xymhul W.
li ;)i>i| tiiTaiisc no r»n
rrl for Ihr Slate,
laud COM ul y is inclm
inrlmlr.t
iliirtiiin
«-,| wild
with '
was n
Clark
IH* nHsiiriu-il u»
II
1"
(
idislrilnitril."
rtcil.
Olllll)
Hpt-rific
Valitr of
lii>ni»»c
cuunlitii.
' U»l« may not add to lotal» shown bcraii«c of independent roundink'.
II-C-A-135
-------
2. TRANSPORTATION BASELINE DATA
2.1. HIGHWAYS
The distribution of highway mileage over urban and rural areas in
the state of Illinois is given in Table II-C-A-73, which also gives the
number of miles completed and planned on the interstate highway system.
The network of Illinois interstate and other proposed freeway corridors
are shown in Figure II^C-A-23.
All counties that have been selected for power plant sites are
served by the state's primary system of highways, which includes inter-
state, United States, and Illinois highways and tollways.
Table II-C-73
TOTAL ROAD AND STREET MILEAGE: ILLINOIS, 1973
Rural 102,715
Urban 27,779
Total 130,494*
Interstate
Completed 1,281
Planned 467
Total 1,748
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion (1973) p. 221.
alncludes interstate highway mileage.
Refer to Table II-C-A-74 for a listing of the candidate counties
that are served by interstate highways.
II-C-A-136
-------
Figure II-C-A-23
ILLINOIS INTERSTATE AND OTHER PROPOSED FREEWAYS
TOLL ROAD • Undu CoruiTucno*
Interstate
Proposed Freeway Corridors
SOURCE: State of Illinois, Department of Business and Economic Develop-
ment (1973).
II-C-A-137
-------
Table II-C-A-74
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SERVING THE
COUNTIES SELECTED FOR POTENTIAL POWER PLANT SITES
County
Brown
Cass
Clark
Greene
Hami 1 ton
Hancock
Henderson
iroquois
Jersey
Lawrence
Livingston
Marshall
Mercer
Perry
Pulaski
Schuyler
Scott
St. Clair
Washington
White
Type of
Plant
coal
nuclear
coal
coal/
nuclear
coal
nuclear
nuclear
nuclear
coal
coal
nuclear
coal/
nuclear
nuclear
synthetic
coal
coal
coal
synthetic
coal
coal
Served by Accessible by
Interstate Navigable River
Illinois
Illinois
1-70
Illinois
Mississippi
Mississippi
1-57
Illinois.
1-55 (prop.)
Illinois
Mississippi
1-57 Ohio
Illinois
Illinois
I-55/I-57
1-64
Served by
Railroad
.j
1
LU
O
O
fr ^
«c
C£
CO
i— i
00
1—4
X
LU
LU
IE
CQ
O
1 1 1
LU
CO
LU
00
LU
t-H
1—
z
o
C_3
1 1 1
Q
•st
_J
^
II-C-A-138
-------
2.2. RAILROADS
Thirteen different railroads currently serve the coal fields of
Illinois. Almost all of them are also connected with the major railroads
of the United States. Figure II-C-A-24 shows the railroad network for the
State of Illinois. All candidate counties are serviced by the existing
network.
2.3. WATER TRANSPORTATION
Illinois coal fields are located in close proximity to the Missis-
sippi River, the Ohio River and the Illinois River, which provide excel-
lent opportunities to ship coal by waterways. Figure II-C-A-25 shows the
commercial waterways and public barge terminals in Illinois. Refer to
Table II-C-A-74 for a listing of candidate counties accessible by navi-
gable rivers.
2.4. TRANSMISSION LINES
Figure II-C-A-26 shows the major electric transmission lines in
Illinois, those currently in existence and those under construction.
2.5. COAL SHIPMENTS
Coal is transported in Illinois mostly by rail and barge, with a
smaller proportion being carried by trucks. Table II-C-A-75 gives fi-
gures for shipments of bituminous coal by truck and unit train in 1973.
Table II-C-A-75
SHIPMENT OF BITUMINOUS COAL BY TRUCK AND UNIT
TRAIN: ILLINOIS, 1973 (in thousands of net tons)
Unit Train 22,155
Truck
Shipments originated 3,393
Shipments received 5,540a
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (1976).
Includes shipments via tramway, conveyors and private railroads.
II-C-A-139
-------
Figure II-C-A-24
ILLINOIS RAILROAD NETWORK
Note: See Regional
Transportation tables
for carriers serving
principal citi«a
SOURCE: State of Illinois, Department of Business and Economic Develop-
ment (1973).
II-C-A-140
-------
Figure II-C-A-25
ILLINOIS COMMERCIAL WATERWAYS
Worldwide Service
to and from
Chicago via the
-•I 'i--^
St. Lawrence
Seaway
t--*" Beards town
Hartford
/ I )
Cranite City
st. Louis iff r r' s
East St. Louis
New Orleans 869 Miles
SOURCE: State of Illinois, Department of Business and Economic Develop-
ment (1973).
II-C-A-141
-------
Figure II-C-A-26
MAJOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES IN
ILLINOIS (GENERALIZED) JUNE 30, 197G
TRANSMISSION
LINES (kilovolts)
— 189 or greater
—115-188
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SOURCE: adapted from Illinois Comerce Cornission.
ities in Illinois," January 1, 1975.
II-C-A-142
nap, "Electric Util-
-------
Inland waterway coal shipments in Illinois use the Ohio and Upper
Mississippi River systems (which include the Illinois River). Table II-
C-A-76 gives the volume of coal shipments in 1972 on inland waterways by
origin and destination river.
Table II-C-A-76
INLAND WATER COAL SHIPMENTS: 1972
(in million tons)
Origin River
Upper
Destination River
Ohio
Upper Mississippi
Illinois
Ohio
22
0.9
0.6
Mississippi
0.5
5.5
7.5
Illinois
—
--
5.3
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (1976) pp.12-13.
II-C-A-143
-------
3. BIOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL BASELINE DATA
3.1. NATURAL VEGETATION
The majority of the natural vegetation of Illinois has been removed
and replaced by farm land or urban areas. The prairies of central Illinois
have been converted into exceptionally fertile agricultural lands. Only
remnant areas Of prairie remain, usually along railroad right-of-ways.
Much of the native forests have also been removed. In 1972, 11%
of the state was in forest. Much of this forested land is in the south-
ern one-third of the state (south of Coles County) and along the Illinois
and Mississippi Rivers. By 1962, the date of the last forest inventory,
the better wood had been removed, leaving rough and defective trees with
a large proportion of low-grade wood. At that time, it was recommended
that the harvest rate be increased by a factor of four to allow young,
higher quality trees to grow more rapidly. These commercial forest lands
occupy nearly four million acres.
3.2. PRESENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
The land use of Illinois and of the regions that are anticipated
to receive power plants by 2000 is listed in Table II-C-A-77. Much of
the land in the state is devoted to small grain production, as can be
seen in Table II-C-A-78.
3.3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
Illinois soils are generally highly productive (Table II-C-A-78).
The state is a major supplier of the nation's grain, with almost equal
areas devoted to corn and soybeans. Lesser amounts are planted in wheat
and still less in oats. The corn production averaged about 890 million
bushels in 1972 and 1973, while soybean production for the same period
averaged 245 million bushels.
3.4. FISHERIES
Illinois has a small commercial fishing industry. The value of
the catch in 1975 was $910,000. The majority of this catch, valued at
$810,000, came from the Mississippi River and from Lake Carlyle in south-
central Illinois. Commercial fishing in the Wabash and Illinois Rivers
produced revenues of $86,000. The value of the catch has been increas-
ing in the Mississippi River but decreasing in the Illinois River. Com-
mercial fishing began in Lake Carlyle in 1974.
II-C-A-144
-------
Table II-C-A-77
LAND USE IN ORBES REGION OF ILLINOIS
Totals for Counties with Power Plants
In Year 2000 In the Four Scenarios
Total for
ORBES Region
Land Use of Illinois
Farmland 25,000,000
Pastures
Woodlands
Conrnercial
Forest
State Parks
Surface Water
Strip Mined
CROPS
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
1,600,000
1 ,800,000
3.900,000
63,000
270,000
160,000
7,600,000
8,400,000
8.200.000
8,300,000
8,100,000
6,700,000
1,200,000
1.200.000
280.000
190.000
240.000
BOM 80:20
3,400,000
250,000
400,000
-
12,000
28,000
23,000
830,000
870,000
900,000
840,000
1.000,000
900,000
220,000
240,000
23,000
20,000
24,000
BOM 50:50
4,500,000
280,000
360,000
-
17,000
28,000
220
1.400,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
180,000
200.000
44,000
42,000
53.000
Tech Fix
100% Coal
1.553,149
91,924
138,545
233.733
3,656
23.462
54,688
454,000
468,600
470,400
440,900
508,300
474,600
95,000
99,400
10,850
10.400
10.650
Tech Fix
100%
Nuclear
907,996
15,016
31.108
38,921
4,844
7,615
999
368,000
385,800
413,800
278,800
351,000
311,000
2,900
3,350
12,500
11,500
13,700
Units
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Date
1969
1969
1969
1962
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1974
1972
1973
1974
1972
1973
1972
1973
1974
II-C-A-145
-------
Table II-C-A-78
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION OF BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN ILLINOIS
Totals for Counties with Power Plants
In Year 2000 1n the Four Scenarios
1— 1
1
o
1
-fa.
cn
Total for
ORBES Region
of Illinois
Corn Yield
Soybean Yields
Wheat Yield
Fishing License
Deerkills
Commercial Fish Sales
Attendance State
Parkc
BOM 80:20
23,000
23,000
230,000
260,000
53,000
4,500,000
1 1 ,000
910,000
14,000,000
BOM 50:50
1,400
1,400
27,000
29,000
10,000
32,000
1,800
• -
1,300,000
Tech Fix
100% Coal
1,500
1,400
42,000
48,000
7,800
34,000
2,200
-
1,500.000
Tech Fix
100%
Nuclear
1,400
1.300
16.000
16,000
460
57,034
468
611,176
1,100
1 .200
10.000
13,000
143
16.665
172
• -
576,517
Units
1000 tons
1000 tons
1000 bushels
1000 bushels
1000 bushels
Dollars
Visitors
Date
1972
1973
1972
1973
1972
1972
1975
1973
-------
3.5. NATURAL AREAS
Forty-nine areas in Illinois have been identified as being unique
habitats. Most of these are located in the southern one-third of the
state. A listing of the natural areas and their locations is contained
in Table II-C-A-79. A new inventory of natural areas is in progress for
the state.
3.6. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Many species of animals and plants present in Illinos are consi-
dered to be rare because the state is close to the edge of their natural
range and only portions of the state provide suitable habitat for them.
Others are considered to be rare or endangered in all parts of their
range because of their small numbers or presence in only a few localities.
Both categories are included in Table II-C-A-80, which also indicates
the counties that have been selected as possible power plant sites under
one of the scenarios. A listing of rare and endangered plants is presently
being prepared for Illinois.
II-C-A-147
-------
Table II-C-A-79
' MTMML MCAS OF ILLINOIS
Selected for Power Plants
COUNTY
NATURAL AREAS
60X80:20
BOM 50:50
Tech Fix
IQOt Coal
Tech Fix
IQOt Hud ««r
Alexander Horseshoe Lake
Bureau Miller-Anderson Woods
Clark Rock Branch
Edgar Baber Woods
Fayette Illinois Central Railroad
Prairie
6r*ene Cole Creek H111 PralHe
Gruridy . Goose Lake
Hancock Cedar Glen
Mississippi River Sand
Hills
Jackson Fountain Bluff
Grand Canyon
Fem Rock
Jasper Jasper County Prairie
Chicken Sanctuary
Johnston Grantsburg Swamp
Round Bluff
Cache River Swamp
Kankakee Kahkakee River
La Salle Clark Run
Black Ball River
Starved Rock
Lawrence Robeson Hill
Marlon Devils Prop
Marlon County Prairie
Chicken Sanctuary
Niton Illinois River Ravine
Henry Allan Gleason
Sand Prairie Scrub Oak
Nmac Fort Massac State Park
Thorton's Ravine
Cretaceous Hills
Halesla
Mermet Swamp
McLean Weston Cemetary Prairie
Monroe Fults Hill Prairie
Ptorla Forest Park
Pike Twin Calvert Cave
Pop* Jackson •
Bell Smith Springs
Hayes Creek Canyon
Lush Creek Canyon
Long Spring and Cove Spring
Pulaskl Chestnut Hills
Putrara George S. Park
Rlehland Big Creek Woods Memorial
IMIon pine Hills and Wolf Lake
Ozark Hills
Vermlllion Russell H. Duffln
Washington Posen Woods
CM!
Coal
Coal
Coal/Nuclear
Nuclear
Coal
CM]
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal coal
II-C-A-148
-------
Table II-C-A-80
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN ILLINOIS
____ Power Plant In Ranflc
Animals BOM 80:20 BOH 50:50 Tech
FISH
Pal 11 d Sturgeon
Cisco
Lake Sturgeon
Pallid Shiner
Pugnose Shiner
Slackchin Shiner
Blacknose Shiner
Spring Caveflsh
Bantam Sunflsh
Bluebreast Darter
Harlequin Darter
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender Coal Coal
Dusky Salamander
REPTILES
Alligator Snapping Turtle Coal Coal
Spotted Turtle
Eastern Coachwhlp
Scarlet Snake
Northern Lined Snake
Timber Rattlesnake Coal Nuclear
BIRDS
Least Tern
Double-Crested Cormorant
Cooper's Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Bald Eagle Nuclear
Peregrine Falcon
Greater Prairie Chicken Coal Coal
Upland Sandpiper
Bachman's Sparrow
MAMMALS
Indiana Bat
Eastern Woodrat
White-tailed Jackrabblt
II-C-A-149
-------
4. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
4.1. INTRODUCTION .
The preservation of historical resources is of growing importance
because of an increasing awareness that our environment and civilization
are the products of history. Thus, the impact of technological develop-
ment on archeological and historic sites is an important aspect of tech-
nology assessment.
4.2. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN ILLINOIS
An abundance of archeological and historic sites are found through-
out the Ohio River Valley. Table II-C-A-81 lists these historic sites as
shown in the Federal Register for Illinois counties within the ORBES re-
gion (as of February 10, 1976). Additional sites are listed in the Fed-
eral Register as they are designated.
4.3. LAWS DEALING WITH HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.3.1. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Over the last few years a number of laws have been enacted at the
federal level to preserve and protect significant historical and archeo-
logical sites. Table II-C-A-82 gives a brief summary of these laws and
regulations.
4.3.2. ILLINOIS LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The State also has several laws pertaining to historic places.
Like the Federal laws, they are designed to preserve and protect historic
and archeological sites in Illinois. Some of these laws are summarized
in Table II-C-A-83.
II-C-A-150
-------
Table II-C-A-81
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN. ILLINOIS' PORTION OF THE ORBES REGION
County
Site
Adams
Alexander
Bond
Bureau
Cass
Champaign
Clark
Clinton
DeWitt
Fayette
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
i
Hancock
John Wood Mansion (Quincy)
Magnolia Manor (Cairo)
Old Custom House (Cairo)
Thebes Courthouse (Thebes)
Old Main, Almira College (Greenville)
First State Bank of Manlius (Manlius)
Owen Lovejoy Homestead (Princeton)
Red Covered Bridge (Princeton)
Old Danish Church (Sheffield)
Andrew Cunningham Farm (Virginia)
Cattle Bank (Champaign)
Altgeld Hall, University of Illinois (Urbana)
Morrow Plots, University of Illinois (Urbana)
Old Stone Arch National Road (Marshall)
General Dean Suspension Bridge (Carlyle)
Pabst Site (Birkbeck)
Little Buck House (Vandalia)
Vandalia Statehouse (Vandalia)
Ulysses G. Orendorff House (Canton)
St. James Episcopal Church (Lewiston)
Dickson Mounds (Lewistown)
Ogden-Fettie Site (Lewistown)
Saline Springs (Equality)
John Marshall House Site (Old Shawneetown)
State Bank (Old Shawneetown)
Koster Site (Eldred)
Carthage Jail (Carthage)
Mauvoo Historic District (Nauvoo)
SOURCE: Federal Register (14).
II-C-A-151
-------
County
Table 11-C-A-81— Continued
Site
Hardin
•i
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jefferson
*
Jersey
Knox
La Salle,
Logan
Macon
Macoupin
Madi son
Marion
Massac
Rose Hotel (McFarlan's'Tavern) (Elizabethtown)
Illinois Iron Furnace (Rosiclare)
Oquawka Wagon Bridge (Oquawka)
Jenny Lind Chapel (Ahdover)
Bishop Hill Historic District (Bishop Hill)
South Side School (Geneseo)
Frederick Frances Woodland Palace (Kewanee)
Ryan Round Barn (Kewanee)
Old Iroquois County Courthouse (Watseka)
West Walnut Street Historic District
(Carbondale)
Appellate Court, 5th District (Mt. Vernon)
Elsah Historic District (Elsah)
Old Main, Knox College (Galesburg)
Wolf Covered Bridge (Yates City)
John Hossack House (Ottawa)
Washington Park Historic District (Ottawa)
Old Kaskaskia Village (Ottawa)
Starved Rock (Ottawa)
University Hall (Lincoln)
James Mi Hi kin House (Decatur)
Union Miners Cemetery (Mount Olive)
Alton Military Prison Site (Alton)
Guertler House (Alton)
Haskell Playhouse (Alton)
Lyman Trumbull House (Alton)
William Jennings Bryan Boyhood Home
Kincaid Site (Brookport)
Fort Massac Site (Metropolis)
Ii-C-A-152
-------
Table II-C-A-8T—Continued
County
Site .
McDonough
McLean
Menard
Monroe
Morgon
Peoria
Pike
Pope
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Sangamon
McDonough County Courthouse (Macomb)
Clover Lawn-David Davis Mansion (Bloomington)
McLean County Courthouse and Square
(Bloomington)
Stevenson House (Bloomington)
Lincoln's New Salem Village (Petersburg)
Lunsford-Pulcher Archeological Site
(Columbia)
Beecher Hall, Illinois College (Jacksonville)
Joseph Duncan House (Jacksonville)
Jacksonville State Hospital Main Building
(Jacksonville)
Jubilee College (Kickapoo)
Judge Flanagan Residence (Peoria)
Peoria City Hall (Peoria)
Naples Mound 8 (Griggsville)
Pittsfield East School (Pittsfield)
Millstone Bluff (Glendale)
Mound City Civil War Naval Hospital (Mound City)
Putnam County Courthouse (Hennepin)
Mary's River Covered Bridge (Chester)
Pierre Menard House (Ellis Grove)
Modoc Rock Shelter (Modoc)
Creole House (Prairie du Rocher)
French Colonial Historic District
(Prairie du Rocher)
Kolmar Site (Prairie du Rocher)
Fort de Chartres (Prairie du Rocher)
Clayville Taverns (Pleasant Plains)
Susan Lawrence Dana House (Springfield)
Edwards Place (Springfield)
II-C-A-153
-------
Table II-C-A-81 -Concluded
County Site
Sangamon (continued) Lincoln Home National Historic Site
(Springfield)
Lincoln Tomb (Springfield)
Vachel Lindsay House (Springfield)
Old State Capitol (Springfield)
Shelby Thompson Mill Covered Bridge (Cowden)
St. Clair Church of the Holy Family (Cahokia)
Nicholas Jarrot House (Cahokia)
Cahokia Mounds (Collinsvilie)
Mermaid House Hotel (Lebanon)
Emerald Mound and Village Site (Lebanon)
Vermillion Fithian House (Danville)
White Rate!iff Inn (Carmi)
Robinson-Stewart House (Carmi)
Counties chosen for additional power plants under the four scenarios
by the year 2000.
II-C-A-154
-------
Table II-C-A-82
FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROTECTING
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
Act
Purpose
Antiquity Act of 1906
(PI 59-209, 34 STAT. 225)
Historic Sites Act of 1935
(PL 74-292, 49 STAT. 666)
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960
(PI 86-523, 74 STAT. 220)
National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966
(PL 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470-470m
1970)
National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969
(PL 91-190, 31 STAT. 852)
Executive Order 11593, Protec-
tion and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment
Provides protection of all historic
and prehistoric monuments on federal
lands.
Sets as national policy the preserva-
tion for public use of historic sites,
buildings and objects. Under this
act, the National Historic Landmarks
Program Historic Sites Survey, His-
toric American Building Survey, and
Historic American Engineering Record
were established.
Requires that any federal agency under-
taking the construction of a dam must
provide written notice to the Secre-
tary of the Interior, so that the
Department of the Interior may deter-
mine if any archeological resources
are affected.
Expands the scope of the National Re-
gister of Historic Places to include
a greater variety of possible site
designations. If a site is on the
Register, this fact must be consid-
ered by any project receiving federal
funds. This act also established the
President's Advisory Council on His-
toric Preservation.
Declares as national policy the im-
provement and coordination of federal
plans and programs to help preserve
important cultural, historic and na-
tural aspects of our heritage.
Requires federal agencies to take a
leadership role in preservation by
surveying all properties under federal
control and nominating important sites
to the National Register. For every
action authorized by the federal govern-
II-C-A-155
-------
Table II-C-A-82—Concluded
Act Purpose
Executive Order 11593 (continued) ment, the agency involved must ask
the Secretary of the Interior to
determine if the site is eligible
for inclusion in the National Register.
Archeological & Historic Preser- Designed to preserve historic and
vation Act of 1974 archeological data that might other-
(PL 93-291, enacted May 24, 1974) wise be destroyed by federally author-
ized projects.
SOURCE: Canter, (15, p. 154).
II-C-A-156
-------
Table II-C-83
STATE LAWS PROTECTING HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
Act
Purpose
Public Parks
(105 II. STAT. 466)
Aboriginal Records and
Antiquities Act
(127 II. STAT. 133 Cl-6)
Illinois Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1976
(127 II. STAT. 133 d 1-14)
(proposed legislation)
Requires that the State of Illinois
acquire a system of state parks which
shall, in part, preserve the most im-
portant historic sites and events con-
nected with early pioneers or Indian
history and protect any location which
has unusual scenic attractions caused
by geologic or topographic formations.
Protects, preserves and regulates the
exploration and excavation of all arche-
ological sites located on lands owned
or controlled by the state. Archeolo-
gical sites include mounds, earthworks,
forts, burial and village sites, mines
and other relics.
Establishes an Illinois Historic Sites
Advisory Council and an Illinois Regis-
ter of historic places similar to the
National Register. The Council is
charged with overseeing additions and
removals of places to National and
Illinois Registers of historic places
and advising the Department of Conser-
vation on matters of historic preserva-
tion. The act also specifies that funds
administered by state agencies will not
be used on projects which will have
adverse economic or environmental impacts
on historic sites unless necessary for
greater public benefit.
To allow and encourage owners of land
or buildings to grant a conservation
right (similar to an easement) to the
state, local government, or not-for-
profit corporations to preserve a sig-
nificant structure, scenic area, or
archeological site.
II-C-A-157
-------
5. REGULATIONS REGARDING ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITIES IN ILLINOIS
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Regulations on energy conversion facilities in Illinois are found
at the federal, state, and local levels. These regulations primarily
cover two aspects of the conversion process: siting patterns and physi-
cal structure of facilities. Strip mining is also covered under current
regulations.
5.2. FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS ON CONVERSION FACILITIES
Federal regulations are primarily concerned with the construction
and operational processes for both generating and conversion facilities
and the setting of operational standards. Such procedures are outlined
in Table II-C-A-84. Similarly, the State of Illinois has a number of
regulations which control the construction and operational phases of en-
ergy conversion facilities. These are shown in Tables II-C-A-85 and
II-C-A-86.
5.3. LOCAL SITING REGULATIONS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Illinois has some 16 multi-county planning commissions and some
25 single-county planning commissions, which have over-all authority to
develop master plans for land use and water supply use in their regions
of authority (see Figure II-C-A-27). Most of these have federal moneys
and have been designated as the 208 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
planners for water resources in their area.
Most counties in northern Illinois and some municipalities in
Illinois generally have adopted zoning ordinances which control the sit-
ing of all industrial plants, as well as residential uses of land. How-
ever, some 50 counties (located primarily in the southern half of the
state) have no zoning ordinances. In those counties and municipalities
where zoning ordinances exist, little effort has been made historically
to overrule decisions taken by the Illinois Commerce Commission with re-
gard to siting electric utilities. Most local and county officials seem
to feel this problem is outside their authority, although legally, it is
not, and officially there is nothing to prevent municipal and county zon-
ing regulations from overriding the Illinois Commerce Commission's deci-
sions. In the event that public resistance arises to siting of a plant
in an unzoned county, it is possible that new zoning ordinances might be
drafted, or old ones revised, to include stringent control over utilities.
However, there is no precedent to this action at present.
II-C-A-158
-------
Table II-C-A-84
r>
i
ui
FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF GENERATION AND CONVERSION FACILITIES
« Law Agency Requirements
Atomic Energy Act of 1954
42 U.S.C. 2011
Federal Power Act
16 U.S.C. 791 et seq
Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899
U.S. 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq
National Environmental
Policy Act
42 U.S.C. 4321-4347
Nuclear Regulatory Cottmission
Federal Power Commission
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental
Quality
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
42 U.S.C. 1251 et-seq
Clean Air Act
42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Protection
Agency
Issues construction and operating permits for nuclear-
fired plants.
Issues permits for construction and operation of
hydro-electric generating plants.
Issues permits to construct and operate any fossil •
fuel-fired plants requiring a waterway into which to
discharge wastes, including thermal wastes.
Requires that any major federal project involving
significant environmental impact have an environmental
impact statement (102) drafted for it before project
is started. A lead agency (either NRC, FPC or COE) is
responsible for overseeing drafting of this statement
and filing it with CEQ, which may distribute copies to
other interested federal and state agencies, as well
as private organizations, who are allowed to comment on
the statement before construction is begun.
Sets effluent standards for new sources of waste
discharges to waterways. These standards are enforced
through a permit system that may be enforced by the
relevant state agency (in Illinois, EPA.) However,
the Federal EPA may assume responsibility for issuing
these permits if necessary.
Sets ambient air quality standards for all regional
airsheds in the United States. State implementation
plans are reviewed and passed by EPA, which has
authority to take over permit systems of state if it
fails to meet the ambient standards. Electric utility
plants will come under the emission standards set by
EPA for new stationary sources of air pollution.
-------
Table II-C-A-85
STATE OF ILLINOIS REGULATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF GENERATION AND CONVERSION FACILITIES
Law Agency Requirements
i
o
O»
o
Public Utilities Act
of 1921 (111. Rev.
Stat. Ch 111-2/3)
Electric Supplier Act
111. Rev. Stat.
Ch 111-2/3 Sec 201
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act of 1970
'111. Rev. Stat. Ch 111-1/2
Sec 100 et seq
Illinois Commerce
Commission
Illinois Commerce
Commission
Pollution Control
Board
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act of 1970
111. Rev. Stat. Ch 111-1/2
Sec 100 et seq
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act of 1970
111. Rev. Stat. Ch 111-1/2
Sec 100 et seq
Environmental Protection
Agency
PCB and EPA
Issues certificates of convenience and necessity to
gas and electric utilities, except those owned by
electricity cooperatives and municipalities, for elec-
tricity generating plants, natural gas plants, pipe-
lines and transmission lines.
Extended limited control over electric cooperatives.
Sets emission control limits for both air and water
pollution in line with the Federal A1r and Water
Quality Acts.
Issues orders to dischargers who are accused and found
guilty of violating restrictions 1n their permits.
Grants variances to permits issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency upon petition of dischargers.
Issues permits for construction and operation of
electric generating plants and any other industries
which discharge to air or water in Illinois. Limits
are based on water and air quality standards set by
state and federal governments. These permits place
limits on chemical, thermal and sewage wastes dis-
charges.
Have authority to issue permits for nuclear generating
plants' dischargers in law. However, U.S.S.C.
decision Minnesota v. Northern States Power Company
preempted this authority to the federal level, and no
further attempt has been made to utilize this authority.
-------
Table II-C-A-86
STATE OF ILLINOIS INFORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES
o
3>
I
Law
Federal: National
Environmental Policy
Act
Zoning Codes
Constitution
Agency
Public Health
Local Governmental Affairs
Transportation
Mines and Minerals
Aeronautics
Agriculture
Zoning Boards
Planning Commissions
Attorney General
Requirements
These .state agencies, as well as the Illinois
Commerce Commission, normally receive copies of
national environmental impact statements for
nuclear plants so that they may comment on them.
Have never used zoning authority to successfully
challenge decision taken by Illinois Commerce Commiss-
ion. However, they have successfully bargained with
utilities to provide services, such as an ambulance In
the Zion area where a nuclear plant has been constructed.
Has Intervened from time to time on the side of
environmentalists when they objected to parts of an
EIS, and successfully negotiated with Commonwealth
Edison to alter a plan for Cordova Plant.
-------
Figure II-C-A-27
COUNT!
CITIES WITH ZONING
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
II-C-A-162
January, 1976
-------
5.4. STATE REGULATIONS ON STRIP MINING
Sixty-five percent of Illinois land is underlain by coal. Ten to
fifteen percent of this is economically and legally extractable by surface
mining methods. The state has tried to regulate this process as shown in
Table II-C-A-87.
5.5. SUGGESTED ILLINOIS LEGISLATION
Some proposed legislation is listed in Table II-C-A-88.
II-C-A-163
-------
Table II-C-A-87
STATE OF ILLINOIS REGULATIONS ON STRIP MINING
Law Agency Requirements
Surface-Mined Land Department of Mines and Extensive grading and two-layer resoiling'process
Reclamation and Minerals for reclaming strip-mined land. The Department of
Conservation Act Mines and Minerals issues permits to coal companies
for operating strip mines.
Local Zoning Zoning Boards/County Knox County, Illinois has had two unsuccessful
attempts on the part of local officials to block
development of strip-mining through the use of
zoning ordinances. Courts have held that Knox
County cannot set reclamation standards through
this device, although they have never declared that
i-i local zoning authorities may not prohibit strip-'
V mining altogether. This has not been tried.
o
i- Courts A suit is presently pending 1n Illinois courts
JL against AMAX Coal in Vermilion County for seeking
2 permission from the Department of Mines and Minerals
to begin strip-mining without having compiled with
local zoning ordinances.
-------
Table II-C-A-83
SUGGESTED ILLINOIS LEGISLATION
o
I
C7I
Bill
One-stop siting
bill
Stronger siting
bill
Nuclear Moratorium
Illinois Commerce
Commission Reform
Date
Failed passage
1975
Failed In
committee 1975
Failed 1975
To be tried 1977
To be tried
Sponsors
Illinois Institute of
Environmental Quality;
Utilities
Environmentalists
Citizens for a Better
Environment
Envi ronmental1sts;
Consumers Unions
Commission is now
composed of 4 permanent
members and conducts
hearings on rates 1n
secret.
Opponents
Environmentalists on grounds it
would make licensing a rubber
stamp. Illinois Muncipal League
on grounds it would preempt local
zoning authority.
Utilities on grounds it would
delay siting further
Utilities and Illinois
government
Government and Utilities
-------
REFERENCES
1., M. M. Leighton, George E. Ekblaw and Leland Horberg. "Physiographic
Divisions of Illinois." Journal of Geology 56 (January 1948): 15-
33.
2. H. B. Will man and John C. Frye. Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Illinois.
Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 94, Urbana, II., 1970.
3. Kemal Piskin and Robert E. Bergstrom. Glacial Drift in Illinois:
Thickness and Character. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular
490, Urbana, II., 1975.
4. H. B. Willman, et al. Handbook of Illinois Stratigraphy. Illinois
State Geological Survey Bulletin 95, Urbana, II., 1975.
5. W. D. Kovacs. The Seismicity of Indiana and its Relation to Civil
Engineering Structures. Purdue University and Indiana State High-
way Commission, Joint Highway Research Project, No. 44, 1972.
»
6. U.S. ,Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Special Studies.
Nuclear Energy Center Site Survey - 1975. NUREG-0001. Washington,
D. C., January 1976.
7. Paul C. Heigold. Notes on the Earthquake of November 9, 1968, in
Southern Illinois.Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental
Geology Notes, No. 24, Urbana, II., 1975.
8. William H. Smith and John B. Stall. Coal and Water.Resources for
Coal Conversion in Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey ancl
Illinois State Geological Survey, Cooperative Resources Report 4,
Urbana, II., 1975.
9. Robert Fuessle. Memorandum to Professors Brill and Stout, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Urbana, Illinois, November 11, 1976.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook,
1973 - Area Reports: Domestic, vol 2. Washington, D. C.:Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1976.
11. U.S. Department*of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Highway Statistics - 1973. Washington, D. C.: Government Print-
ing Office, 1973.
12. State of Illinois, Department of Business and Economic Development.
Illinois State and Regional Economic Data Book. Springfield, II.,
1973.
13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Transportation
II-C-A-166
-------
Practices and Equipment Requirements to 1985. Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1976.
14. Illinois Commerce Commission, map, "Electric Utilities in Illinois",
January 1 , 1975.
15. Federal Register, Vol. 41, no. 28 (Tuesday, February 10, 1976) 5942-
16. Larry W. Canter. Environmental Impact Assessment. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.
17. Illinois. Statutes, annotated (Smith-Hurd, 1967)
In addition to the specifically cited references in this section, the
reader is also referred to the following bibliographic material, which
was used in a general way in the preparation of this narrative.
G. J. Allgaier and M. E. Hopkins. Reserves of the Herrin (Mo. 6) Coal
in the Fairfield Basin in Southeastern Illinois"! Illinois State Geolo-
logical Survey Circular 489, Urbana, II., 1975.
A. J. Eardley. Structural Geology of North America 2nd edition. Evanston,
II.: Harper and Row,-1962.
*
Burton L. Essex and David A. Gasner. Illinois Timber Resources.* U.S.
Forest Service. Lake States Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin
LS-3, 1965.
Robert A. Evers. Some Unusual Natural Areas in Illinois and a Few of Their
Plants. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Note No. 50.Urbana,
II., 1963.
Richard H. Goodwin and William A. Niering. Inland Wetlands of the United
States, Evaluated as Potential Registered Natural Landmarks. Natural
History Theme Studies, No.2. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1975.
Paul C. Heigold. Notes on the Earthquake of September 15, 1972, in North-
ern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology
Notes, 59, 1972.
Hittman Associates. "Baseline Data Environmental Assessment of a Large
Coal Conversion Complex." Prepared for the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration, n.d.
Philip B. King. The Tectonics of Middle North America. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951.
II-C-A-167
-------
Charles Schuchert. Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Central United
States. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1943.
State of Illinois, Department of Conservation. Illinois Nature Pre-
serves. Springfield, II., 1975.
State of Illinois, Department of Mines and Minerals. 1975 Annual Coal. •
Oil and Gas Report. Springfield, II., 1975.
State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environmental
Science. Rare and Endangered Vertebrates of Illinois. Springfield, II.,
1975.
State of Illinois, Energy Resources Commission. Draft Report of the
Coal Study Panel. Springfield, II., 1977.
G. S. Waggoner. Eastern Deciduous Forest. Vol. 1, Southeastern Ever-
green and Oak-Pine Regjon. U.S. Department of the Interior.Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
University of Illinois, College of Argiculture, Agricultural Experiment
Station. Soil Productivity Indexes for Illinois Counties and Soil As-
sociations. Bulletin 752, Urbana, II., 1975.
University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension
Service. Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory. Urbana,
II., 1970.
University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricul-
tural Economics. Illinois Social and Economic Indicators for Rural
Development. Urbana, II., 1976.
II-C-A-168
------- |