STATEMENT OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE The Edison Electric Institute, national trade association of investor-owned electric light and power companies, welcomes the opportunity to comment on some of the legislative proposals which this subcommittee is presently considering. The member companies of EEI serve approximately 77 percent of the nation's electric customers. The following comments focus principally on aspects of S. 523 and S. 1014 which appear to affect the electric utility industry most directly. Before making the specific comments, however, it should be noted that electric utility companies are primarily non-consumptive users of water. They take water from a lake, river, estuary, or ocean; use it to cool the steam required to generate electricity in thermal power plants; and then return it. Over 80 percent of the electricity in this country is generated in thermal power plants cooled in this manner. The bulk of the remainder is generated in hydroelectric plants which also make use of the nation's waters in a non-consumptive way. The Edison Electric Institute has appeared before this Subcommittee on previous occasions to discuss proposed water quality legislation. The most recent instance was on May 1, 1970, when William S. Lee, Vice President, Engineering of Duke Power Company presented testimony. Mr. Lee described the quantitative requirements of electric generating stations for cooling water, and discussed the techniques available to the industry for moderating the thermal discharges which are a necessary part of the process of electricity generation. As Mr. Lee pointed out, we have a good understanding of the rate and mechanisms of waste heat dissipation from cooling water. This heat can be transferred to the atmosphere in only two ways: either by means of a cooling tower or through natural heat dissipation mechanisms from a water body. A number of techniques are available to make use of natural heat dissipation, making use of natural water bodies, artificial water bodies such as cooling ponds, or with the help of sprays or other mechanical devices. He noted that a cooling tower causes a more substantial consumptive loss of water than the same heat dissipation from a water body. While cooling towers can be helpful in heat dissipation in some locations, they are not a panacea and alternate means of cooling should always be considered. The electric utility industry has been conducting extensive research into the effects of warm water discharges. One EEI research project, carried on under the direction of the Johns Hopkins University, has been underway for about eight years and is continuing at increasing levels of support. Reports of this work have previously been provided the Committee. Recently an additional report has been issued entitled “An Optimal Siting Model for Thermal Plants With Temperature Constraints," and a copy is enclosed for the Committee's files. The report describes the development of a new computer technique for choosing from a given set of possible sites, the most economically desirable combination of plant alternatives that maintains the coolant receiving waters below their maximum permissible temperatures. EEI has also recently published a summary of environmental water studies made by electric utility companies. The survey included the work of 121 companies and provides descriptions of some 400 studies which are completed or underway. A copy of this summary is also enclosed. An independent consulting organization was asked to review the completed studies and has found that none of the plants at the sites surveyed has damaging effects on the local eco-systems. Reference to Mr. Lee's testimony is pertinent because the principles he dis cussed and the technical information he provided are as applicable today as when he appeared before this Committee less than 12 months ago. The proposals this year are somewhat different, emphasizing the fact that water quality regulation is at present in an almost continuous state of flux. The resulting uncertainties make designing and operating electric power facilities difficult in the extreme. The Administration's recently announced permit program under the 1899 Refuse Act has served to aggravate the situation, and we are concerned that the proposed bills would confuse matters further. For instance, S. 523 and S. 1014 would extend the Federal water quality standards to all waters including intrastate waters. Depending upon the implementation, they could establish effluent limitations and criteria under which Federal Refuse Act permits would be issued, or they could operate entirely independently. President Nixon's order implementing the 1899 Act speaks of "effluent requirement" while S. 1014 could establish different "effluent limitations." Would there be two sets of rules? Would it be correct to infer that if one had a permit under the 1899 Act one would not be subject to the penalties proposed in S. 523 or S. 1014? As proposed, the Federal permit program would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to overrule a state certificate issued pursuant to Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Moreover, a Federal permit might be denied even though no certificate was required. The effect of such actions would be counter to the Federal-state cooperation which has been developing over recent years. In fact, as proposed the procedures under the permit program appear to fail to accept the competence of State Water Quality Review Boards. The Edison Electric Institute has submitted detailed comments on the permit program to the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. A copy of these comments is enclosed. There is a critical need to consolidate the number of certifying agencies in the environment field, not to proliferate them. Sound regulation is not achieved by shifting standards and overlapping regulatory bodies. We agree with EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus that solution of the problems of water pollution requires vigorous and constant implementation of regulatory authority. However, we suggest that more is achieved by firm regulation than by erratic and sometimes unreasonable and conflicting actions. Under either S. 523 or S. 1014, it appears that responsibility for setting standards, and particularly for enforcing them, would be shifted to a significant degree from the states to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The exact and complete impact of the proposed shift in emphasis from state to Federal cannot be ascertained, because it depends significantly on the Administrator's implementations and procedures under this legislation. This, in itself, is a matter of concern to us. The process of setting water quality standards by the states has been progressing well and our industry has generally found state agencies to be competent and knowledgeable about local situations. Utilities have made a good start toward working closely with these state agencies by doing environmental homework in advance of site decisions and before committing to specific cooling water facilities. Since each site must be considered on the basis of its own indigenous ecology along with other water quality parameters, jurisdiction at the state level promises to be more effective and more sensitive to the full spectrum of local conditions. To remove jurisdiction of thermal discharges to the higher federal level offers no evident benefits in the public interest, and, on the contrary, our experience has shown that it will lead to decision making on the basis of arbitrary formulas without giving proper weight to the local conditions that do affect public interest. The proposed legislation—either S. 523 or S. 1014-would amend section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish, implement, and enforce water quality standards. The general approach is clearly recognized as being similar to that of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Although there is no mention of thermal discharges, and heat is not specifically designated as an effluent, application of the Act to thermal discharges from electric power plants would be of great concern to us. The bills apparently provide no latitude for the Administrator to take into account the fact that heat discharges are diluted as distances from the point of discharge increase. This "mixing zone" concept is essential if we are to be able to make use of natural water bodies for cooling. Closing off this option could have a seriously detrimental effect on the ability of the industry to construct power plants unless there is extensive use of cooling towers. However, the use of cooling towers can also cause difficulties. A cooling tower performs its cooling almost entirely by a single mechanismevaporation. In addition to this consumptive loss of water, fine droplets of unevaporated cooling water are carried away by the airstream in cooling towers, and this is known as drift loss. On the other hand, a natural water body dissipates temperature in three ways-evaporation, conduction, and back-radiation. Under average climatic and mixing conditions, the evaporative process dissipates about one-half the extra heat from a water body with the remaining half dissipated by the other two ways which create no consumptive loss of water. A cooling tower causes a consumptive loss of water about 21⁄2 times as great as the same heat dissipation from a water body. The only way to use a water body for heat dissipation is to permit direct discharge of warmed effluents with a reasonable and adequate allowance for mixing and initial heat dissipation in a “mixing zone." To eliminate the mixing zone altogether would force the arbitrary application of cooling towers to existing and future thermal power plants. For water conservation purposes alone, it is essential that the natural heat dissipation mechanisms be employed wherever they can be made reasonably compatible with the ecology-and this, in turn, dictates that the concept of "mixing zones" be retained for thermal discharges. In addition, cooling towers may require a wasteful use of scarce land resources or impair air quality to an unacceptable degree. In order to strike the best overall balance among all resources, it may be desirable in some cases to use natural water bodies for cooling. This would be particularly true if no adverse effect on any other beneficial use of water is demonstrated. It is our experience that a major defect of many proposals for environmental protection is a single-minded attention to particular parts of a broad problem. The present proposals for water quality regulation, for example, focus entirely on one aspect of the environment to the exclusion of environmental problems related to land, air, or esthetics. They do nothing to promote the protection of total environmental quality which establishment of a unified environmental agency was intended to achieve. The Edison Electric Institute, therefore, urges that the subcommittee provide in any legislation favorably reported a clear and unequivocal statement permitting continued use of mixing zones for heat dissipation of thermal discharges. It is in the public interest to allow continued use of the mixing zone as an alternative to the use of cooling towers when the circumstances require. Section 10 (e) (2) of S. 523 provides that effluent requirements for new buildings or facilities shall permit no discharges when Administrator finds that closed-cycle production or treatment systems are available or can be made available. This provision is unclear as to the intended application. It is assumed that the "closedcycle production or treatment system" relates to waste treatment rather than closed-cycle cooling towers for heat dissipation. If this provision is approved by the Subcommittee, it should be changed to make it clear that closed-cycle cooling towers are not included in its coverage. The bills propose that water quality criteria should reflect the latest scientific knowledge, and that effluent limitations be based on the availability of practicable treatment or control measures which shall be generally applicable to industrial facilities under construction on the date of enactment or on which construction is commenced after date of enactment. We applaud the concept that effluent limitation be based on the availability of practicable control measures. Limitations set in any other manner would have little meaning. However, under the language in the bills it would seem that a plant under construction, even though it had received preconstruction clearances, might have to meet effluent limitations promulgated months after the date of enactment. This could cause construction to be halted, depending on the attitude of the Administrator. We would hope this point could be clarified. Both S. 523 and S. 1014 also provide that in cases where water quality on the effective date of the legislation is higher than the water quality criteria, no standard shall permit degradation or "such high quality shall be maintained in accordance with regulations." This apparently would bar industries from using certain waters, and we do not believe this is sound. While the overall objective. which we presume to be that water quality be improved in the future, is one we endorse, we do not believe that precluding the use of certain bodies of water is the proper way to achieve it. In the future, we may find that in order to improve the quality of some water bodies it would be desirable to move a production facility to an area now unused. The proposal in the bills ignores the question of how much development a particular water body can absorb without harm, and makes an arbitrary rule that applies generally. As a society we will need to have our water resources available for sound development. The bills provide that the Administrator publish recommended control techniques to achieve water quality standards. This information will be helpful in public discussions of water quality control, and we would hope that the pub lications would be descriptive rather than judgmental. Presentation of the effectiveness, cost, economic feasibility, and environmental consequences of various control techniques should speak for themselves—and should be open to public scrutiny and discussion before final publication. It may be that the public would be aided in its understanding of these matters if several expert opinions were included in such a publication, rather than just those of the regulatory agency. There are several other specific provisions as proposed in S. 523 and/or S. 1014 which are of interest to electric companies. Brief thoughts on these points may be useful to the Subcommittee in its consideration of this legislation. S. 523 does not define the terms used in the bill. The meaning of “Water Quality Standards" and the contents of a “plan” do not appear to be consistent throughout the bill. S. 1014 does provide definitions, and this appears preferable. S. 523 establishes shorter deadlines for required actions than does S. 1014. For example, it requires initial regulations to be promulgated in 90 days as compared to 6 months in S. 1014. Subsequent state standards must be adopted in 9 months after promulgation of initial regulations, in contrast to one year in S. 1014. The longer time periods in S. 1014 are still within reasonable limits and would provide for a more orderly accomplishment of the purposes of this legislation. S. 523 requires achievement of standards within 3 years. S. 1014 has no comparable provisions but does require states to adopt a plan of implementation and enforcement as expeditiously as practicable. The approach contained in the latter bill is preferable to establishing an arbitrary timetable. S. 523 requires state and EPA certification of compliance with regulations governing the latest pollution control techniques for new commercial facilities. Since existing law will require state certification of compliance with prescribed standards and a Federal permit for all discharges effective July 1, 1971, this dual certification is not only unnecessary, but can result in delays of vital facilities. Both bills provide for citizen suits in the manner of the 1970 Clean Air Act. However, S. 1014 contains some additional beneficial safeguards with respect to these suits which would tend to preclude a proliferation of costly, unnecessary, or harassing actions. S. 1014 prohibits the Administrator from approving water use designations if they specify the assimilation of waste as a primary use. This might be interpreted as precluding the use of cooling lakes built by a utility specifically to assimilate waste heat from a generating plant. This point should be clarified to the extent that such lakes or ponds are not included in the meaning of the section. In conclusion, we would remind the Subcommittee that an adequate and reliable supply of electric energy is one of the essential elements to the solution of many of the environmental problems facing our nation. We believe in sound regulation, but we believe equally that every attempt should be made to reduce licensing and construction delays affecting electric power supply. Imposition of new permit or certification requirements in addition to regulations which now exist and which should be given an opportunity to work will clearly make it more difficult for regulatory agencies to reach timely decisions concerning electric power plant construction. Further, provision for legal actions by individuals at every level of the already complex administrative process would simply serve to increase the frustrations and delays facing the agencies charged with the responsibility for regulating environmental quality. The Edison Electric Institute commends the Subcommittee for its interest in clarifying some of the problems which have developed in water quality control. Companies in the electric utility industry are attempting to operate under water regulations which are in a chaotic state. Uncertainties abound, as regulators come and go and as new regulations are imposed. We hope the Subcommittee will find a way to bring better definition and clearer responsibility into the proccess of water quality regulation, for sound regulation of water quality is surely needed throughout the country. Attachments follow: Enclosure I Cooling Water Discharge Project Report No. 6 AN OPTIMAL SITING MODEL FOR THERMAL PLANTS WITH TEMPERATURE CONSTRAINTS Prepared for Edison Electric Institute Research Project No. 49 by David H. Marks, Assistant Professor (now at Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.) and Richard A. Borenstein, Research Assistant Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering Baltimore, Maryland 21218 August, 1970 This work has been carried out under Available from EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE 750 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017 EEI Publication No. 70-902 |