EPA-130/6-79-001
July , 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
for New Source Fossil Fueled
Steam Electric Generating Stations
EPA Task Officer: John W. Meagher
Office of Environmental Review
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Preface
This document is one of a series of industry specific Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Guidelines being developed by the Office of
Environmental Review of use in EPA's Environmental Impact
Statement preparation program on New Source NPDES permits. It
to be used in conjunction with Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines
for Selected New Source Industries, on OFA publication that includes a
description of impacts common to most industrial new sources.
The requirement for federal agencies to assess the environmental
impacts of their proposed actions is included in Section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The
stipulation that EPA's issuance of a New Source NPDES permit is an
action subject to NEPA is in Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act
of 1977. EPA's regulations for preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements are in Part 6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
the EIA requirement is described in Section 6.908.
11
-------
NOTICE
In accordance with the CEQ regulations for implementing
NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) , EPA has modified its terminology
for its NEPA program. The document referred to in these
guidelines as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is now
called an Environmental Information Document (EID).
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures vii
List of Tables vii
INTRODUCTION 1
I. OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY 3
I.A. Subcategorization 3
I.A.I. Fossil Fuel Types 3
I.A.I.a. Coal 3
I.A.l.b. Oil 3
I. A. I.e. Gas 3
I.A.2. Off-Site Associated Facilities 4
I.B. Trends 4
I.B.I. The Demand for Power 4
I.B.2. Locational Changes 6
I.B.3. Raw Materials 6
I.B.4. Processes 9
I.B.5. Pollution Control 11
I.B.6. Environmental Impact 11
I.C. Significant Environmental Problems 12
I.C.I. Location 12
I.C.2. Raw Materials . 12
I.C.3. Processes 13
I.C.4. Pollution Control 14
I.D. Regulations 14
I.D.I. Air Pollution Performance Standards 15
I.D.2. Water Pollution Standards of Performance . 20
I.D.3. State Power Plant Siting Laws 22
II. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 25
II.A. Site Preparation and Facility Construction 25
II.B. Raw Materials Handling 25
II. B.I. Coal 25
II.B.I.a. Terrestrial Impacts 31
II.B.l.b. Aquatic Impacts 33
II.B.2. Oil and Gas 34
iii
-------
Page
II.C. Processes and Associated Waste Streams 34
II.C.I. Continuous Aqueous Waste Streams 36
II.D.
II. C. 2.
II. C. 3.
Other
II. D.I.
II. D. 2.
II. C.I. a. Heat Dissipation Systems
Il.C.l.b. Water Treatment Systems
II. C. I.e. Boiler Slowdown
Il.C.l.d. Ash Handling Water
II. C. I.e. Stack Gas Scrubber System
Il.C.l.f. Miscellaneous Waste Streams ... .
Intermittent Aqueous Waste Streams
Air Emissions Waste Streams
II.C.3.a. Sources of Emissions
II.C.3.b. Measurements of Air Emissions . . .
II.C.3.C. Atmospheric Chemistry
Impacts
Electric Power Transmission Systems
II. D.I. a. Data Requirements (Description of
the Proposed Transmission Facility)
II.D.l.b. Environmental Impact Considerations
Transportation Impacts
II.D.2.a. Railroads
II.D.2.b. Barges and Ships
II.D.2.C. Slurrv Pipelines
II.D.2.d. Trucks
. 36
. 4?
. 43
43
. 43
45
45
4S
. 47
. 48
50
, 5?
5?
. 53
. 54
. 59
. 60
. 61
. 6?
. 63
II.E. Modeling of Impacts 54
II.E.I. Air Quality Modeling 64
II.E.2. Cooling Water Discharge Models 68
II.E.2.a. General Types of Models 68
II.E.Z.b. Modeling Difficulties 71
II.E.2.C. Modeling Techniques 71
II.E.2.d. Recent Studies 73
II.E.2.e. Recommended Models 74
III. POLLUTION CONTROL 76
III.A. Standards of Performance Technology: In-Process
Controls, Water, Air, Solid Wastes 76
III.A.I. Water Treatment Wastes 76
III.A.2. Ash-Handling Water 76
III.A.3. Coal Pile Runoff 77
III.A.4. Stack Flue Gas Scrubber Systems 77
III.A.5. Cooling Tower Slowdown 77
III.A.6. Miscellaneous Waste Streams 77
III.A.7. Air Emission Abatement Systems 77
III.A.8. Solid Wastes 77
III.B. Standards of Performance Technology: End-of-Process
Controls, Water Streams 77
III.B.I. Chemical Pollutants 77
IV
-------
Page
III.B.2. Heat *"78
III.B.2.a. Mechanical Draft Evaporating
Cooling Towers 79
III.B.2.b. Natural Draft Evaporating
Cooling Towers 79
III.B.2.C. Dry Cooling Towers 79
III.B.2.d. Hybrid Cooling Towers 80
III.B.2.e. Cooling Lakes and Cooling Ponds ... 80
III.B.2.f. Spray Ponds and Canals ..:.... 80
III.C. Standards of Performance Technology: End-of-Process
Controls, Air 80
III.C.I. Particulate (Fly Ash) Control 81
III.C.I.a. Electrostatic Precipitators 81
Ill.C.l.b. Wet Scrubbers -32
III.C.2. SOX Control 83
III.C.2.a. Low-Sulfur Coal 83
III.C.2.b. Coal Beneficiation 84
III.C.2.C. Flue-Gas Desulfurization 84
III.C.2.d. Coal Beneficiation Combined with
Flue-Gas Desulfurization 85
III.C.2.e. Intermittent Control Systems .... 86
III.C.3. Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) Control 86
III.D. State of the Art Technology: End-of-Process
Controls, Solid Waste Disposal 87
IV. OTHER CONTROLLABLE IMPACTS 92
IV.A. Aesthetics 92
IV.B. Noise 93
IV.B.I. Existing Noise Levels 93
IV.B.2. Construction Noise Impacts 94
IV.B.3. Operation Noise Impacts 94
IV. C. Socioeconomics 95
IV.D. Energy Supply 95
IV.E. Impact Areas not Specific to Fossil-Fueled Steam
Electric Generating Stations 97
V. EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES 98
V.A. No-Build Alternative 98
V.A.I. Projecting the Demand for Power 98
V.A.2. The Relationship of Demand for Power to
Present and Planned Generating Capactiy . . . .100
V.A.3. Impacts of Not Constructing Facilities . . . .103
V.B. Site Alternatives 104
-------
V.C. Process Alternatives 1Q?
V.C.I. Alternative Generating Modes 107
V.C.2. Alternative Facility Designs 108
V.C.2.a. Fuel Type 109
V.C.2.b. Thermodynamic Cycle 109
V.C.2.C. Cooling Systems 109
V.C.2.d. Cooling Water Intake Structure . . H2
V.C.2.6. Cooling Water Discharge Structure . 112
V.C.2.f. Chemical Waste Streams 112
V.C.2.g. Fouling Control System 112
V.C.2.h. Sanitary Waste System 112
V.C.2.i. Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
System 113
V.C.2.J. Stack Emission Control System . . . 113
VI. REGULATIONS OTHER THAN POLLUTION CONTROL 114
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Environmental Impact Assessment: General 120
Air Emissions, Associated Impacts, and Control
Technologies 122
Effects of Air Emissions on Biota 126
Effects of Air Emissions on Human Health 129
Aquatic Biota: Impact Assessment 130
Solid Waste Generation, Associated Impacts, and Control
Technologies 132
Modeling of Impacts: Thermal Plumes; Air Quality 133
Electric Power Transmission Lines 137
Assessment of Transportation-Related Impacts 142
Raw Material Handling, Associated Impacts, and Control
Technologies 143
Noise Generation, Associated Impacts, and Control
Technologies 144
vi
-------
List of Figures
Number Page
1. Largest fossil-fueled steam electric turbine generators
in service, 1900-1990 10
2. Fossil-fueled steam electric power plant: Typical flow
diagram for a 1,000-MW plant 35
3. Effect of temperature profile on plume rise
and diffusion 65
4. Matrix of recommended mathematical prediction models . . 69
5. Need for power; Analytical framework . , . ...... , , . 99
List of Tables
Number
1. Historical growth: Summer peak load and total
electric demand, 1960-1975 5
2. Electricity consumption (Btu x 10 ) and compound
annual rates of growth (%), 1960-2000 7
3. Ranges of chemical constituents of
representative U.S. coals 8
4. Applicable Federal ambient air quality standards .... 16
5. Nondeterioration increments . 19
6. State siting laws 23
7. Outline of potential environmental impacts and relevant
pollutants resulting from site preparation and
construction practices 26
8. Coal pile drainage water: Analyses from nine plants . . 32
9. Ash pond overflow water: Change in contaminant
concentration 44
10. Raw waste flows and loadings: Maintenance cleaning ... 46
11. Estimated emission of toxic metals from conventional
power plants 49
VII
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
Number Page
12. Major chemical constituents of coal 89
13. Trace element constituents of coal 90
14. Factors affecting the demand for electricity 101
15. Load and capability forecast 102
16. Typical permits, licenses, certifications, and'approvals
for construction and operation of typical electric
generating facility
viii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Water Act requires that EPA establish standards of performance
for categories of new source industrial wastewater dischargers. Before the
discharge of any pollutant to the navigable waters of the United States from
a new source in an industrial category for which performance standards have
been proposed, a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit must be obtained from either EPA or the State (whichever Is
the administering authority for the State in which the discharge is proposed).
The Clean Water Act also requires that the issuance of a permit by EPA for a
new source discharge be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which may require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the new source. The procedure established by EPA regulations (40
CFR 6 Subpart I) for applying NEPA to the issuance of new source NPDES per-
mits may require preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by
the permit applicant. Each EIA is submitted to EPA and reviewed to determine
if there are potentially significant effects on the quality of the human
environment resulting from construction and operation of the new source.
If there are, EPA publishes an EIS on the action of issuing the permit.
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide industry specific guidance
to EPA personnel responsible for determining the scope and content of EIA's
and for reviewing them after submission to EPA. It is to serve as supple-
mentary information to EPA's previously published document, Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source Industries, which
includes the general format for an EIA and those impact assessment consider-
ations common to all or most industries. Both that document and these
guidelines should be used for development of an EIA for a new source fossil
fueled steam electric generating station.
These guidelines provide the reader with an indication of the nature
of the potential impacts on the environment and the surrounding region from
construction and operation of fossil fueled steam electric generating stations.
In this capacity, the volume is intended to assist EPA personnel in the
identification of those impact areas that should be addressed in an EIA.
In addition, the guidelines present (in Chapter I) a description of the
industry, its principal processes, environmental problems, and recent trends
in location, raw materials, processes, pollution control and demand for
industry output. This "Overview of the Industry" is included to familiarize
EPA staff with existing conditions in the industry.
Although this document may be transmitted to an applicant for informa-
tional purposes, it should not be construed as representing the procedural
requirements for obtaining an NPDES permit, for complying with Sections
316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, or as representing the applicant's
total responsibilities relating to the new source EIS program. In addition,
the content of an EIA for a specific new source application is determined
by EPA in accordance with Section 6.908(b) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and this document does not supersede any directive received by
the applicant from EPA's official responsible for implementing that regula-
tion.
-------
The appendix is divided into six sections. Section I is the "Over-
view of the Industry", described above. Section II, "Impact Identification",
discusses process-related wastes and the impacts that may occur during
construction and operation of the facility. Section III, "Pollution Control",
describes the technology for controlling environmental impacts. Section IV
discusses other impacts that can be mitigated through design considerations
and proper site and facility planning. Section V, "Evaluation of Alterna-
tives", discusses the consideration and impact assessment of possible
alternatives to the proposed action. Section VI describes regulations
other than pollution control that apply to the industry.
-------
I. OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
I.A. SUBCATEGORIZATION
From the standpoint of new source effluent guidelines, the fossil-fueled
steam electric power generating station category is not further subcate-
gorized. For environmental impact, however, projects may be subcategorized
by fuel type and in terms of associated off-site facilities.
I.A.I. Fossil Fuel Types
In 1973, 81 percent of all electrical power generation was from burning
of fossil fuels. The sections that follow discuss the use (in percent) and
associated problems of the various fossil fuels.
I.A.I.a. Coal. Coal is the most common fuel encountered and its use has
the widest range of potential environmental impact. In 1973, coal accounted
for 55 percent of the fossil fuel used in power plants; this percentage is
expected to increase because, although the use of coal presents relatively
greater environmental problems, it is more abundant than other fuels, less
costly, and the evolving Federal energy policy emphasizes the increased use
of coal. Principal environmental concerns associated with the use of coal
include:
Usurpation of land required for coal storage and the treatment
and disposal of contaminated runoff from these areas
Particulate and gaseous air contaminants from the burning of
coal
Disposal of large volumes of ashes and flue gas scrubber wastes
Water, air, and noise pollution resulting from transport and
handling of coal and disposal of ash.
I.A.l.b. Oil. Fuel oil accounted for 22 percent of the fossil fuel used in
power plants in 1973; however, energy policies are expected to discourage
its use. Generally the use of oil presents fewer air emission and ash gene-
ration problems than the burning of coal. Materials handling problems are
related primarily to spills and leaks and can be significant, depending on
the quantity and location of the discharge.
I.A.I.e. Gas. Natural gas accounted for 23 percent of the fossil fuel used
in conventional power plants in 1973. This percentage is expected to drop
markedly because of scarcity. Gas use eliminates particulate air pollutants
and its low sulfur content results in considerable reduction in gaseous
pollutants. Materials handling impacts also are less than for other fossil
fuel types.
-------
I.A.2. Off-Site Associated Facilities
Off-site facilities that are necessary for the operation of the power plant
and, therefore, must be considered in terms of their potential environmental
impact, include:
Construction of new or upgraded power line transmission facili-
ties to connect a new plant to existing power networks
Construction and operation of a railroad spur to connect the
plant with an existing rail line
Installation of barging or shipping facilities.
The impact of any off-site disposal of waste products, such as ashes, must
be considered. If the coal arrives at the plant via slurry pipe lines, the
construction and operation-related impacts of the line also should be
assessed (sedimentation, aesthetics, disposal of transport water). Poten-
tial impacts associated with the mining of coal are covered under other
industrial categories and, therefore, will be the subject of separate
guideline documents.
I.E. TRENDS
I.B.I. The Demand for Power
Since 1974, a series of events has introduced considerable uncertainty into
planning in the electric utility industry. Higher fuel prices have led to
higher rates. This factor and the slowdown in the economy have caused a
reduction in the rate of growth of the consumption of electricity.. Thus,
uncertainty surrounds the demand for electricity. At the same time, the
length of time taken to construct new generating units and the rate of in-
flation have increased.. Thus, uncertainty surrounds the cost at which elec-
tricity can be supplied. These trends, in both demand and supply, have
created financing problems for the industry, whose rate increases to con-
sumers have tended to lag behind industry cost increases. Industry has ex-
perienced difficulties in raising capital and in maintaining an adequate
cash flow. As a result, some electrical generating units that were planned
have been cancelled or deferred. Simple extrapolations of the trends of the
1960's and the early 1970's are now seen as increasingly inappropriate in
projecting the demand for (and supply of) electricity. Consequently, earlier
projections are under review and revision by the utility industry and by
Federal and State agencies (both regulatory and planning) and are being
reviewed and questioned by other organizations in the private sector, in-
cluding consulting firms, study teams in universities, and consumer-advocacy
groups.
Table 1 presents historical rates of growth in energy consumption in the
United States: 7.5 percent per annum over the period 1960-1970, slightly
-------
Table 1. Historical growth:
Summer peak load and total electric demand, 1960-1975
Noncoincident
summer peak load
Delivered total
electric utility
industry
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1960-1970
1970-1974
1973-1975
Thousand
MW
132.8
141.0
149.1
159.5
175.0
186.3
203.4
213.5
238.0
257.7
274.7
292.1
319.2
343.9
349.3
356.2
Compound
Percent growth
increase rate
6.17
5.17
6.98
9.75
6.46
9.15
4.97
11.50
8.26
6.60
6.35
9.26
7.75
1.56
2.00
106.85 7,5
27.16 6.2
3.45 1.8
Billion
kWh
683.2
720.7
776.1
830.8
890.4
953.4
1,039.0
1,107.0
1,202.3
1,307.2
1,391.4
1,466.4
1,577.7
1,703.2
1,700.8
1,734.0*
Percent
increase
5.49
7.69
7.05
7.17
7.08
8.98
6.54
8.61
8.72
6.44
5.39
7.59
7.95
-0.14
2.00*
103.66
22.24
1.8
Compound
growth
rate
7.4
5.2
1.0
*Estimated.
Source: Federal Energy Administration.
Washington DC,
1976. 1976 National energy outlook,
-------
negative in 1974, and an estimated 2 percent in 1975. Table 2 presents pro-
jected rates of growth. Consumption rates range from 4.8 to 6.4 percent over
the period 1974-1985. The Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation,
however, projects rates ranging from 2.20 to 5.72 percent over the period
1975-2000.
I.E.2. Locational Changes
Improvements in the facilities for the transmission of electrical power, in
the form of higher voltage lines with less power loss, have reduced the need
to locate power plants in the immediate vicinity of load centers. Future
improvements will continue this trend, with the possible use of DC power
transmission. Location near a suitable source of water is now and Will con-
tinue to be a major consideration, along with proximity to fuel supplies and
access to suitable transportation networks. A power plant using the steam
cycle must dissipate at least 60 percent of its heat because of thermody-
namic limitations on cycle efficiency, and this heat is dissipated to water.
With once-through cooling, 15-20 Btu can be dissipated per pound of water
withdrawn from the waterbodv, but if cooling towers or lakes are used, the
value can be increased to several hundred Btu per pound of water withdrawn
and a much smaller source of water can be used.
Locational trends for new power plants also show that they increasingly are
being built in rural areas. Coordinated public opposition to siting facili-
ties near high density, high pollutant urban areas acts as an important
factor in encouraging siting in rural areas.
I.E.3. Raw Materials
The trend in raw materials (i.e., fuels), as outlined in recent Federal
energy proposals, is toward coal and away from oil and gas because of the
scarcity of the latter two fuels. The current trend is toward low-sulfur,
western coal to reduce air pollution problems; however, the increased
interest in SC>2 scrubbing equipment wilimake possible the use of higher
sulfur coals in the future, as implied in recent energy proposals, as well
as the New Stationary Source Performance Standards which require
a percentage reduction of emissions regardless of quality of
coal used.
The environmental problems associated with coal primarily are attributed to
its impurities. Table 3 shows the range of analytical results for a repre-
sentative group of eastern, midwestern (Illinois), and western coals. Vola-
tile organic compounds ranged from 19 to 53 percent, sulfur ranged from
0.4 to over 6 percent, and various trace metals were present in wide ranging
quantities. Most of the organic materials are consumed during combustion,
but some organics and all of the inorganic materials enter the environment
through one of the following routes:
-------
^v
m
fH
0
fH
X
3
4J
03
*^
e
o
H
+J
Cu
3
3
CO
C
O
a
>^
jj
H
a
H
W
4J
U
D
^H
W
»
CM
01
fH
CO
H
O
O
O
CM
i
vO
ON
I~l
k
^^
&*5
W
vC
£J
rJ
GO
U-J
o
CO
01
4J
tO
Vd
fH
to
3
C
e
CO
o
e
3
o
a.
o
u
*o
c
CO
^
m
tH
o
f"H
X
3
4J
09
C
0
H
4J
a.
co
C
0
o
0)
u
1-
0
CO
CO
4-
tfl
o
>
43
^
9*3
N^
X
9
c
01
^^
o
01
4J
CO
^4
tH
CC
3
c
c
CO
tJ
C
3
0
O
u
0)
y
M
§
co
co
4J
(0
o
>
43
^4
CO
0)
^H
O
1-1
O
^
o
fH
O
F
o
f
o
f-
0
0
^
ON
00
r^
NO
m
^
en
CN
fH
oo
m
O
m
^^
m
o
NO
m
m
v£>
m
^f
NO
^.
-3-
^*
m
CM CM 00
r- m ^
o o
O CM
CO CM
m in
fO P"^
*
en CM
fH CM
CO f^
t
NO m
oocMOs'invn
'^3 r^ p^ r^» oo oo ON t 'i \^ p«v r*v f^ r^ r^
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON O ON ON ON ON ON ON
r-4r li ItHfHfHfHCNfHfHfHfHi 'iH
0(
Id
V
c
u
CO
M
cd
u
7J
V
4
a>
CO
o
o
g
o
4J
Ml
g
H
H
e
o
H
a
o
e
3
O
ta
o
O
fe
(U
£
4J
^W
O
/^
D_
W
>^^
4J
U
0)
1-1
o
Ul
Oi
s^
«^%
U
H
fH
o
P*
^
00
U
01
c
Cd
^
*t 1
01
fH 01
CO CO
H en
to
> t>
< C
CO
0 CO
Z 01 CM
U
II 1-1 .
3 fH
< 0
z w
J=
u
P-,
4:
4J
§
C5
fH
(0
u
H
U
O
4J
a
H
EC
fft
X
TH
o
s
0
c
»
^>
f^
a*
iH
,
^
^
0)
6£
a
^4
43
g
§
CJ
^i
01
60
e
H
^
tH
CO
03
*
V
M
3
4J
3
^
f^
25
«
e
o
00
JC
co
CO
t
V
o
o
rH
4J
O
^j
00
CU
c
Cd
tfl
c
o
H
. CO
z
NO
^
ON
iH
t
NO
ON
rH
C
O
H
^
CO
M
W
CO
H
C
H
g
*O
^
X
00
W
Ol
c
Cd
fH
a
0)
b
i.
«-4
01
n)
o
fH
o
6
CO
*
ON
,^«
v
CM
I
01
fH
43
H
e
^
^j
a
3
43
01
Cb
v
^
tH
01
H
4J
U
01
a
01
M
«^>
*o
g
<0
«
en
A
CM
ft
fH
CO
C
g
3
fH
O
O
5
^4
N4-I
p
Cv
4J
CO
tH
3
-------
Table 3. Ranges of chemical constituents of
representative U.S. coals
Item
Range (%)
Item
Range (ppm)
Major constituents:
C
H
N
0
Major characteristics:
Air dry loss
Moisture
Volatility
C, fixed
Ash
Minor constituents:
Al
Ca
Cl
Fe
K
Mg
Na
Si
,Ti
S , organic
S, pyritic
S, S04
S, total
S, X-ray
55.2 -80.1
4.0 - 5.8
0.8 - 1.8
4.2 -16.0
1.4 -16.7
0.1 -20.7
18.9 -52.7
34.6 -65.4
2.2 -25.8
0.42- 3.0
0..05- 2.7
0.01- 0.5
0.3 - 4.3
0.02- 0.4
0.01- 0.2
0.00- 0.2
0.58- 6.1
0.02- 0.2
0.3 - 3.1
0.06- 3.8
0.01- 1.1
0.4 - 6.5
0.5 - 5.4
Trace elements:
As
B
Be
Br
Cd
Co
Cr
.Cu
F
Ga
Ge
Hg
Mn
Mo
Ni
P
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
V
Zn
Zr
0.5 - 93.0
5.0 -224.0
0.2 - 4.0
4.0 - 52.0
0.1 - 65.0
1.0 - 43.0
4.0 - 54.0
5.0 - 61.0
25.0 -143.0
1.1 - 7.5
1.0 - 43.0
0.02- 1.6
6.0 -181.0
1.0 - 30.0
3.0 - 80.0
5.0 -400.0
4,0 -218.0
0.2 - 8.9
0.4 - 7.7
1.0 - 51,0
11.0 - 78.0
6.0 -535.0
8.0 -133.0
*The physical and chemical characteristics of coal are not
uniform within or between coal producing regions. Therefore
the applicant should develop seam-specific data to be used
as inputs for accurate prediction of the potential effluents
from the combustion process in the proposed plant, given a
specific coal as the fuel.
Source: Ruch, R. R., H. J. Gluskoter, and N. F. Shimp. February
1974. Occurrence and distribution of potentially volatile
trace elements in coal. EPA-650/2-74/054. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
-------
Runoff water from coal piles
Particulate or gaseous emissions from stacks
Ash disposal
Some elements appeared in groups (Table 3); that is, when one was higher in
concentration, the others in the group similarly were higher. The groups
were:
Zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd)
Arsenic (As), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb),
antimony (Sb)
Potassium (K), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si)
Manganese (Mn), calcium (Ca)
Sodium (Na), chlorine (Cl)
Germanium (Ge), beryllium (Be), and boron (B) are likely to be associated
with the organic part of the coal, whereas mercury (Hg), zirconium (Zr),
Zn, As, Cd, Pb, Mn, and molybdenum (Mo), are likely to be associated with
the inorganic part of the coal.
Oil usually contains much lower amounts of inorganic impurities, although
some oils contain significant quantities of sulfur and considerably more
vanadium is found in some oils than in coal. Other trace elements, such as
arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc may be present in significant
quantities.
I.B.4. Processes
Generally the processes for steam electric power generation have not
changed, although the trend is toward larger unit sizes for more economical
operation. Figure 1 shows the increase in the size of new units since the
late 1950.'s.
-------
2500 r
2000-
1500-
=£
-1000 -
1990
Source: US-EPA. 1977. Supplement for pretreatment to the development
document for the steam electric power generating point source cate-
gory. EPA 440/1-77/084. Washington DC.
Figure 1. Largest fossil-fueled steam electric turbine generators
in service, 1900-1990.
10
-------
I.E.5. Pollution Control
There are three major trends in air and water pollution control in the steam
electric generating industry:
The present trend is toward the use of cooling towers, cooling
lakes or cooling ponds1 rather than once-through cooling.
Although an increased understanding of the potential environ-
mental effects of heated water and the methods for_minimizing
them may result in more plants using once-through cooling, it
is probable that off stream cooling systems will continue to
be the major trends in the near future.
The present trend in S02 emission reduction is the use of low-
sulfur coal; however, more emphasis is being placed on develop-
ment of pre-treatment techniques or S02 scrubbers that would
permit the use of coals with higher sulfur content.
Increased multiple use and recycling of water are encouraged
and are being designed into existing power plants to reduce
pollution control problems.
I.B.6. Environmental Impact
Evolving Federal and State regulations regarding water and air pollution and
solid waste disposal have resulted in improvements in the technological
design and efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants. More attention is
being given to the siting of electric generating stations in recognition of
the increased emphasis on State, regional, and local land use planning.
Also, owing to the ratification of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and other non-regulatory legislation, government decision-making has
been exposed to increased public scrutiny and to a more objective and corn-
Pursuant to current regulations (Title 40 CFR, Part 423), the term cooling
pond is interpreted to mean "any man-made water impoundment which does not
impede the flow of a navigable stream and which is used to remove waste
!^r r°m,-t!eate? C°nd!nSer nater Pri°r t0 ret«ning the recirculated cooling
water to the main condenser". The term cooling lake is defined as "any man-
made water impoundment which impedes the flow of a navigable stream and
which is used to remove waste heat from heated condenser water prior to
recirculating the water to the main condenser". It also should be noted
that the definitions of these terms currently are being reviewed by US-EPA
which could result in certain modifications. Therefore, the permit appli-
cant should consult with appropriate EPA officials during project planning
to ascertain interpretation of these terms. » *- j r &
11
-------
plete environmental review process. Therefore, plants that have become
operational since the early 1970's generally have had less process-related
environmental impact than those constructed a decade or two ago. This trend
is expected to continue. Because of concurrent trends toward large multi-
unit plant sites, increased use of coal, and a general increase in overall
industrial activity, the possibility of regional as well as cumulative local
effects on environmental quality must receive increased consideration, It
also is of concern that the combination of several activities may result in
adverse impacts in distant environmentally sensitive areas or in impacts such.
as acid rain at points far from the sources of pollution. This concern is
evidenced in the increased control required under the draft PSD regulations
(discussed in Section I.D) of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.
I.C. ' SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
I.C.I. Location
Because power plants are large installations, and because a suitable water
supply is needed, new plants usually must be built in rural areas. The
construction and operation of power plants in rural locations usually in-
volves significant changes in land use, which may be accompanied by direct
social and ecological impacts. Secondary or indirect impacts, such as in-
duced growth, infrastructural changes, and demographic changes also may
occur; however, they would be associated primarily with the construction
phase, because that is when the labor force is highest. The significance
of such impacts depends largely on the local economy, existing infrastruc-
ture, characteristics of construction workers (e.g., local or non-local,
size of worker's family), and other related factors. Long-term secondary
impacts usually are not so significant, because the operational phase is
non-labor-intensive. A discussion of secondary impact analysis is contained
in the document, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected
New Source Industries, (US-EPA 1975).
I.C.2. Raw Materials
The major environmental problems associated with raw materials are from
handling, transport, and storage of the coal; also lime/limestone where
flue gas desulfurization'is employed. Runoff from on-site storage piles
can cause significant environmental problems, as can the construction of
transportation facilities needed to bring these materials to the site and
the actual transportation of the materials. Environmental problems with
oil and gas fuels arise primarily from leaks, spills or ruptures during
transport to the power station.
12
-------
I.C.3. Processes
Power plant processes can have a number of associated environmental impacts.
These include:
Stacks, Boilers: The height and size of the stacks, boilers,
and other equipment generally will have an aesthetic impact.
Coal Processing: Runoff and process waters are produced that
can be contaminated to the point of causing ecological damage
if not properly treated before discharge.
Heat Dissipation: Large amounts of heat must be dissipated and
various impacts can occur depending on the type of dissipation
system selected:
Once-through cooling can result in ecological impacts because
of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms at the
intake structure and excessive increases in ambient water
temperatures in the discharge area.
Cooling towers greatly reduce the impingement, entrainment,
and heat problems, but can cause unfavorable aesthetic
impacts because of their large size and visible plumes.
Other environmental problems can result from fogging, icing,
or salt deposition and from the discharge of blow-down
containing large quantities of dissolved and suspended solids.
Cooling lakes may require the conversion of substantial
terrestrial acreage to an aquatic ecosystem, and may involve
changing a segment of a free-flowing stream to a permanent
lake environment. Proper design of the lake is needed to
ensure that high concentrations of dissolved solids do not
develop and eutrophication problems do not occur.
Transmission and Railroad Lines: Construction and maintenance
of transmission and railroad lines involve environmental dis-
turbance over long, narrow areas, with possible aesthetic and
ecological disturbances. Railroad lines can involve extensive
changes in runoff patterns. Maintenance of transmission and
railroad lines involves herbicides or other methods of weed and
brush control.
Fuel Combustion: Coal-fired plants and, to a lesser extent,
those using oil produce environmentally damaging air emissions
which may be visually displeasing due to opacity, and may also
contain S02, particulates, nitrogen oxides, and possibly radio-
active trace metals and fluorides, if proper control technology
is not used. Also, the combustion of coal results in the pro-
duction of large quantities of solid wastes in the form of ashes
and possibly sludges from S02 scrubbers. The area required to
store these wastes may involve a land use change and the leachate
from such storage areas can contaminate ground or surface waters
by the presence of heavy metals, acids, bases, etc.
13
-------
Chemical Cleaning, Demineralization: Wastes from the chemical
cleaning of equipment and from the demineralization process
used to prepare make-up water could cause ecological damage in
the receiving water if not properly treated before discharge.
Such wastes also are associated with pre-operational cleaning
and treatment of metal surfaces, usually a large one-time
discharge.
Hazardous Material Storage and Handling: Materials often
present in power plants include fuel oil, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's), strong acids and bases, and solvents. Ac-
cidents may result in discharge of these hazardous materials
unless proper spill containment measures are taken.
I.C.4. Pollution Control
Although pollution control processes will reduce adverse impacts that result
from various waste streams, the same processes can create other kinds of
adverse impacts. For example, the heat dissipation process probably has
the highest potential for adverse impact. This process can lead to a
variety of potential environmental impacts from cooling towers, cooling
lakes, cooling ponds, or once-through cooling systems (see Section I.C.3).
Air pollution control processes also generate liquid and solid wastes in the
form of the residue from scrubbing operations and particulate removal.
Another pollution control process that can lead to adverse impacts is the
evaporation pond, often used in arid areas to dispose of cleaning and de-
mineralization wastes, cooling tower blowdown, laboratory wastes, etc. Ground-
water contamination is possible unless the pond is impermeable and, therefore,
suitable provisions are needed to cover the pond when it is no longer func-
tional to prevent leaching or washing out of contaminants. Also during the
reuse and recycling of plant water, certain elements may become concentrated
which could result in contamination of ground and surface waters.
I.D. REGULATIONS
Air pollution control standards are enumerated by Federal New Source Per-
formance Standards (NSPS) as described in 40 CFR Parts 50 and 60 and by State
and local air pollution regulations. Usually control is through the State
regulatory function of licensing the construction of the power plant air
pollution source.
Federal water pollution regulations are covered primarily by the Standards of
Performance for New Sources (SPNS) for the steam electric power generating
point source category, in Section 40 CFR 423. Control is through the NPDES
permit process. Administration and enforcement rest either with US-EPA or
with those States with approved NPDES permit programs.
14
-------
Other applicable pollution control regulations include Section 316(a) of the
Federal'Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which considers once-
through cooling systems as an alternative to on-shore cooling systems, and
Section 316(b) of the same act, which is concerned with the design of water
intake systems. Solid waste regulations include the Federal Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976 and various State regulations regarding
disposal of solid wastes.
I.D.I. Air Pollution Performance Standards
Federal air pollution regulations specify both the amount of various pollu-
tants that can be emitted from a source and standards for pollution of
ambient air. (Some State regulations may be more strict than Federal New
Source Performance Standards. State regulations will then apply.) The
following paragraphs discuss the Federal regulations. '
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR 60) that follow specify the
emissions allowed from fossil-fueled steam generators:
Pollutant
Sulfur dioxides ^
Nitrogen oxides *
Particulate matter
Plume opacity
Coal
1.2 lb/106 Btu
0.6 lb/106 Btu
0.1 lb/106 Btu
20% (but allows 40%
opacity for not more
than a 2-minute period
during any 60-minute
period
Oil
0.8 lb/106 Btu
0.3 lb/106 Btu
0.1 lb/106 Btu
Gas
0.8 lb/106 Btu
0.2 lb/106 Btu
0.1 lb/106 Btu
n
'For coal,a 90% reduction in potential S0? emissions is required
at all times except when emissions to the atmosphere are less
than 0.61b/10°BTU. When S02 emissions are less than 0.61b/106
BTU, a 70% reduction in emissions is required.
For gaseous and liquid fuels, a 90% reduction in potential S02
emissions is required. The percent reduction does not apply if
S02 emissions to the atmosphere are less than 0.2lb/106BTU.
* The coal emissions of 0.61b/106 BTU do not apply to 1) fuel,
used in a slap trap furnace, containing more than 25%, by
weight, lignite which has been mined in North Dakota,'South
Dakota, or Montana; 2) fuel containing more than 25%, by weight
coal refuse; 3) subbituminous coal; or 4) solid fuel derived
from coal. The emissions for a slap trap furnace burning 25%
or more lignite from North Dakota, South Dakota or Montana are
0.801b/106BTU. There are no nitrogen oxides emissions require-
ments for fuel containing 25% or more coal refuse. The emissions
for subbituminous coal, shale oil, or any solid liquid or gaseous
fuel derived from coal is 0.5lb/106BTU.
15
-------
CO
a
>*
cd
T3
cd
4J
co
4-1
H
rH ..
1 1
M §
"i CO
cfl u
c
01
H
8
cd
CO
cu
a
0)
0)
, I
s
CJ
,_,
ex
Du
<
,
>
Iri
cd
T!
C
O
U
01
CO
>
u
to
e
14
p-
-^
cu
i i
f±
cd
H
E
0
0
a
g
U
e
o
H
4J
cd
IS
E U
H C
X O
CO U
E
f^ S
s o
***** *c
M 1
a. en
O
0
*
^H
c
cO
01
71 e
3 0
C -H
C 4J
CO 01
g
en J2
E 4J
"». "H
00 V4
a. co
O
00
01
H
X
o
rt
T3
3
i i
3
CO
C
O
H
4J
CO
4-1
E 01
3 U
E C
H O
X cj
Es ^
3
en O
g »C
^^ 1
00-3-
3.CN
o
m
C
o
*p4
4J
CO
4-1
C C
§01 cd
CJ r4 j2
s "
^^ j^
S O
5 *4H
E
c an *°
eo 2")j P x-> u cu
cu gsc <-^3C gse -o
-is TOO goo aoo cu
X C ^"^ X C ^_
oo i-i E aj o oooo ooafo m
n eg Cug o £ £ 0 SEU g
O «^ g 4J N^ g 4J f^
g en 3 g 3 C 3 C g
en .£ c^ g cu en E 01 en S cu
E 4J ^ '"H CJ E "H CJ £ "H O QJ
"*v "H X C *"^*> X C *^^ X fl f;
00 M c CO O 00 eo O OC CO O ^i
a CQ ex Ecj EEcj EEcj
O CN O O ,_!"
H 3
c
C
cfl
C
Cfl
J_)
^4
0)
_ f^
4-1
O
* I-1
CU CQ
T3 0) 13
i-l T3 C
x -H id
OX 4J
IH o co
o =
0 >,
c s c
p"^
s
vw
o
4J
c
CJ
r*
rtl
V**
5
^i
"^
<
^
""~J
^
^
m
rtt
~
r^
^*
H
«
C?
z
u
o
a
Vw
CQ
a
cfl
AJ
CO
>,
"m
J3
cr
^4
iH
CO
4J
C
H
E
CO
^"
cd
E
H
M
O
^H
CO
C
o
u
CT3
c
cO
d)
jj
tO
01
rH
E
a
T3
0
h
M CX
0)
t3 CO
B
3 j:
y
0 3
D CO
3
CO M
CO O
CO T3
H (-1
a) -a
. 1 ^
H CO
u* I)
' fj Crt
0) cd
C 3
o co
1 HI #*<
"01 cfl
CO .C
0)
y
CO B
ca 01
0) TJ
rH -H
B >
3 CU
M 4J
w c
3 CO
o y
-C iH
U-l
B 5)
CO *H
x: co
o
^
O CO
E *rt _C
4-J
O J-i CO
rC -C
U-) 4J
o y
a cd IH
o f ^
H 4J 3
M a
cu ca
O- *D 4J
c y
Cd "H CU
U-l 4J
M O
0) 0) ^
o
*" O
CO '"V iJ
C CJ
O "-' CU
1-t CO 4-1
4J O *H
Cfl r-l CO
^ iH
U C 3
c o o-
C y ^
y w -H
i
/&
o
m
p^
[X4
O
CO
>a-
cu
ij
o
16
-------
Ambient air quality standards (40 CFR 50) specify the ambient air quality that
must be maintained outside the plant boundary or within the boundary where the
general public has access. Applicable Federal standards are shown in Table
4. Standards designated as primary are those necessary, with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect the public health; secondary standards are those
necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of an air pollutant.
In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations for
the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) under the
1970 version of the Clean Air Act (Public. Law 90-604). These regulations
established a plan for protecting areas that possess air quality which is
cleaner than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under
EPA's regulatory plan, clean air areas of the Nation could be designated as
one of three "Classes". The plan permitted specified numerical "increments"
of air pollution increases from major stationary sources for each class, up
to a level considered to be "significant" for that area. Class I provided
extraordinary protection from air quality deterioration and permitted only
minor increases in air pollution levels. Under this concept, virtually
any increase in air pollution in the above pristine areas would be considered
significant. Class II increments permitted increases in air pollution levels
such as would usually accompany well-controlled growth. Class III increments
permitted increases in air pollution levels up to the NAAQS.
Sections 160-169 were added to the Act by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977. These amendments adopt the basic concept of the above administratively
developed procedure of allowing incremental increases in air pollutants by
class. Through these amendments, Congress also provided a mechanism to
apply a practical adverse impact test which did not exist in the EPA regu-
lations .
The PSD requirements of 1974 applied only to two pollutants: total suspended
particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02). However, Section 166 requires
EPA to promulgate PSD regulations by 7 August 1980 addressing nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and photochemical oxidants utilizing
increments or other effective control strategies. For these additional
pollutants, States may adopt non-increment control strategies which, if
taken as a whole, accomplish the purposes of PSD policy set forth in Section
160.
Whereas the earlier EPA regulatory process had not resulted in the Class I
designation of any Federal lands, the 1977 Amendments designated certain
Federal lands Class I. All international parks, national memorial parks
and national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres, and national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, are designated Class I. These 158 areas may not be
redesignated to another class through State or administrative action. The
remaining areas of the country are initially designated Class II. Within
this Class II category, certain national primitive areas, national wild and
scenic rivers, national wildlife refuges, national seashores and lakeshores,
and new national park and wilderness areas whi^h are established after
7 August 1977, if over 10,000 acres in size are Class II "floor areas" and
are ineligible for redesignation to Class III.
17
-------
Although the earlier EPA regulatory process allowed redesignation by the
Federal land manager, the 1977 amendments place the general redesignation
responsibility with the States. The Federal land manager only has an advisory
role in the redesignation process, and may recommend redesignation to the
appropriate State or to Congress.
In order for Congress to redesignate areas, proposed legislation would be
introduced. Once proposed, this probably would follow the normal legisla-
tive process of committee hearings, floor debate, and action. In order for
a State to redesignate areas, the detailed process outlined in Section 164(b)
would be followed. This would include an analysis of the health, environ-
mental, economic, social, and energy effects of the proposed redesignation
to be followed by a public hearing.
Class I status provides protection to areas by requiring any new major
emitting facility (generally a large point source of air pollutionsee
Section 169(1) for definition) in the vicinity to be built in such a way
and place as to insure no adverse impact on the Class I air quality related
values.
The permit may be issued if the Class I increment will not be exceeded,
unless the Federal land manager demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
State that the facility will have an adverse impact on the Class I air
quality related values.
The permit must be denied if the Class I increment will be exceeded, unless
the applicant receives certification from the Federal land manager that the
facility will not adversely affect Class I air quality related values. Then
the permit may be issued even though the Class I increment will be exceeded.
(Up to the Class I* increment see Table 5.)
The Clean Air Act, Section 165, also provides in very limited situations
for permit issuance based on an SC>2 variance if an applicant does not
receive certification from the Federal land manager. This variance will
allow exceeding the Class I 862 increments for up to 18 days in any annual
period, as long as the SC^ levels do not exceed the twenty-four hour incre-
ments of 36 mg/m^ for low terrain and 62 mg/m^ for high terrain areas and
the three-hour increments of 130 mg/m^ for low terrain and 221 mg/m^ for
high terrain areas. The variance is available when the Governor determines
that there will be no adverse impact on the Class I air quality related
values. If the Federal land manager does not concur in this determination,
then the President decides whether it is in the national interest to issue
the permit.
18
-------
Table 5. Nondeterioration increments: maximum allowable increase by class.
,, ^ Class I Class II Class III Class l' exception
Pollutant* / / 3\ / / "is / / -u / / v
(yg/m-*) (yg/m-3) (yg/nn) _ (yg/mj) _
Particulate matter:
Annual geometric mean 5 19 37 19
24-hour maximum 10 37 75 37
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean 2 20 40 20
24-hour maximum 5** 91 182 91
3-hour maximum 25** 512 700 325
*0ther pollutants for which PSD regulations will be promulgated
are to include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants, and nitrogen oxides.
**A variance may be allowed to exceed each of these increments
on 18 days per year, subject to limiting 24-hour increments of
36 yg/m3 for low terrain and 62 yg/m3 for high terrain and 3-hour
increments of 130 yg/m3 for low terrain and 221 yg/m3 for high
terrain. To obtain such a variance both State and Federal
approval is required.
Source: Public Law 95-95. 1977. Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977, Part C, Subpart 1, Section 163 (Passed August 1977).
-------
I.D.2. Water Pollution Standards of Performance
Under the authority of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (Public Law 92-500), EPA has promulgated standards (Oct. 8, 1974,
FR39 No. 196) of performance for StfNS which specify maximum allowable concen-
trations of impurities in the various waste streams from a steam electric
generating station. These standards are taken into consideration in issuing
an NPDES permit. The applicable standards3 are:
The pH of all discharges shall be within the range of 6.0-9.0.
There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl com-
pounds, such as those commonly used for transformer fluids.
The quantity of pollutants discharged in bottom ash, water shall
not exceed the quantity obtained by multiplying the flow of
bottom ash water by the following concentrations and dividing
the product by 20:
Total suspended solids: 100 mg/1 maximum for any 1 day
30 mg/1 maximum average of daily
values for 30 consecutive days
Oil and grease: 20 mg/1 daily maximum
15 mg/1 maximum 30-day average
In essence, this standard requires that if bottom ash transport
water is discharged it must fall within the above values and
the bottom ash transport water must be recycled so that the
amount discharged is less than 1/20 of the transport water
flow.
No discharge of total suspended solids or oil and grease is al-
lowed in discharges of fly ash transport water. In essence, this,
standard requires that there will be no discharge of fly ash
transport water.^
JUS-EPA is currently reviewing new source effluent standards (per NBDC/EPA
Consent Decree). The reader should check with EPA to ascertain the status of
that review*
Per the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals remand, standards of performance for
dry ash handling systems are being reviewed, therefore, the new source
permit applicant should consult with appropriate EPA officials on the
current status of these regulations.
20
-------
The concentrations of pollutants in the discharge of boiler
blowdown and metal cleaning wastes shall not exceed:
Total suspended solids: 100 mg/1 daily maximum
30 mg/1 30-day average
Oil and grease: 20 mg/1 daily maximum
15 mg/1 30-day average
Copper, total: 1 mg/1 daily maximum
Iron, total: 1 mg/1 daily maximum
The discharge of various other low-volume wastes, such as ion-
exchange wastes, floor drains, and laboratory streams, shall
not contain pollutants in excess of:
Total suspended solids: 100 mg/1 daily maximum
30 mg/1 30-day average
Oil and grease: 20 mg/1 daily maximum
15 mg/1 30- day average
There shall be no discharge of heat from the main condensers,
except that heat may be discharged in blowdown from recircula-
ting cooling water systems or cooling ponds provided that the
temperature at which the blowdown is discharged does not
exceed the lowest temperature in the recirculating system
before make-up water is added.
The amount of free available chlorine in a discharge of once-
through cooling water or cooling tower blowdown is limited to
0.5 mg/1 maximum and 0.2 mg/1 average concentrations. 6 Chlor-
ine concentrations in the discharge to or from cooling ponds
or lakes are not specified.
thermal effluent limitations for the steam electric power generating
point source category (Part 423) have been remanded as a result of a recent
4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Appalachian Power v. Train, 545 F.
2d 1351 (4th Cir 1976). The applicant should consult with the appropriate
EPA official to determine the current status of thermal regulations. Prior
to the development of new thermal effluent limitations, the appropriate
NPDES permit letting authority (EPA regional officer or State) is to make
the best engineering judgement, based on best available technology (BAT),
on a case by case basis.
^This standard is in the process of being re-evaluated, based on recently
available intermittent bioassay data. It is likely that the new st&ndard
will be different and that the new standard will be based on total residual
chlorine. Recent testing of intermittent exposures has indicated that the
free chlorine residuals are significantly more toxic than the combined
chlorine residuals. It is possible that new standards might be water
quality related, based on the relative percentages of the residual chlorine
21
-------
Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine
can be discharged from any unit for more than 2 hours a day,
nor from more than one unit at a time.
Runoff from any materials (coal, ash, etc.) storage area or any
construction area shall be between pH values of 6.0-9.0 and
total suspended solids shall not exceed 50 mg/1, except for
overflow from a treatment system designed to handle a 10-year,
24-hour rainfall event.''
I.D.3 State Power Plant Siting Laws
As of -1976, 25 States had passed legislation that addressed the siting of
electric generating stations. The degree of comprehensiveness of these
siting laws and regulations varies greatly between States. The existing
State siting laws are shown in Table 6. Applicatns for permits for new
source power plants should consult the appropriate lead agency to determine
the existence and applicability of such regulations.
"forms produced. Many states are now using chlorine standards more stringent
than the stated Federal limits.
The possible formation of toxic levels of chloroganics during power plant
chlorination also is in need of more careful scrutiny. The data base
currently existing for these compounds is small, and in areas where the
water quality is poor and the amount of chlorine used is high, additional
data should be obtained for chlororganics.
Effluent limitations for runoff from coal pile storage and chemical
handling areas have been remanded per the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision. The permit applicant should consult with the appropriate permit
letting official (EPA regional office or State) regarding the current
status of these effluent limitations.
22
-------
E
O
H T3
4-1 CU
CO 4-1
rH CO
CO CU
H (-1
00 CJ
CU
rH >,
CJ
O CU
00
1 t
4-1 |-l
H C
H
T3 CO
01 4-1
« E
a cu
0 E
o -a
CO fi
cu
E E
0 <
H
4-1 i 1
CO co
rH E
CO fH
H 00
cn oo *H
3 cu t->
CO rJ O
rH
oo cn *
c c /-^ >
CU E '-'
CO 4J T3 >,
4-1 X CU 4-1
C/3 CO (-1 TH
CJ TH 1 I
CU 3 TH
M CT 4J
v4O O CU D
cu
rH |
X! E rH
CO O CO
H M 4-i
H E
> CU
E E
M
CJ 1
C C
cu cu 4J
00 C. E
co cu cu
a -a
a E
CO M
cu
rJ E
O
CJ CU iH
H CJ CO
i 1 TH CO
,43 > i-l
3 i- £
CM CU E
cn o
CJ
cu
4-1
CO
4-J
10
|
fi' 1 *>
O 4J )_i E
t-i O CU CU
H < CO 6
> E a
G E O O
00 WO CJ rH
E i-l CU
TH >-, 4-1 CO >
4-1 4J U CU CU
H -H CU CJ O
C/3 i 1 4-1 (-1
HO 3 t3 E
4J Q) CJ }-i O E O
E cu co p* ^^ cn co TH
co 4J PL, a. cu u
rH 4J I-H o oi E cn
PL, -H >, Cfl 4-1 O TH
§4-1 4-1 CO >. T-l £
H E 00 4J E
CUOrHCUCN(-lCOO
3 cj TH E ^ a> > o
O 4J G
PH £2 W
cn
p*»
C?N
rH
rt cn rH
r^ r*^ P*-
ON ON ON
rH T-H I H
o
CN
1
o
I 1
1
in
C CN
i-H
X X
X
CO
TH
co G
co co (-
C CO O
O E i.
N CO t
i-i i- co
< < CJ
1
C
0
1-1 4-1
H CJ
^ ^
E
U CO
o
cn M
CU CO
H T>
4-1 E
H CO
rH 4-1
4J
fi rH
CO
U 4J
*_J *
1-1 t;
^o 6
3
Pu
in
r^
ON
rH
cn
r^*
ON
_J
O
i 1
X
4J
3
CJ
H
4-1
O
cu
c
G
O
CJ
C
00 O
E G E iH 1
1 O -H O CO co
3 -H 4J -H 0) l-l
i-H COC4J4-lTH4-ICO iHCUCU
co cnouoco u cn S^EEJ=
p> 4J *r-( >H ^ ^ ^ iH 4-t 4-J E CU 4-1 f" ^
W E/~vEcn -a EE-H ocjm
cflcnEtOOOOO 004-iEcO i-H CJ nor--
>-, rHf-OTHEECO GOOrH -H CJCON
4J /-*>, PL, ON CJ 6 iH iH CU *^N TH ^ O P-i CJ CO iH CO i-H
H rH rH E''JWTHin4J CO CUS-l *-*
rH-HU>-'CUOTHTH4-IP--THOOCU>-l PL, -H4JOO
HCJCU OOC/3CO-HONC/3GCJCU 4JOE4J
CJ 6THCOCOCOrHCOC/)CU < 4J LOG
W CJ 00 O 4H i-H i-H Pu *H rH C/3 CJ 00 3 *"* 4-t O
CUETHEUcOP-Pi UP^>-, -HErJCU O-V-
3O1-1TH )-i ^E 4-ICJVJ'HCO-HCJ C TH
PM W CJ *p1 4J p-t ^) 4) r-i O QJ ^"^ ^H O *rH CO O ^H M *rH C
N*-«' CO f"i rH i i ro r * CN
r*» r^* r*"* r*» r**» ^*« p^* r** r** r^» r^ r**- r**
CT^ O*v CT*> O^ O1* CT^ O^ O1* ff1^ CT^ O*^ O^ O^
1-HrHrHrH 1-HrHrHi-H rH rH rH
O C in
i I rH ,T3D 4-1 C- CO ' Jt!
co Jj^ C -G C co E V^ X ^
o ccucocj cncac cu cu c
>r^ ^3 3 ^"^ Rj ^ CO *^3 ^H> ^^ «-Tt ^~*
r^ C^ CO ^ ^"l CO C ^ fU
0 SCC^co CE>3 3 33
i-H OSCUCOCO -rtOCUCU CU DO
{* ^t.i!*:!r2: siszz z zz
-------
-D
0)
-a
3
rH
O
c
0
u
1
1
3
CO
1 1
£50
c
H
4-1
1-1
CO
0)
4-1
CO
CO
.
vO
01
rH
H
cn
c
CO
rH
o.
00
c
H
4-1
co
CO
CJ
0>
^1
0
~4
at
4J
a
0
T3
CO
C
o
4-1
CO
rH
CO
H
Ot
01
,_j
*
> ^
cn
IH
CO
CO
>
^ '
T3
01
i-l
H
3
a
0)
CJ
C
CO
Ot
CO
-o
CO
CO
hJ
c
o
H
4J
CO
rH
CO
H
oo
Ol
1 1
UH
0
01
rH
4J
H
H
u
H
rH
.a
fx
rr-j
CU
4-1
CO
0)
>H
CJ
^
o
c
0)
00
cfl
IH
O
W
4-1
C
cu
e
o
c
0)
g?
<
rH
cfl
e
H
oo
iH
IH
O
0)
4J
cfl
4-1
00
^
4-1
H
rH
H
4-1
^
,
E rH
O CO
H C
> Ol
C E
C
CU 4J
p C
Ol CU
-a -a
c
M
c
0
01 «
y cn
cn
> -H
cu E
CO O
(J
01
4-1
to
4J
OO
cn
01
H C
.4-1 O 00
d 1-1 -H c
C rH CO -H
CO -H CO 4-1
U -H -H
§co
^*,
H o >, m
en C o 4J r-~
IH O "H ON
> CO y C 'H ^
C Cfl < -H O
O -H 4-1 CO rH
O g 00 -H ft, i-t
CO C CO 0
>-, C -H >, a
00 CO 4-1 IH OO 3
Lj |H -H CO rJ O
01 H C/J !3 01 O
C 0 C
r-rl p [V]
m
r-x.
ON
rH
in CM rH
r-~ r~- r-
ON ON ON
rH rH rH
0 0
rH rH
C
rH
X X
X
CO
0
Cfl
C
c
J O
4-1 O 00
i-t -HO)
o j: ^
z c c
c
o
H
Cfl
CO
H -a
fj-i
cfl
O O
U CO
CO CO
0 U
°> ">
rW M
01 Ol
CO CO
0 CJ
H iH
rH rH
rd ,0
3 3
CX CU
rH U-1
p»«. r^
ON ON
rH rH
0)
c
0 C
^ S
X X
CO
C
n
1
0
CO
U 4J
c
s. o
4-1 E
3 IH
O 0)
CO >
cu
4-1
H
CO
^
4-1
iH
H
y
co
>s
00
rJ
0)
e
w
^o
r^
ON
rH
0
r*^
ON
H
C
rH
X
c
0
4J
to
c
H
r-
cfl
CO
3
fx^
J\
rH
N^»
rH
H
y
C
3
0
O
n
o
H
4J
CO
3
rH
CO
>
C
O
H
Cfl
CO
H
O
U
CU
a
"^
M
01
00
y
H
rH
o
3
(X
in
r-
ON
rH
O
rH
X
c
*iH
CO
c
0
u
Cfl
H
3
4J
C
cu
E
0.
o
rH
Ol
Ol
f~^ rH
a, co
O -H
U IH
CO 4-1
CO
CN 3
C
M
m
f^.
ON
rH
m
X
00
c
H
c
0
>^
2
4J
y
..A
ou
c
H
4-1
H
CO
a
n
cfl
ca
4-1
CO ^
cfl cfl
y cu
01 >,
1-1 I
0 0
a co
01
M 4-1
CO -H
o. e
01 J3
l-i 3
cx co
1
01 O
4-1 4-1
CO
4-1 -O
co cu
^J i-!
0 3
cr
1 01
>, IH
4J
H 01
rH >H
H Cfl
4J
3 M
0)
4-1 -H
CO 4J
C i-l
4J rH
H
CO 4J
E 3
H
4J CO
C
^ O
O N
H
a M
0 <
H
I-l "
01 .
O- oo
.
01 Ol
£- ^-^
4-1
^
CO 01 ,^
Ol > 4-1
u O cn
co y co
y y
H 4J 01
O CO ^l
C 3 0
t~^ £ *^-*
K
cu
r*. 4J
IH CO
O 4J
4J CO
CO
rH 14H
3 0
00
01 0)
rw y -o
H 01
00 MH 00
C WH CO
H o a.
^
o >>
IH . rH
a. cfl cfl
E C 3
MOO
H -H
4-> IH
O Cfl
r^ CO >
ON 00 '
rH c m
H ON
4-1 rH
. -H O
C CO 1
0 O
H 0) W
CO 4J Oi
cn co D
H 4-1 Z
E cfl
E -^
O rH
U tfl CJ
rH Q
>, 01
IH T3 C
0 CU O
4-1 U-l 4-1
CO 00
rH C C
3 -H -r-l
oo jr
01 CO Cfl
a: cn co
cu 2
l-i C
CO 0) »
CU > Cfl
i 1 iH 6
y 4-1 co
3 y IH
Z 01 00
UH O
OO UH IH
5 01 PL.
01
y
JH
3
O
CO
-------
II. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
II.A. SITE PREPARATION AND FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
The applicant should discuss the potential effects of site preparation
and construction activities. The environmental effects of preparation
of the site and construction of the new source power plant normally
are not unique to the electrical generating industry. Any major land-
disturbing construction project probably will have similar impacts;
however, at present, neither the quantities of the various pollutants
resulting from preconstruction and construction work nor their effects
on the integrity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems have been studied
sufficiently to permit broad generalizations. Therefore, in addition
to the impact assessment framework provided in the EPA document,
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected New Source
Industries, a suggested checklist of important study items is presented
in Table 7 for further guidance to the applicant in completing this
section. The basic components of site preparation and plant construction
outlined in the table include preconstruction, site work, permanent
facilities, and project closeout. Whereas only potentially significant
areas of impact are presented in the checklist, a system of values and
significance should be assigned to the checklist items after sufficient
quantitative data have been acquired for an individual site or for a
region. Although there hr.s been an effort to discuss areas of impact
specific to fossil-fueled power stations, these guidelines do not re-
flect regional- or site-specific conditions. Therefore the permit
applicant is encouraged to discuss these types of issues with appro-
priate EPA staff prior to preparation of the EIA. All proposed con-
servation practices should be tailored to the specific site(s) being
considered in order to account for and to protect special features of
the site (e.g., critical habitats of important or imperiled species,
archaeological/historical sites, high quality streams, wetlands or other
sensitive areas on the site) . All mitigating conservation measures
which are proposed to avoid or reduce adverse impacts from site pre-
paration and construction activities should be described in the EIA.
II.B. RAW MATERIALS HANDLING
II.B.I. Coal.
The potential environmental impacts associated with coal handling and
storage primarily result from coal storage area runoff and particularly
from generation of dust. An electrical generating plant must store coal
to maintain a continuous supply to the burners between shipments. The live
storage pile generally contains sufficient coal to maintain the supply
between scheduled coal shipments; in addition, a permanent storage pile
is maintained as a cushion against interruptions in the delivery schedule.
This permanent stockpile typically will hold a 100-day fuel supply, or in
the case of mine-mouth plants, approximately a 50-day supply.
25
-------
Table 7. Outline of potential environmental impacts
and relevant pollutants resulting from
site preparation and construction practices
Construction
practice
Potential environmental
impacts
Primary
pollutants
1. Preconstruction
a. Site inventory
(1) Vehicular
traffic
(2) Test pits
b. Environmental
monitoring
Short term and nominal
Dust, sediment, tree injury
Tree root injury, sediment
Negligible if properly done
c. Temporary controls Short term and nominal
(1) Sedimentation
ponds
(2) Dikes and
berms
(3) Vegetation
(4) Dust control
2. Site Work
a. Clearing and
demolition
(1) Clearing
(2) Demolition
Temporary
facilities
(1) Shops and
storage sheds
(2) Access roads
and parking lots
Dust, noise, sediment
Visual
Sediment spoil, nutri-
ents, solid waste
Vegetation destroyed, water
quality improved
Vegetation destroyed, water
quality improved
Fertilizers in excess
Negligible if properly done
Short term
Decreased area of protective
tree, shrub, ground covers;
stripping of topsoil; in-
creased soil erosion, sedi-
mentation, stormwater runoff;
increased stream water tem-
peratures; modification of
stream banks and channels,
water quality
Increased dust, noise, solid
wastes
Long-term
Increased surface areas imper-
vious to water infiltration,
increased water runoff,
petroleum products
Increased surface areas imper-
vious to water infiltration,
increased water runoff, genera-
tion of dust on unpaved areas
Dust, sediment, noise,
solid wastes,
wood wastes
Gases, odors, fumes,
particulates, dust,
deicing chemicals,
noise, petroleum
products, waste
water, solid wastes,
aerosols, pesticides
26
-------
Table 7. Outline of potential environmental impacts
and relevant pollutants resulting from
site preparation and construction practicesContinued
Construction
practice
Potential environmental
impacts
Primary
pollutants
(3) Utility
trenches and
backfills
(4) Sanitary
facilities
(5) Fences
(6) Laydown areas
(7) Concrete
batch plant
(8) Temporary and
permanent pest
control (ter-
mites, weeds,
insects)
Increased visual impacts, soil
erosion, sedimentation for
short periods
Increased visual impacts,
solid wastes
Barriers to animal migration
Visual impacts, increased runoff
Increased visual impacts; dispo-
sal of wastewater, increased
dust and noise
Nondegradable or slowly degradable
pesticides are accumulated by
plants and animals, then passed
up the food chain to man. De-
gradable pesticides having short
biological half-lives are pre-
ferred for use.
c. Earthwork
(1) Excavation
(2) Grading
(3) Trenching
(4) Soil treat-
ment
d. Site drainage
(1) Foundation
drainage
(2) Dewatering
(3) Well points
(4) Stream channel
relocation
e. Landscaping
(1) Temporary
seeding
(2) Permanent
seeding and
sodding
Long term
Stripping, soil stockpiling,
and site grading; increased
erosion, sedimentation, and
runoff; soil compaction; in-
creased in-soil levels of
potentially hazardous materials;
side effects on living plants
and animals, and the incorpora-
tion of decomposition products
into food chains, water quality
Long term
Decreased volume of underground
water for short and long time
periods, increased stream flow
volumes and velocities, down-
stream damages, water quality,
habitat alteration
Decreased soil erosion and
overland flow of stormwater,
stabilization of exposed cut
and fill slopes, increased
water infiltration and under-
ground storage of water,
minimize visual impacts
Dust, noise, sediment,
debris, wood wastes,
solid wastes, pesti-
cides, particulates,
bituminous products,
soil conditioner
chemicals
Sediment
Nutrients, pesticides
27
-------
Table 7. Outline of potential environmental impacts
and relevant pollutants resulting from
site preparation and construction practicesContinued
Construction
practice
Potential environmental
impacts
Primary
pollutants
3. Permanent facilities
a. Transmission
lines and heavy
traffic areas
(1) Parking lots
(2) Switchyard
(3) Railroad spur
line
b. Buildings
(1) Warehouses
turbines, &
boiler bids.
(2) Sanitary
waste treat-
ment
(3) Cooling
towers
Long term
Stormwater runoff, petroleum
products
Visual impacts, sediment, runoff
Stormwater runoff
Long term
Impervious surfaces, storm-
water runoff, solid wastes,
spillages
Odors, discharges, bacteria,
viruses
Visual impacts
Sediment, dust, noise,
particulates
Solid wastes
c. Related
facilities
(1) Intake and
discharge
channel
(2) Water supply
and treat-
ment
(3) Stormwater
drainage
(A) Wastewater
treatment
(5) Dams and
impoundments
(6) Breakwaters,
jetties, etc.
(7) Fuel handling
equipment
(8) Oil storage
tanks, con-
trols, and
piping
Long term
Shoreline changes, bottom
topography changes, fish
migration, benthic fauna
changes
Waste discharges, water
quality
Sediment, water quality
Sediment, water quality,
trace elements
Dredging, shoreline
erosion
Circulation patterns in the
waterway
Spillages, fire, and visual
impacts
Visual impacts
Sediment, trace ele-
ments, noise, caustic
chemical wastes,
spoil, flocculants,
particulates, fumes,
solid wastes, nutri-
ents
28
-------
Table 7. Outline of potential environmental impacts
and relevant pollutants resulting from
site preparation and construction practicesContinued
Construction
practice
Potential environmental
impacts
Primary
pollutants
(9) Conveying
systems
(cranes,
hoists,
chutes)
(10) Cooling
lakes
(11) Solid waste
handling
equipment
(incinerators,
wood chippers,
trash compac-
tors)
d. Security fencing
(1) Access road
(2) Fencing
4. Project closeout
a. Removal of
temporary offices
and shops
(1) Demolition
(2) Relocation
b. Site restoration
(1) Finish
grading
(2) Topsoiling
(3) Fertilizing
(4) Sediment
controls
c. Preliminary
start-up
(1) Cleaning
(2) Flushing
Visual impacts
Conversion of terrestrial and
free flowing stream environ-
ment to a lake environment
(land use tradeoffs); hydro-
logical changes, habitat
changes, sedimentation, water
quality
Noise, visual impacts
Particulates, dust,
solid wastes
Long term
Increased runoff
Barriers to animal movements
Short term
Noise, solid waste, dust
Stormwater runoff, traffic
blockages, soil compaction
Short term
Sediment, dust, soil
compaction
Erosion, sediment
Nutrient runoff, water quality
Vegetation, water quality
improved
Short term
Water quality, oils, phosphate
and other nutrients
Sediments, wood wastes
Noise, dust, solid
wastes
Sediment, dust
Nutrients, petroleum
products
29
-------
Table 7. Outline? of potential environmental impacts
and relevant pollutants resulting from
site preparation and construction practicesConcluded
Source: Modified from Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. 1974.
General environmental guidelines for evaluating and
reporting the effects of nuclear power plant site
preparation, plant and transmission facility con-
struction. Prepared by Hittman Associates, Inc.
Washington, DC.
30
-------
Coal contains various elements (Table 8) that may enter thin films of
water found when the coal is damp and exposed to air. Rainfall will
wash off this film, producing an initial runoff that is often acid and
usually high in concentrations of iron, copper, and/or zinc, and that
has objectionable amounts of suspended solids and organic material. The
acid 'and reducing nature of the runoff is caused by the sulfur compounds
in the coal; these characteristics increase the solubility of many
metallic impurities.
II.B.I.a. Terrestrial Impacts. In addition to the preemption of land
(usually 1 to 2 hectares), the permit applicant should evaluate potential
terrestrial impacts resulting from dust generation from coal storage
piles. A Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for inhalation of coal dust has
been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists: 60.2 mg/ra . This standard is based on research that in-
dicated a less-than-1 percent probability of contacting a specific type
of pneumoconiosis after 35 years of exposure to coal dust (National
Academy of Sciences 1975). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
particulate matter also have been established (Table 4). Individual
States also may promulgate standards for nuisance dust.
Dust suppression at active storage piles may consist of occasional water
sprays. Where this method is unsuccessful, chemical sprays containing
alkyl compounds, phenol, ether, and ethylene glycol should be considered
(for experience with these methods see US-DOI 1976).
Infiltration water and runoff from the storage piles can remove some of
the more soluble materials from the coal and introduce them into surface
water, soil, and ultimately groundwater. Water-soluble material from
the storage pile arises mainly from oxidation of the coal surface during
exposure to the air and rainfall in unconfined coal piles. Runoff and
infiltration water from these piles likely contain coal fines, humic
acids, sulfuric acid, and inorganic ions. The concentrations of the
constituents of water after contact with the piles are poorly known, but
can be assumed to depend on the:
Type of coal
Extent of exposure to local climatic conditions
Acidity of the rainfall
Temperatures within the pile
Length of contact time between the water and the coal.
The terrestrial effects of this water are likely to be qualitatively
similar to effects of acid coal mine drainage (US-DOI 1969), but the
volumes and concentrations normally are small compared to those of mine
drainage. Effects on the land should be considered for areas immediately
31
-------
Table 8. Coal pile drainage water: Analyses from nine plants
Analyses (mg/1)
Contaminant
Range
Average of
three plants,
high-sulfur coal
One plant,
low-sulfur coal
Alkalinity
Acidity
BOD
COD
Total solids
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Ammonia (N)
Nitrate (N)
P
Turbidity
Hardness (CaCO-j)
Sulfate
Chloride
Al
Cr
Cu
Fe
Zn
0
8
0
85
1,330
247
22
0
0.
0.
3
130
133
4
825
0
1.
0.
0.
82
-27,810
10
- 1,099
-45,000
-44,050
- 3,302
1.8
3 - 2.2
2 - 1.2
- 505
- 1,850
-21,920
- 481
- 1,200
16
6 - 3.4
1 -93,000
01- 23
0
24,800
NA
NA
NA
26,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16,000
NA
1,012
8
2.6
48,800
18
24
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA - Not available.
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. October 1974. Development
document for effluent guidelines and new source performance
standards for the steam electric power generating point source
category. EPA 440/1-74 029-a.
32
-------
below, and adjacent to, the piles. Organic matter and cations in the
soils at these locations could be subject to leaching by the acid waters
and could be depleted from the surface horizons. These effects are
expected to be more pronounced in the Eastern and Midwestern United States
than in the West or Southwest, owing to the higher rainfall and higher
coal sulfur contents in the eastern half of the country.
II.B.l.b. Aquatic Impacts. Runoff water from coal storage piles is a
potential source of surface and groundwater contamination. Experience
with gob and slurry piles associated with coal cleaning plants indicates
some of the problems which may arise. Gob and slurry piles may have a
high coal content and runoff water often has a low pH and contains sus-
pended coal fines and high concentrations of iron, sulfates, and many
trace elements. Groundwater also may be of poor quality in the vicinity
of these piles.
These same problems may occur with runoff from coal storage piles,
although to a lesser extent. Good coal pile management techniques limit
contact of water with coal, and many contaminants in coal suitable for
use in electrical generation are present in much lower concentration
than in coal processing wastes.
Because water infiltration into coal storage piles increases the danger
of spontaneous ignition of this coal and reduces its heating value, good
coal pile management should include such techniques as:
Laying the pile on a dry and relatively impervious
foundation
Sealing the pile surface by compaction or other means in
order to minimize coal-water contact.
These same techniques will minimize leaching from the coal. Few data
are available at this writing on the quality of runoff water from coal
piles, but the applicant should take measures to minimize the chance of
runoff reaching surface water, and to limit or prevent infiltration of
water into soils of low absorption capacity or with shallow water tables
to guard against groundwater contamination (Bucklen, O.B. and P.G. Meikle
1968).
Coal fines transported into aquatic systems could produce substrate al-
terations capable of altering or eliminating the benthic community and
impacting the fish community through loss of food supplies and loss of
spawning habitat. The effect of dissolved materials in such runoff upon
the aquatic community should be estimated and discussed in the EIA.
The significance of the impacts resulting from such waste streams on the
terrestrial and aquatic resources in the study area will depend largely
on site-specific factors. Thus the applicant should identify all related
33
-------
factors in order to accurately assess Impacts and to design and implement
adequate control measures.
II.B.2. Oil and Gas
Oil and gas may be brought to the plant by means of tankers, barges or
pipelines. Potential environmental impacts from handling these fuels
derive from spills and leaks, and generally the severity of impacts is
proportionate to the quantity of the spill or leak, as well as the sen-
sitivity of the site. Because the supply function is large and complex
it is inevitable that accidents will occur, although theoretically they
are avoidable. These potential impacts should be discussed statistically,
based on statistical frequencies of accidents that have occurred in
similar operations. Information agencies may include the U.S. Department
of Transportation (Office of Pipeline Safety), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Power Commission, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
II.C. PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS
The generation of electricity in a fossil-fueled plant involves several
processes:
Combustion of coal, oil, or gas in a boiler to convert
water to steam
Conversion of heat energy in high pressure steam to
mechanical energy in a turbine, which drives a generator
to produce electricity
Condensation of exhaust steam from the turbine in a
condenser
Return of condensed water to the boiler to continue the
cycle.
These processes generate a variety of waste streams. The treatment of
these streams and their final impact on the environment must be considered
in the environmental impact assessment (EIA). Figure 2 shows a typical
flow diagram for a fossil-fueled steam electric power plant, with the
major waste streams identified. Many variations are possible. For
example, the recycled cooling tower system could be replaced by a cooling
lake, cooling pond, or once-through cooling water could be used in the
condenser. Some of the wastewaters may be recycled or reused in par-
ticular systems. The diagram includes typical flow rates for a large
coal-fired unit, but these values may vary considerably depending on
plant design. The characteristics of the individual waste streams are
discussed below.
The applicant should identify specific pollutants and explain, in the
EIA, the proposed method(s) for treatment and disposal of all wastes and
the associated potential impacts.
-------
fcrt ^^
£ *
tf IT ^
! i §
> Co
I IS §
5' T 2- £
1 3 = 5
» 0" e
X t/l X w V 2 C>
*"**">." 5 1! 2 EJ 8 s
^C?5° "> t «
5«^ £ ^
-j^if §
+ a: fl*» £
£ ,. o
5 s-
r "*]
\ o / \ !
\ z ^ / ^v
1
w 1
Z uj 1
e * = «^** i
) w £ £ * '
is s -
^ <^
w^OCD
1 ' ^«^
u . '-T rl
', ^ < K W^ Ti*~ ^*
^ W-' O ^T<
41 OC U «4 * 2£ f^ It S
^ _i fc** fcj z ^'C o
3 =-yc-c5i * *->
6J <->) */l OC 7
r ^
e -
1
2 * o"
wee »
55 x SS
«r
15
'
X
dJ
,fl
*J
2
D
J
^-^
»
s
ai
X
<
1
W 0
»- u
a :
*A
5
r
UJ
S
0
o
0 A
0
-a-
N :s
\ uo
jll
/ o 5
-^ a:
UJ
i
O*
o
r^
<
r
a » '
f
JJWPOWN J 0
'r
L
irt tj * "^
<.
3 -H F^-l
W O
a
00 U
J p* -H (9
i ce fH CO O.
: " l-i
< 0) K
i ? -CO)
M >»
f\ ~ c °° a
'I? * u
T J }C 00-H CJ
c. < ^ *
- 5 y H
P5 -H rH 0)
« - £2 AJ cy < i
= £ » >/i cj U
r m 5 5 0) e
S S 1 e
O U CO
Pu CO <<->
co
fH 0)
CO ^C «
4J 4J CL)
e' 1-1
| 5 0) M 0)
I " *^ EOS
* 5 _; c u-i >«
S £ 3 o i
§ 5 « iJ ^ ^
f1 9s gS S
15 td 3 O
O U b
1 ~^ cfl o
<" 3 *O
*" « .
Urf ° "* *"J
z: z < '^
< ac
a ° 0) 01
i S o u n
S o at U 3
w -- < 3 60
-i " .r o ^r
35
-------
II.C.I. Continuous Aqueous Waste Streams
II.C.I.a. Heat Dissipation Systems. One of the basic characteristics
of a steam electric generating plant is that about 2.5 to 3 times more
energy must be dissipated as heat than is actually generated as elec-
tricity, due to thermodynamic limitations on the process of converting
heat to electrical energy. The historic and generally the most econo-
mical process to dissipate this heat is to use water from a nearby
waterbody in a once-through cooling system to condense the s.team after
it leaves the turbines, the condensate being returned to the boiler.
The. lower the temperature at which this condensation takes place, the
more efficient the generation process becomes. The once-through
system is simple and efficient, but it does have problems: the
heated water which is returned to the river, lake, or ocean can cause
biological damage and disrupt the existing ecosystem in the receiving
waterbody.
Other types of cooling systems are available which dissipate the heat
primarily to the atmosphere rather than a waterbody, including cooling
towers, cooling ponds, cooling lakes, spray ponds or canals, and dry
cooling towers. Cooling towers or similar systems greatly reduce the
possibility of environmental damage due to heat, and have been
determined to be the best practical technology (BPT) currently available
for the dissipation of heat, and thus would be required for all steam
electric generating systems under the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments. However, the amendments also recognize that
there will be situations where the amount of heat to be dissipated
will be small in relation to the size of the waterbody and ecological
disruption will be small even if once-through cooling is proposed.
Section 316(a) (FWPCA, PL 92-500) provides for the approval of once-
through cooling as an alternative to cooling towers or ponds if an
applicant can demonstrate successfully that the proposed thermal efflu-
ent will ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
community of shellfish, finfish, and sildlife in and on the receiving
waterbody.
Thus, a wide variety of alternate cooling systems are available to the
designer of a new source poser plant and the characteristics of these
systems are discussed in more detail in Section V (Analysis of Alter-
natives) of these guidelines.
After selection of the preferred cooling system, the potential environ-
mental impact associated with the system should be discussed. The
following paragraphs outline the type of impact assessment consider-
36
-------
ations appropriate for inclusion in the EIA for the major heat dissipa-
tion systems.
(1) Once-Through System. If the applicant proposes a once-
through cooling system it may be necessary for him to prepare a separate
application for approval under Section 316(a) of PL 92-500. An Inter-
agency 316(a) Technical Guidelines Manual (US-EPA 1977a) has been
prepared to assist in this application. The manual discusses the
methodologies available to assess the magnitude and significance of
impacts of once-through cooling on the ecology of the receiving water-
body. These methodologies represent the state-of-the-art for the assess-
ment of thermal impacts; they also can be used to provide guidance to
an applicant in discussing the impact of once-through cooling in the ElA.
To thoroughly evaluate the potential biological impact of a proposed
once-through cooling system, the following methodology can be used:
Modeling predictions of thermal plume characteristics
(See Section II.F.2.) At a minimum, the following
plume predictions should be made:
Extent during worst-case conditions
Extent during average and extreme seasonal conditions
Absolute temperatures expected during critical life
stage periods for important local biota
Interactions with other plumes or pollutants
Predictions of compliance with water quality standards:
Frequency and extent of predicted violations
Q
This discussion of thermal impact evaluation procedures is not
intended to replace, circumvent, or otherwise avoid previously
published section 316(a) guidance materials (i.e., US-EPA 1977a); nor is
the information developed for inclusion in the EIA intended to act as a
substitute for a 316(a) demonstration or to satisfy 316(a) requirements.
If a 316(a) demonstration has been conducted on the proposed new source,
the EIA can address the thermal impact question by summarizing the results
of that demonstration and including the report by reference.
37
-------
Effect on Important Local BiotaThe effects of the
heated plume (as a result of the analyses above) must
be evaluated for phytoplankton, periphyton, aquatic
macrophytes, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, shell-
fish, larval fish, and adult fish to the extent that
these various types of biota are important to the
ecology of the receiving water. Or to the extent that
they could become important if the quality of the
receiving water improves in the future due tv pollution
abatement efforts.
Because of the great complexity and variety of the
aquatic ecosystems, the effect of heated effluents
from a once-through cooling system or a cooling
pond usually must be considered by evaluating the
effect on biota at various trophic levels. The
selection of important local biota should be based
on a thorough examination of the available literature
and also on field collected data, because although
the species are well known for a particular waterbody,
it is unlikely that the distribution of those species
will be well defined for the power plant site. (The
permit applicant can refer to the 316(a) guidelines
manual above to select representative biota important
to the local ecology.) The potential direct and in-
direct effects of the thermal discharge on selected
biota should then be evaluated, based on the following
major factors:
Mortality: Where applicable, the applicant should
discuss in the EIA the potential for direct mor-
talities of fish and benthic communities within the
effluent zone from thermal stress (cold and heat
shock) based on known thermal tolerances.
Growth: The applicant should address the potential
for inhibiting effects on growth and maturation at
the species and community level.
Reproduction: Where applicable, the applicant shuuld
assess potential adverse effects on spawning sites,
reproductive potential, and nursery grounds, to
ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced
aquatic community.
Avoidance: The diversity and relative abundance of
the normally occurring mobile aquatic biota may be
affected within the mixing zone because of avoidance
38
-------
of the thermal plume. In cold climates the heated
water may serve as an attractant to some organisms.
These effects should be assessed, as should the
possible interference with migrations (especially
in riverine and estuarine environments).
Physical/Chemical and Water Quality: The applicant
should discuss in site-specific terms, those water
quality factors for which the impact on biota may
be affected by temperature. For example, increased
temperature results in an increase in the rate
of biological oxygen consumption in the water and '
may result in a substantial decrease in dissolved
oxygen locally (oxygen sag); decreased gas solubi-
lity at higher temperatures can result in local
supersaturation and the damaging release of these
gases from solution; such compounds as ammonia may
be more toxic to biota as the temperature increases.
Effects on Other Water UsesThe effect of the heated
effluent on recreation, public water supplies, in-
dustrial water uses, and other existing or proposed
cooling water systems also should be discussed in
the EIA.
(2) Cooling Lakes. The following factors relative to bio-
logical impact should be examined if cooling lakes are selected as a
receiving body for thermal effluents in a manner similar to that dis-
cussed above for once-through cooling:
Projected seasonal thermal regimes, vertical and
horizontal stratification, absolute temperatures for
feasible alternatives
Physical limnological characteristics in site-specific
terms
Water supply source, effect of water removal
Projected nonthermal water quality characteristics
of the lake
Expected biota (from literature and historic data)
Possibility of aquatic nuisance development
Expected discharge effects on receiving areas
Capacity for additional units and expected cumulative
effects on biota if the plant is expanded
39
-------
Potential recreational value
Expected' dissolved solids content in dry years.
(3) Recirculating Cooling Towers, Ponds, Spray Ponds. Although
the direct thermal effects from these cooling systems normally are less
than from other available cooling modes, the discharge of blowdown and
the water intake can have pronounced effects on small or confined water-
bodies. If large generating units are proposed and small waterbodies will
be used for makeup and blowdown, the applicant should assess the signi-
ficance of potential impacts and develop appropriate measures to mini-
mize any adverse impacts.
(4) Cooling Water Intake Structures. All of the above cooling
water systems usually will involve withdrawal of water from a local body
of water to be used as direct cooling water or as makeup water, and the
discharge of cooling water or of blowdown. Section 316(b) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 requires that an applicant
demonstrate that the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures reflect best technology available (BTA) to
minimize adverse environmental impacts on aquatic biota. The EPA 316(b)
guidance manual (US-EPA 1977b) provides general assistance for the de-
velopment, conduct, and review of surveys designed to assess potential im-
pact of new source intakes. Apart from the 316(b) requirements, the
permit applicant should assess all potential impacts associated with a
proposed intake structure for purposes of inclusion in the EIA.' The
applicant must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the site ecology
to ensure proper siting and design of the intake and to minimize im-
pingement and entrainment of aquatic biota. At a minimum, the following
basic intake design parameters should be discussed in the EIA:
Location in reference to concentrations of important
organisms (various life stages)
Intake structure length, depth, and distance from shore
Intake velocities and vectors in relation to waterbody
currents
Number of pumps, volume, and screen mesh size
Physical structure characteristics
9 The identification and evaluation of impacts associated with cooling
water intake structures that are presented in the EIA are in no way intended
to replace, circumvent, or otherwise avoid Section 316(b) requirements; nor
are the EIA guidelines (vis-a-vis assessment of impact of intake structures)
40
-------
Specific fish bypass or removal systems
Physical and behavioral barriers to increase avoidance of the intake
system by organisms or to mitigate losses are outlined in Section III-B.
Often the single most important factor for reducing intake effects is
the location of intake in reference to critical life stages of important
local biota. At present there are no commercially tested intake designs
available that significantly reduce the entrainment of the larval stages
of fish and shellfish, although there are several approaches that offer
some promise. Although the use of cooling towers reduces the overall
water used in the cooling processs the trend toward increasingly larger
units still results in the withdrawal of large volumes of water from the
water supply source for makeup. Also, it is important to note that
cooling tower water use will result in complete mortality of the
entrained organisms. It cannot be overemphasized that the intake
structure location should be based on detailed understanding of the local
ecosystem, preferably developed from field-derived data. These data
should be collected from enough locations in the source waterbody to
allow for intelligent choices among alternative locations. The selection
of an intake location .-'.s critical particularly in estuaries or in other
confined coastal environs. Intakes in rivers may have major impacts if
located below important spawning areas. The applicant also should con-
sider depth-related data in determining the proper intake location.
Critical larval stages of fish and shellfish often are stratified in
the waterbody and sufficient field-derived data defining this stratifi-
cation are essential in deciding among intake locations.
Unfortunately, the reproductive mechanisms of most motile aquatic or-
ganisms are understood poorly, and it is usually necessary to acquire
detailed field-derived data at an early stage. Current research efforts
should provide more insight and credibility for the prediction of impacts
from intake structures on the aquatic biota.
(5) Biocide Use. The applicant should provide information
sufficient to define the potential impact of the biocide(s) used (if any)
on entrained organisms at their point of exposure, as well as any impacts
expected beyond the point of discharge. The applicant also should demon-
strate the ability of the discharges containing biocides to meet effluent
guidelines.
contained herein meant to replace or to serve as a substitute for pub-
lished 316(b) guidance materials. If a 316(b) study has been conducted on
the proposed new source, the EIA can address the intake structure impacts
by summarizing the results of that study and incorporating the report be
reference.
41
-------
The applicant should examine, at a minimum, the following factors to es-
tablish criteria for evaluating potential impacts associated with biocide
use:
Frequency, duration, and concentration of discharges
Toxicity of concentrations and forms of compounds
discharged relative to tolerances of biotic species
present in the waterbody
Potential for formation of toxic levels of reaction
products with compounds in the water (e.g., chlororgan-
ics)
Potential for buildup of residuals in sediments.
Currently chlorine is the most commonly used biocide in steam electric generating
stations. The standards for the intermittent discharge of chlorine currently
are being reevaluated. It is likely that the new standards will be less than
the present 0.5 mg/1 free chlorine. Moreover, the new standards probably
will be time related. The toxicity of intermittently discharged combined
residual appears to be significantly less than that of the free residual
chlorine and it is possible that standards of chlorine will be formulated
based on the relative percentages of the types of residuals present.
Il.C.l.b. Water Treatment System. Modern high-pressure boilers require
high quality water for makeup and frequently the available water supply
must be treated before it can be used for general plant purposes. One
or more processes may be required to achieve the quality of water that
is desirable. They may include:
Clarification, which removes suspended solids in the water,
usually by settling, often enhanced by the use of coagulants
such as iron or aluminum salts and/or polymeric poly-
electrolytes. Quality may be further improved by filtration.
Major wastes are sludges containing suspended solids from
raw water and aluminum or iron hydroxides.
Softening, which removes calcium and magnesium by precipi-
tation with lime and clarification. Major wastes are sludges.
Demineralization, which removes dissolved solids in prepa-
ration of boiler makeup water by adsorption by anionic and
cationic ion-exchange resins. Resins typically are re-
generated by removal of adsorbed ions by treatment with
sulfuric acid (^SO^) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Regen-
eration and washwater streams have a very high or very low
pH and high dissolved solids content and present a waste
-------
disposal problem. Reverse osmosis may be used to produce
a low dissolved solids stream before demineralization.
This process produces a waste stream that contains high
dissolved solids.
II.C.I.e. Boiler Slowdown. Slowdown is practiced to prevent the buildup
of materials in the boiler. In modern high-pressure systems, blowdown
water normally is of good quality; often it is returned to the water
treatment system, because it usually will be of better quality than the
water supply.
Il.C.l.d. Ash-Handling Water. Coal-fired plants produce both a finely
divided ash that is removed from the stack gases by electrostatic pre-
cipitators and an ash that is removed from the bottoms of the boilers.
Ash usually is disposed of as solid waste, although some fly ash is used
for cement manufacture and other industrial processes. Ashes may be
transported dry or as a slurry in water. Dry ash transport must have
adequate dust control; wet ash transport results in a wastewater con-
taining materials dissolved from the ash. Dissolved materials also can
be a problem in leachate from ash disposal sites. Coal ashes can contain
significant quantities of:
Aluminum (Al) K
Iron (Fe) Phosphorus (P)
Si B
Ca Ti
Magnesium (Mg) Trace metals,
including Hg, As,
Na selenium (Se), Cd,
Cu, Ni, V, and Zn
Table 9 reports the changes in the concentration of several contaminants
found in ash pond water. Water that has been in contact with ash may be
alkaline or acid and may contain objectionable quantities of some of the
foregoing materials; it may, therefore, have a detrimental effect on a
receiving body of water. Oil-fired boilers produce much less ash; re-
moval is usually by periodic washing.
II.C.I.e. Stack Gas Scrubber System. Sulfur dioxide in stack gases is
most commonly removed by bringing the stack gases into contact with an
alkaline lime solution, which precipitates a mixed calcium sulfate-
sulfite that then can be disposed of as a solid waste. The water is
recirculated, although there may be some blowdown. Scrubbing systems
are still under development. Details of these systems may vary con-
siderably, and may or may not include efforts to recover sulfur or sul-
furic acid. System design must be based on the individual case.
43
-------
Table 9. Ash pond overflow water: change in
contaminant concentration
Total solids
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Total hardness
Sulfate
Al
Cr
Na
Alkalinity (CaC03)
Ammonia (N)
Nitrate (N)
Chloride
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Zn
P
-31
- 2
- 0.6
- 0.5
- 6
0
- 4xlO~4
- 0.04
- 0.9
- 0.03
- 0.006
- 3
- 5xlO~5
- 0.005
- 0.4xlO-6
- 2xlO-4
- 4x10-4
- 0.03
to + 12
to + 12
to + 0.7
to + 3.7
to + 2.6
to + 0.01
to + 3xlO~4
to + 3
to + 1.3
to + 0.01
to + 0.04
to + 8
to + 2xlO~5
to + 0.01
to + 2.8xlO~6*
to + lxlO~4
to + 4x10-3
to + 0.0007
*0nly two analyses were made.
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Supplement for
pretreatment to the development document for the steam
electric power generating point source category.
EPA 440/1-77/084, April, Washington DC.
44
-------
H.C.l.f. Miscellaneous Waste Streams. There are other waste streams
that are not related specifically t9 the electric power generation pro-
cess, but still must be evaluated in the EIA. They 'include sanitary
wastes, plant and yard drains, coal pile runoff, and laboratory wastes. Such
wastes could result in potentially signficant impacts to water quality so the
applicant should consult the appropriate State, regional, or local authorities
about regulations for treatment and disposal of these wastes. The applicant
should also discuss in the EIA the method(s) proposed to manage such waste
streams.
II.C.2. Intermittent Aqueous Waste Streams
f
Periodic cleaning of power plant equipment, such as boiler tubes, fire-1-
side areas, stacks, cooling towers, condensers, and pre-operational
metal cleaning produces wastes that may contain a wide variety of con-
taminants in quantities sufficient to cause environmental impacts. The
composition of these wastes should be identified as well as any potential
impacts that are associated with these wastes. At least the following
chemical constituents should be investigated:
Acid, alkaline, Ni
detergent, and/or
chelating compounds Chromium (Cr)
from cleaning
solution Phosphates
Fe Fluorides
Cu Organic materials
Zn
Cleaning is often done by commercial organizations that remove the
cleaning wastes from the plant for treatment at some central point, but
the wastes may be disposed of at the plant site. Table 10 shows the
range in kilograms per cleaning cycle of waste materials in cleaning solu-
tions. The applicant should demonstrate in the EIA how all intermittent
waste streams will be handled in terms of treatment and disposal to en-
sure that all applicable standards and regulations are met.
II.C.3. Air Emission Waste Streams
Air quality analyses must be conducted pursuant to the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969. and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and
1977. At a minimum, the following principal measures should be included:
Evaluation of emission rates from all potential air con-
taminant sources associated with the facility (mobile and
and stationary sources)
45
-------
Table 10. Raw waste flows and loadings: Maintenance cleaning
Wastewater source
Item
Air preheater
Boiler fireside
Boiler tubes
No. of Plants
Cleaning frequency
(#/yr)
Flow (1,000 liter)
Parameter
(kg/cleaning cycle)
BOD5
Bromide (bromate)
COD
Cr (total)
Cu
Cyanide (total)
Fe
Ni
Oil and grease
Phosphate (total)
Total dissolved
solids
Total suspended
solids
Total solids
Surfactants
Zn
4- 12
163- 2,271
0- 6.82
NA
2.6- 15.9
0.21- 26.88
NA
0- 2,02
NA
0.97- 3,862
8.14-170.38
NA
0.02- 2,66
1,448-20,096
217- 4,898
1,188-29,744
NA
0.13- 11.36
2- 8
91- 2,725
0
NA
8.63-515.00
0.01- 0.45
NA
0- 0.11
NA
13.63-408.90
0- 13.63
NA
0.12- 5.04
1,363-15,948
54.07- 1,736
1,817-18,551
NA
0.91- 13.04
0- 2
568- 18,622
NA
NA
0.45- 19,387
0.21- 10,524
NA
0'. 06-931,185
NA
0.51- 595.96
42,592-133,826
NA
0.02- 3.48
111.11- 43,598
0- 1,590
111.11- 48,868
NA
0.35-391,098
NA = Not Available.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Supplement for
pretreatment to the development document for the steam electric
power generating point source category. EPA 440/1-77/084,
April.
46
-------
Discussion of the various available and proposed emission
control techniques (focus on whether or not the selected
control technology constitutes BACT); describe contingency
plans to be used if pollution control systems malfunction
and those associated impacts
Where reliable representative data are not available, in-
surance of accurate measurements of facility performance
and emissions, as well as ambient air quality (generally
one year of on-site ambient air quality data are needed) and
meteorology in the vicinity of the proposed new source
power plant before and during operation
Atmospheric dispersion modeling to evaluate the short- and
long-term effects of facility emissions and other neighboring
emission sources on ambient air quality (cumulative and syner-
gistic effects)
Potential for atmospheric chemical reactions that may re-
sult from plant emissions, producing new air contaminants
Discussion of projected ambient air contaminant levels
with respect to Federal, State, and local ambient air
standards and PSD increments.
II.C.3.3. Sources of Emissions. Potential sources of air contaminants
for fossil-fueled steam electric generating stations include:
Processing plants for fuel and other raw materials
Materials loading, transport, unloading, and storage faci-
lities
Combustion equipment (usually the largest source of emissions)
Fly ash and other waste disposal operations
Cooling tower drift and salt deposition
Indirect sources such as increased vehicular traffic gen-
erated by use of recreation areas (e.g., cooling lakes) or
new residential housing to accommodate plant employees.
Emissions from such sources should be evaluated on source and control
equipment design, operating and maintenance factors, and analysis of
fuel type. Standard emission factors and manufacturer's test data, when
available and reliable, should be used. Significant emissions of all
criteria pollutants and other hazardous substances must be quantified.
Additional information on particulate emissions may be obtained based on
considerations of aerosol mechanics. Contaminant formation rates and
control efficiencies for gaseous emissions may be estimated using chemical
engineering techniques. Particulate and gaseous behavior must be con-
sidered for some emissions; for example, many trace elements such as Sb,
-------
As, Cd, fluorine (F), Pb, Hg, Se, tin (Sn), and Zn are volatilized to
varying degrees during combustion, are recondensed as the flue gas cools,
and are released both as gases and as submicron condensation particulates
that preferentially penetrate through air pollution control devices,
whereas the unvolatilized forms are collected efficiently with the fly ash.
Table 11 shows the emission of various toxic metal pollutants from power
plants throughout the Nation, Power plants are major (over 20 percent)
sources of airborne emissions of boron, beryllium, cadmium, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, tin, vanadium, and zinc.
The emission of heat and moisture from the designed cooling system (i.e.,
once-through cooling, cooling ponds or cooling lakes, spray ponds, or
cooling towers) should be evaluated. Emissions from auxiliary turbine
or diesel generators and their operating schedules also should be eval-
uated.
Construction-related activities also should be analyzed for dust generation
and equipment exhaust emissions; emissions should be estimated according
to sources such as EPA's Publication No. AP-42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, and expected ambient air pollutant concen-
trations should be calculated. Dust generation and dispersion from coal
piles (active and storage) and construction activities should be estimated
based on the appropriate theoretical and empirical relationships of par-
ticulate and aerosol mechanics, and on meteorological principles of wind
and moisture.
II.C.3.b. Measurement of Air Emissions. The assessment of potential air
quality impacts should include requirements for emissions testing and
ambient air and stack monitoring, as set forth in the NSPS, as well as
programs that will be followed to comply with these requirements. De-
pending on local regulations, existing ambient air quality, and the ex-
tent of control prescribed by environmental management agencies to
achieve the desired air quality, some or all of the following measures
may be required:
Performance testing of all combustion and emission control
systems after the onset of operations to ensure proper
and efficient operation. Faulty operation may result in
increased contaminant emissions.
Emissions testing after routine operation is reached to
measure actual emissions, to ascertain compliance with
standards and to determine the efficiency of control equip-
ment.
Continuous monitoring of stack emissions for specific
contaminants, such as S02, NOx, CC>2, opacity, and particu-
lates. The rate of fuel use can be monitored and combined
with emission data to calculate rates of emission.
48
-------
Table 11. Estimated
emission of toxic
metals
from conventional power plants
Metal
Ba
As
Be
B
Cd
Cr
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Sn
V
Zn
NA = Not
Source:
Coal-fired
Tons per
year
511
493
99
3,050
80
1,234
750
1,622
173
610
33
70
78
226
3,824
Available.
plants
Percent of
United States
4
6
68
32
27
10
3-9
8
28
61
1
9
22
1
2
Oil-fired
Tons per
year
NA
2
NA
NA
17
17
NA
2
1
29
1,441
19
1
2,740
130
Toxic metals: Pollution control and worker protection.
Sittig, Noyes Data Corp
. , 1976.
plants
Percent of
United States
NA
1.4
NA
NA
. NA
0.1
NA
NA
0.1
3
24
2
0.3
15
0.1
Marshall
Evaluation of baseline air quality in the vicinity of the
proposed facility (required). Levels of ambient air con-
taminants that are major emission products which will result
from the proposed plant operation and related operations
must be monitored if other data collected by local agencies
or organizations do not provide an adequate description of
the local air quality. Existing violations of ambient air
standards also should be revealed. After operation begins,
monitoring should continue in order to validate air quality
projections and to determine whether or not emissions from
operation of the plant are in compliance with standards.
-------
Monitoring of meteorological conditions at the project
site before operation begins, to establish the local dis-
persion climatology and, possibly, to reveal special site
dispersion problems with respect to the projected rate
and type of emissions and background air quality expected.
After operation begins, meteorological conditions can be
measured and the data used to explain contaminant concen-
tration levels at ground level air quality monitoring sites.
II.C.S.c. Atmospheric Chemistry. After the various contaminants have
been emitted to the atmoshphere, a number of chemical reactions may take
place -under certain atmospheric and environmental conditions/ Because
many of the products of these reations are potentially harmful to human
health and welfare, the probability of thier formation and the extent
of impact expected must be evaluated.
Sulfur dioxide (SC^), emitted as a product of the combustion of sulfur-
bearing fossil fuels, can be oxidized to sulfate (S0^~2) in a number of
ways, both directly and catalytically. This oxidation is favored by the
presence of moisture, sunlight, certain metals, hydrocarbons, oxides of
nitrogen, and ozone.
Where sulfur dioxide is oxidized to sulfate particles, contact with
moisture, whether in the atmosphere or in the lungs, can lead to formation
of sulfuric acid and sulfate salts. Through the same combustion pro-
cess, the emission of oxides of nitrogen often leads to the formation of
nitrates. The incorporation of sulfates and nitrates into cloud systems
can result in acidic aerosols, mist, and acid rainfall on a regional scale.
Acid rainfall may adversely affect freshwater organisms by reducing pH
(increasing acidity) of their environment. A recent survey (EPA, 1978)
found that 51% of the lakes in the Adirondack Mountains of New York
have pH values below 5.0; 90% of these lakes contain no fish. In con-
trast, during the period 1927-37, only 4% of these lakes had a pH under
5.0 or were devoid of fish. The degradation is attributed to the
inability of the lakes to nutralize acid rainfall.
Acid conditions may result in the leaching of minerals from soil and
also may damage various materials, especially metals. Acute and chronic
injury also may occur to vegetation, crops, and to the natural ecosystems
(up to hundreds of kilometers downwind) as a result of SOo emissions which,
in turn, can result in transient reductions of live plant biomass.
If the fumigations are intermittent, the plant often can recover by
increased growth and replacement of damaged tissue. However, if the
amount of damaged tissue exceeds 5 to 30 percent (depending on species),
productivity or yield may be decreased (Davis 1972; TVA Today 1974).
50
-------
Subtle long-term effects also are possible, in which the S02 interferes
with physiological or biochemical processes resulting in effects on
growth and possibly on yield without visible symptoms (National Environ-
mental Research Center 1973).
Plant species and varieties show a considerable range of sensitivity to
SC>2. This is the result of interactions of environmental (temperature,
humidity, light, edaphic factors, etc.)» phenological, morphological,
and genetic factors that influence plant response. Threshold injury in
various plants may be caused by SC>2 concentrations ranging from < 1 ppm to >
10 ppm (National Environmental Research Center 1973).
In addition to acute SC^ effects, which can result in visible injury to
plants wherever they grow, the chronic and long-term S02 effects take
on added significance in natural ecosystems because of the relative per-
manence of the vegetation and the delicate balances that exist between
ecosystem components. As a contrast, in areas supporting managed agri-
cultural ecosystems where the existing forage or crop plants are replaced
by new plants each growing season, the chronic and long-term effects of
SC>2 may be negligible.
It is likely that in natural ecosystems subjected to persistent S02
levels, annual and perennial plant species would be affected differentially.
Chronic and/or long-term SC>2 effects may be manifested as impairment of
reproduction and germination which could result in long-term changes
in diversity (through elimination of sensitive species), community struc-
ture, productivity, stability, nutrient cycling, etc. These changes would,
in turn, affect the animal components of the ecosystem via changes in
habitat, food availability, competition, etc. These effects would be
in addition to the direct effects of S02 on animal species and should be
evaluated in the EIA to the extent practicable.
Air contaminants formed through atmospheric photochemistry (sunlight-
induced reactions) are known as photochemical oxidants because of their
roles as harmful oxidizing agents. They are produced through a complex
series of atmospheric reactions mainly involving hydrocarbons, oxides
of nitrogen, and moisture in the presence of sunlight. Oxidants, which
include ozone, also are involved in some of the reactions that produce
acid aerosols.
To assess thoroughly the atmospheric impact of emissions from a new
facility, the potential for the formation of new contaminants through
atmospheric chemistry must be assessed. The emission rates of all
relevant contaminants'(such as sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, and heavy metals) should be calculated, background levels
must be determined, and the atmospheric chemistry must be modeled to
project contaminant levels as a function of time and distance from the source.
51
-------
It is desirable to extend the results of the modeling of impact on air
quality to provide an estimate of the impacts on people. At the minimum,
it will be desirable to provide tabular data as to the number of people
living within the isopleths delineating various levels of increased air
contamination.
It is important when assessing the effects of air contaminants on people
and the environment to keep in mind that the primary air quality standards
are set, as required by law, at a value that will protect the public
health with an adequate margin of safety and secondary standards are
set to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant. If there is good evidence that the present
standards for ambient air contaminants allow levels of any pollutant that
will have an adverse effect on public health or welfare, EPA will be
required by law to revise the standards downward to a level that will
provide an adequate margin of safety. Therefore, these standards can
form the basis for discussions concerning environmental impacts of air
pollutants.
It also is desirable, however, to attempt to preserve the air quality in
regions where present air quality is considerably better than that set
as a limit by ambient air standards. To this end, the prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration (PSD) regulations limit the amount of increase in
ambient air contamination in such areas to levels lower than those the
ambient air standards would allow.
II.D. OTHER IMPACTS
II.D.I. Electric Power Transmission Systems
Approximately 3,600 electric utilities exist in the United States. These
utilities operate more than 300,000 miles of power transmission lines
that occupy approximately 4 million acres of land for rights-of-way. Only
2,400 miles (0.8 percent) of these lines are underground.
The assessment of potential environmental impacts that result from the
construction and operation of electric power transmission line systems
differs from the assessment of impacts associated with the power station
proper, because it is necessary to consider narrow corridors of construc-
tion that will total tens or hundreds of miles in length for a typical
power plant installation, instead of a large central location. Con-
sequently, an applicant may encounter frequent and abrupt changes in
topography, soils, vegetation, and other ecological conditions.
To evaluate potential impacts adequately, a comprehensive inventory of
existing environmental conditions (within the transmission line corridor
and appropriate adjacent areas) is required. The discussion which follows
presents a checklist in the form of a sequential outline that may serve
as a guide to assess potential environmental effects of power transmission
facilities. It is assumed that categories of baseline resource information
52
-------
required to evaluate environmental effects already have been assembled.
Also, where impacts are not unique to power transmission systems, they
are discussed briefly or the Federal guidelines (US-EPA 1975) or other
appropriate guidance material are referenced.
II.D.I.a. Data Requirements (Description of the Proposed Transmission
Facility).
(1) Power Transmission System Layout and Construction. After
key natural and manmade resources have been inventoried and appraised, a
clear, detailed description of the proposed transmission facility and
project implementation plans should be prepared. Specifically, infor-
mation on the preparation and layout of the alternative transmission
routes and sites and a description of the proposed major structures and
plans for their installation should be provided in the EIA. Such data
are needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed layout(s) and
to ensure optimum use of the land and other resources. At a minimum, the
applicant should:
Describe all proposed site clearance and landscape
operations. Include activities such as surveying and
soil testing, removal of vegetation, grading and ex-
cavation, construction of access roads and trenches,
stringing of cable, removal and disposal of debris,
postconstruction grading and landscaping, and methods
proposed to cross waterbodies%
Describe all plans to mitigate potential adverse
impacts of site preparation activities as well as
beneficial effects that may result (see USDI 1971,
Section A.6.3, p. A.6-6).
Describe all major proposed structures, including sub-
stations, switchyards, transmission line towers and
tower pads, terminating structures, and any other
special structures. Emphasize facilities visible from
public vantage points and scenic areas or any unusual
structural features.
Clearly describe proposed transmission equipment
(design voltage, tower design, conductor type, cable
type and size, etc.). The description can appear in a
table comparing pertinent technical, financial, environ-
mental, and social merits of alternative equipment con-
sidered.
Compare the technical, economic, social, and environ-
mental merits of overhead facilities with underground
installations for potentially suitable segments of
electric transmission lines.
53
-------
II.D
-------
Noise generation and radio and television interference
Corona discharges.
Describe employee and public safety standards relative to the construction
and operation of the proposed electric transmission system. The applicant
should demonstrate compliance with all existing regulations and standards,
and describe all proposed measures to reduce potentially dangerous and
annoying effects.
Where power lines traverse private property and the applicant only
secures ingress and egress rights by nonspecific routes, the applicant
should consult with the property owner to ascertain that the remaining
access will assure the least personal inconvenience as well as the least
environmental damage. The applicant should describe any insurance or
other corporate program to provide liability compensation for damages
(economic or environmental) to the public, if any should occur, as a
result of construction or operation of the proposed transmission facility.
(3) Hydrology and Water Quality. The permit applicant should
identify and evaluate the potential impacts to water resources in the
area during the construction and operation phases of the proposed trans-
mission facility.
Construction phase. Specifically, the applicant should:
Indicate the location of all water monitoring and
gauging stations to be used during construction of
the proposed transmission facility.
Estimate and describe any discharges to water re-
sources from route clearing and construction acti-
vities. Give specific attention to runoff and
siltation from possible dredging and/or filling
activities, access road construction, and removal of
vegetation. Describe specific plans to mitigate
these effects (see EPA's Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control, Planning and Implementation).
For all potentially impacted water resources, esti-
mate any changes in water quality under average and
critical low flow conditions from the construction
of the proposed transmission system.
-Describe any potential improvement and/or adverse
impacts to the original hydrological conditions of
the area because of facility construction (e.g.,
alteration of drainage patterns and flow conditions)
55
-------
Operation phase. Relative to operation and maintenance
impacts to water resources, the applicant should:
Identify all biocides proposed for use in right-of-
way management (vegetation control, pest control, etc.)
and describe the potential impacts of the selected
biocides on aquatic organisms. For each biocide,
specify type, volume, and concentration, mode of
application, frequency of use, toxicity to target
and nontarget species, and persistence and biomagni-
fication characteristics.
Describe any proposed programs to monitor chemical
residues in surface and subsurface waters that po-
tentially could be affected. This program is par-
ticularly important in areas where herbicide appli-
cations or other chemical control is used for land
clearing and maintenance,
Identify critical areas that are subject to erosion
and/or severe overland runoff and describe the
measures to be used to control these problems and
the resultant impacts.
(4) Air Quality. The applicant should present all relevant
data on any atmospheric emissions expected during the construction and
operation of the proposed transmission line system and resultant changes
in air quality. Because air quality impacts associated with construction
activities are not unique to power transmission facilities (e.g., dust
generation, noise, and mobile emission sources), the applicant is re-
ferred to the EPA general guidelines for new sources to obtain the
necessary guidance (US-EPA 1975). In addition to construction-related
impacts, the applicant should address air quality impacts that could
occur during the operation and maintenance of a proposed transmission
line facility. The following considerations should be included:
For electric transmission lines above 500 kV, the
rate of ozone generation and the expected impact on
species of plants and animals as well as humans should
be estimated. Methods for estimating ozone production
can be found in current literature (see Bibliography
ozone generation).
Right-of-way vegetation control activities which use
mechanical methods could generate dust; those which
use prescribed burning techniques could generate
smoke. If such maintenance practices are planned, the
potential air quality degradation, the effects on ad-
jacent areas, and any proposed plans to minimize po-
tential impacts should be discussed.
56
-------
(5) Noise. Occasionally, electric transmission lines have
resulted in public outcry regarding noise generation. Therefore, an
applicant should provide appropriate data and related information on
possible noise emissions during construction and operation of the proposed
transmission line. Assessment of noise impacts primarily should focus on
noise-sensitive areas (e.g., those segments of routes that pass through
or adjoin residential or commercial property, schools, hospitals, etc.).
(6) Terrestrial Biota. Identify and evaluate the potential
impacts to terrestrial ecosystems that may be induced by the construction,
operation, and maintenance of transmission line systems. A compilation
of pertinent baseline information is required to determine adequately
the magnitude and significance of impacts. Depending on the nature of
the study area, the type and detail of information will vary. At a
minimum, however, the following basis information usually is necessary:
Summary description (qualitative and quantitative) of the
vegetation and habitat types (from baseline inventory)
that will be crossed or otherwise affected by the trans-
mission line and associated facilities.
Inventory of species of animals most susceptible to impact,
particularly species that are commercially or recre-
ationally valuable or imperiled.
9 Identification of specific right-of-way management
practices that could affect terrestrial resources
(e.g., the use of chemicals, access roadway maintenance
activities, mechanical control of vegetation, and
wildlife management practices such as development of
food plots, predator control programs, special hunting
or trapping regulations).
Any proposed "special" maintenance practices to be
used in environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands,
critical wildlife habitats, unique geologic areas,
and archaeological or historic resource areas).
Summary of the major design characteristics of the
transmission lines and other associated facilities
(e.g., towers and substations, etc.).
This information should provide the basis to predict the overall effect
of construction, operation, and maintenance of proposed transmission
lines and corridors on terrestrial species of plants and animals.
Specifically, the evaluation of potential effects should include, but
not be limited to:
57
-------
Effects of herbicides, pesticides, and rodenticides
used to maintain and manage transmission rights-of-
way and required access roads (see Bibliographybiocide
use and effects).
Effects of nonchemical vegetative control techniques,
such as prescribed burns, cutting, and mechanical
removal of small trees and shrubs, on wildlife move-
ments and adaptability, soil erosion, plant productivity,
wildlife habitats, area carrying capacities, predator-
prey relationships, and so forth (see Bibliography
right-of-way management techniques).
Impacts of increasing accessibility (new roads, trails,
open space) to otherwise undisturbed areas (e.g.,
displacement or emigration of wildlife because of
noise and harassment from off-road vehicles (ORV) or
human presence, alterations in animal behavior or re-
productive success, damage to vegetation by ORV's,
and increased erosion).
Effects of high electrical fields (greater than 765 kV),
which may include changes in the physical and biolo-
gical processes and subsequent behavior and welfare
of indigenous terrestrial biota (see Bibliography
electrostatic effects).
Effects of structures, towers, and lines on aerial
migration or movement of avian wildlife, particularly
raptorial species and migratory birds (e.g., increased
mortality or injury because of in-flight collisions,
harmful effects of electrical shock, possible new
nesting or resting perches).
Effects of radiated electrical and acoustical noise,
induced or conducted ground current, corona discharges,
and production of ozone (with Federal and State
standards referenced and discussed as applicable) ,
which may include alienation and out-migration of
wildlife and detrimental effects on resident wildlife
and indigenous vegetation (see Bibliographynoise
and corona effects; ozone generation).
The applicant also should assess and describe the effectiveness and
schedule of all proposed plans vis-a-vis the conservation and protection
of the terrestrial biota, as well as their conformance with applicable
regulations and standards.
(7) Aesthetics. Historically, one of the most controversial
aspects of overhead transmission systems is the impact on the aesthetic
58
-------
quality of the area. The asethetic impacts are unique because of the
height of transmission towers, the nature of the right-of-way alignment
(long linear clearings, possibly across a variety of land uses), and
the unusual design configuration relative to the surrounding area. For
this reason, the applicant should:
Assess (as objectively as possible) the aesthetic
impact of the proposed transmission line with specific
reference to design plans, sketches, and other relevant
materials provided earlier in the EIA (description of
existing physical amenities).
Assess potential impacts with emphasis (on the proposed
facility as viewed from particularly se'nsitive vantage
points, such as residential areas, lookout points,
scenic highways, and waterways.
Describe measures proposed to minimize adverse impacts
created by the facility. Such measures could include
alternative design considerations, painting, screening
devices, vegetation planting, and changes in alignment.
(8) Other Major Projects/Programs. Often, other projects or
programs exist or are proposed in close proximity to the proposed trans-
mission line facility. In this event the applicant should:
Describe the interrelationships and compatibility of
the proposed transmission line system with other
existing or proposed structural and nonstructural
activities in the area.
Specify the significance of potential impacts of other
projects or programs on the proposed transmission
facility and vice versa,
Describe any proposed plans or procedures to reduce
adverse impacts that may occur.
II.D.2. Transportation Impacts
Significant transportation related impacts may be associated with the con-
struction and operation of a new source fossil-fueled steam electric
generating station. Some are not unique to the electrical generating
industry, but may occur with many large industrial projects. Consultation
with appropriate local and regional planning agencies and State highway
departments is encouraged and should be useful in planning transportation
facilities that involve the public transportation network.
59
-------
The construction and operation of the principal modes of transportation
(for raw materials) and their associated impacts which should be evaluated
in the EIA are discussed below.
II.D.2.a. Railroads. Major developments of unit train facilities are
required to transport western coal to midwestern markets and to transport
Appalachian coal to northeastern markets. The anticipated upgrading
of existing equipment and construction of new rail lines and coal handling
facilities will produce some impacts on aquatic environments. Presumably
a given portion of rail right-of-way is required per 1,000-MWe plant; one
estimate is 1,148 acres (Armbruster and Candela 1976), another is 2,213
(CEQ 1973), but it is hard to predict how much, if any, of this would
be new right-of-way since a good deal of railroad track is now being
abandoned (Armbruster and Candela 1976). Presumably, most of the
terrestrial impacts which could occur would result from new construction
activities and associated land use problems. Operational impacts on
aquatic systems are expected to be small compared to construction impacts.
Construction activities coupled with high annual precipitation in some
areas may cause erosion and siltation of the stream beds. Frequently in
the mountainous regions of the Northeast, railroads are constructed
parallel to stream basins. The stream valleys in this region are quite
narrow and railroads may have to be placed close to the stream. The
proximity of construction activities to these drainages provides the
opportunity for stream bank erosion and disruption of protective plant
cover along the stream margins. Removal of bank vegetation that shades
the stream may, in addition to enhancing siltation, cause an increase in
water temperature (Koppendall et al. 1975). The impact of siltation on
aquatic biota may alter benthic communities, fish spawning areas, food
web interrelationships, diversity, and/or stability of the biota.
Development of new rail facilities in the western and midwestern sections
of the U.S. will likely not cause the same aquatic impacts associated
with stream disruption in the Northeast, because the West is semi-arid
and location of railways can be planned to avoid paralleling stream
basins. However, stream crossings are inevitable and protection from
erosion and the effects of siltation on aquatic habitats should be assessed
in the EIA as well as a description of all proposed mitigation measures
to reduce adverse impacts.
Operational impacts of coal transport by rail are primarily associated
with accidental spillage and windblown loss of coal. Some coal dust may
blow off car tops, or sift through the hoppers, which then may be swept
off the track by train movement or wind. Dusting of vegetation can
reduce palatability of forage to animals and, through reduction of photo-
synthesis, retard vegetative growth. The severity of the problem will
be determined by the volume of coal shipped (particularly bituminous coal),
whether or not shipments are washed at the mine, whether or not new
hopper cars with tight doors are used, and whether or not the use of flip-
top covered cars (currently used to prevent snow from accumulating in the
60
-------
cars) increases. Studies have shown that the impacts from coal dust
blown off railroad cars usually are not severe (Armbruster and Candela
1976). It is conceivable, however, that derailing of a unit train might
dump about 10,000 tons of coal into a stream basin. If this occurs
where the railway parallels a drainage basin, impacts may be significant.
Such an accident could affect stream biota locally. In addition to sil-
tation impacts, soluble products may leach from the coal and have an
adverse impact on biota downstream. A similar impact also may result
from seepage from coal stockpiles located at train loading or unloading
facilities. The probability of such accidents and the associated im-
pacts should be discussed in the EIA.
II.D.Z.b'. Barges and Ships. Primary impacts where the barging and
shipping of coal and other raw materials are proposed are associated
with construction of dockside handling facilities, construction and up-
grading of locks and dams, maintenance of river channels, and the loss
of that land required for loading and unloading facilities and dredge
spoil piles. There may be some loss of riparian habitat from bank erosion
owing to heavy barge traffic in narrow rivers. Barging and shipping of
coal in particular is conducted primarily on the inland waterways of
the Mississippi drainage basin and the Great Lakes drainage basin.
At a minimum, the following should be evaluated in the EIA:
Exhaust emissions from diesel-powered towboats and ships
Acceleration of bank erosion from propeller wash and wakes
Turbidity and sediment from coal spillage in the waterways
at coal handling facilities
Spillage of ship fuel and coal.
Dredging operations, to provide sufficient depth at docks, also may con-
tribute to the sediment load of the waterway and distrub benthic commu-
nities. Similar but more extensive impacts will be produced during
channel development and maintenance to handle the deeper draft of large
jumbo barges. Seepage from coal stockpiles at loading facilities may
enter the waterways. Construction of new locks .and upgrading of existing
facilities also may produce some turbidity and siltation. Shutdown of
locks for any appreciable period could limit fish migration to upstream
spawning areas, unless facilities for bypassing locks and dams are provided.
Therefore, if proposed, the applicant should discuss all aspects of water
transportation of coal and other raw materials and all proposed mitigation
plans to minimize adverse impacts from construction and operation of
this system.
The applicant also should be aware that the issuance of the necessary
permits, at all government levels, is contingent on satisfying specific
61
-------
environmental, requirements and on demonstrating that adequate measures
to mitigate potentially adverse impacts on the aquatic environment
(including disruption or loss of habitat and associated biota, erosion
and siltation impacts, and spill hazards) are planned and will be im-
plemented. The EIA should discuss those potential impacts, proposed
mitigation measures and demonstrate compliance with all permit require-
ments.
II.D.2.C. Slurry Pipelines. Although coal slurry pipeline developers
have not obtained legal rights to eminent domain, most proponents believe
that this right will be granted in the near future. Because hydraulic
factors place restrictions on constructing pipelines in mountainous
terrain, most proposed pipelines probably will be located in the
relatively flat lands of the Western and Midwestern States, where possibly they
will transport western coal to eastern markets. The probability of
aquatic impacts occurring in the Western States is low as compared to
the Northeast due to the semi-arid nature of the western region. However,
considerable planning will be required to protect the limited western
water resources.
The ecological impacts of coal slurry pipelines can be divided into two
categoriesimpacts of construction and impacts of operation. The first
stages of planning a coal pipeline require selection of a route from the
mining and preparation area to the market. Selection of a route is
critical because a well planned route can eliminate immediately some
severe impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitat simply by avoiding
particularly sensitive areas. Lakes, reservoirs, streams, wetlands,
and adjacent erodible areas should be avoided wherever practical (Gray
and Mason 1975).
In the EIA, the permit applicant should describe, at a minimum, con-
struction impacts resulting from:
Removal of vegetation
Acceleration of erosion and surface runoff
Usurpation of land
Elimination of wildlife habitat
Above ground barrier to wildlife movements
Equipment emissions
Dust generation.
All measures to mitigate potentially adverse construction impacts (e.g.,
seasonal timing of construction activities, siltation barriers, re-
vegetation practices, riprapping) also should be described in the EIA.
62
-------
Potential impacts of operating a coa] slurry pipeline primarily are
associated with consumptive water use and the accidental discharge of slurry
into a local waterway. Consumptive use of water from a well field may
produce groundwater-aquifer drawdown and reduce wetland habitat important
to both aquatic and terrestrial biota. If the slurry makeup water supply
is drawn from a river or stream, drawdown may expose benthic communities
in shallower reaches of the basin resulting in their desiccation and
elimination from the food web. These types of impacts should be addressed
fully in the EIA.
Slurry accidentally released from the preparation plant, pumping stations,
or the pipeline may enter a local waterway causing severe turbidity
problems due to the fine particles of coal. The probability of such
accidents occurring should be estimated and control measures discussed.
Another area of potential aquatic impacts concerns the disposal of
excess water from the dewatering system. This water, if of sufficient
quality, may be used as part of the cooling water or boiler feedwater
at the power plant. Although excess water is discharged to an evaporation
pond, it may require treatment and discharge to a local waterway. The
nature of this treatment and any resultant impacts should be described.
In general, mitigative measures can be developed to handle the potential
impacts of coal slurry pipeline operation. However, the major potential
impacts appear to be associated with construction activities, which will
require careful planning to prevent ecological impacts. The applicant
should document systematically all planning steps for inclusion in the
EIA.
II.D.2.d. Trucks. Impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
from truck transport will occur primarily as a result of construction
activities and maintenance of haul roads. Dust may be generated by
blasting, road grading, and use of unpaved roads by construction equipment.
After construction is completed, the primary source of air emissions
would be the vehicles using the roads. The extent of impact would depend
on the number of vehicles, local meteorology, and topography (US-DOI 1975).
About 13 percent of the coal used by electrical utilities was moved by
truck in 19-71. The amount of trace metals, particulates, NOx, and SCb
from truck exhaust is considered small (.U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
19-74), but exhaust emissions from trucks might eventually reach streams,
and waste oil or accidental fuel spills could pollute local waterways.
Also, there is some possibility that coal spillage and subsequent leaching
may result from truck transport.
Noise resulting from construction and use of highways would be highly
localized, but should be assessed carefully in the EIA.
Soil erosion and siltation of streams may affect biota or water quality
in the stream basins. Mountainous terrain Ce.g., the Appalachian Region)
is particularly sensitive to erosion. Relatively high annual precipitation,
63
-------
the occurrence of steep grades, and side hill cutting during construction
of haul roads provide the opportunity for erosion and siltation of the
numerous headwater streams in this region.
At present, heavier and larger trucks are being employed to transport
coal. These trucks require wider haul roads with a heavier base than
before. This will present an even greater opportunity for erosion as
more area is deforested for construction activities. Effective planning
will be required to prevent serious erosion in some areas.
In short, coal-storage yards, maintenance facilities, terminals, and
increased road construction, together with their associated land use and
ecological impacts, are the major consequences of shipping of coal by
truck. The significance of these impacts should be estimated and
appropriate mitigative measures should be discussed in the EIA if this
mode of transportation is proposed.
II.E. MODELING OF IMPACTS
The ability to forecast environmental impacts accurately often is improved
by the use of mathematical modeling of the dispersion and dissipation of
air and water pollutants as well as the effects of storm runoff. The
sections that follow describe current state-of-the-art modeling techniques
that should be considered by the applicant to assist in the prediction of
potential air and water impacts.
II.E.I. Air Quality Modeling
Certain physical principles can be incorporated into a mathematical computer
model to determine short- and long-term ground level air contaminant con-
centrations, given:
Ambient meteorology
Contaminant emission rates
Stack characteristics
Areal extent and frequency of emissions
Background contaminant concentrations
Topography.
A plume rise calculation, which yields an effective plume height above the
ground, is incorporated into the Briggs model. In some cases, the effect
of multiple stack emissions must be considered.
Plume behavior varies with different vertical atmospheric temperature or
density profiles (see Figure 3), and may result in several types of ground
64
-------
n
J
Fanning plume
(inversion)
Fumigation plume (lapse
below and inversion aloft)
Looping plume
(strong lapse)
Coning plume
(weak lapse)
Lofting plume
(inversion below and lapse
aloft)
Temperature
Adiabatlc lapse rate
Actual temperature profile
Source:
Figure 3.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. 1975. Emission
study for Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Sooner
Generating Station. Prepared by Brown and Root, Inc.
Effect of temperature profile on plume rise and
diffusion
65
-------
level contaminant concentration patterns. They include:
Looping, which occurs in an unstable atmosphere (dense,
cold air overlies light, warm air). It is characterized by:
strong vertical mixing
relatively high ground-level concentrations, close to the
stack
highest ground-level concentrations under rapid mixing.
Coning, which occurs under neutral conditions. It is
characterized by:
--somewhat steadier ground-level concentrations at greater
distance
more gradual vertical and horizontal plume dispersion
cone-shaped configuration around the axis.
Trapping (or fanning), which occurs when there is an inver-
sion or stable layer (warmer air) above a ground-based mixing
layer (cooler, denser air). It is characterized by:
abnormally high concentrations at substantial distances
from a single source
regional-scale pollution from multiple sources
no ground-level concentrations if plume penetrates inversion
layer.
Lofting, which occurs when the plume penetrates through or
is emitted above a ground-based inversion (stable) layer;
there is no contaminant dispersion to the ground.
Fumigation, which can cause high ground-level concentrations.
This behavior occurs in two instances. In the first, the
stack effluent is emitted into a stable atmospheric layer
with little vertical or horizontal dispersion, leaving a
narrow, concentrated plume shape (fanning configuration).
Encountering a layer that is mixed from below, the plume is
mixed rapidly down to the ground. Surface heat in the
morning hours, when a nocturnal ground-based inversion is
destroyed by solar heating (inversion break-up), frequently
causes the mixing. The result is sometimes high, usually
brief (less than 1-hour) concentrations at some distance from
the stack. In the second instance, stable maritime air is
transported over a heated surface, creating a ground-based
wedge of mixed air that varies in depth with distance from
the shore. The resulting plume may affect one area for
several hours. Fumigation usually is difficult to model.
66
-------
Downwash, which occurs where wind speed is high. It is
characterized by:
highest local concentrations of pollutants
stack effluent entrained in turbulent area of building
wake; plume rise destroyed.
Aerodynamic building downwash can be prevented by designing the stack at
a sufficient height above any adjacent structure. (The "good engineering
practice" definition for stack height has been modified to account for
building geometry. Rather than 2.5 times the building height, the defini-
tion is 1.5 times the building height plus either the building height or
width, whichever is less.) A stack exit velocity exceeding the ambient
wind speed prevents loss of plume rise, avoiding stack downwash.
Terrain also affects plume rise behavior. Impingement occurs when the plume
is dispersed in an area of rough terrain. Ground-level concentrations
normally will be higher if the emission is carried by the wind toward
terrain that is higher than the emission site, than those concentrations
would be if there were no topographic relief. This effect occurs because
the plume axis is nearer to the ground and because the terrain increases
turbulent mixing.
Turner's Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (EPA Publication
Number AP-26) incorporates most Gaussian diffusion calculation techniques;
it contains graphic and computation techniques for ground-level contaminant
concentrations in most of the foregoing situations. EPA's guidelines on
air quality modeling (US-EPA 1977), Brigg's "Plume Rise", and the Federal
Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and AnalysisProcedures
for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources are widely
accepted references. EPA also has several useful modeling techniques that
the applicant should consider where applicable:
PTMAX, PTDIS, and PTMTP for short-term dispersion modeling
of point sources (Note: These programs were developed for
short stacks and may give inaccurate results for 1,000 foot
stacks proposed for new plants).
TERRAIN model, incorporating topographic effects
Climatological Dispersion Model for long-term concentrations
over larger areas caused by point and area sources
HIWAY for indirect source emissions, e.g., vehicle emissions
from a recreation area at a cooling lake
CRSTER.
A number of other factors should be considered by the applicant in modeling:
Interaction of the facility with neighboring sources and
background concentrations derived from regional emission inputs
67
-------
Cooling tower dispersion of heat and moisture, to obtain
visible plume length and to assess fogging and icing
potential and the extent of other meteorological effects
(Banna's modification of Briggs' "Stable Plume Rise Formula,"
involving latent heat of condensation of emitted water vapor;
Gaussian diffusion)
Salt deposition from cooling tower plume drift, for plants
having significant salt concentration in the cooling water
Interactions of cooling tower plume with sulfur oxides in
the stack plume
Possibility of acid mist formation or precipitation (see
discussion in Section II.C.3.c)
Deterioration.
Deterioration is the total increment in ambient concentration of a contami-
nant emitted from all sources that were approved after January 1, 1975. If
deterioration has occurred since that baseline date, the proposed facility
will be allowed a smaller increment than if it were the only contributing
source. Rules and regulations concerning deterioration are discussed in
Section I.D.I.
After concentrations are calculated, at least the following actions are
necessary:
Compare all criteria pollutant concentrations to applicable
Federal, State, and local ambient air quality standards
Compare hazardous contaminant concentrations to the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) threshold
limit values (TLV's)(8-hour working limits, usually a factor
of approximately 100 higher than ambient standards)
Note projected violations of standards or guidelines
Tabulate the number of people affected by or exposed to
significant increases in contaminant levels.
II.E.2. Cooling Water Discharge Models
II.E.2.a. General Types of Models. The various types of models used for
estimating the movement of heated water may be arranged in a matrix form
(Figure 4). This format follows the representation used by Jirka, Abraham,
and Harleman (1976). The matrix can be considered as two separate groupings:
The method by which the material is discharged and the
proximity to the discharge point
The ambient conditions.
68
-------
3
8
s
8
Jg
E, r
-------
For example, through use of a matrix, one could look first at the surface
discharges in the near field. These may consist of deep water discharges,
shallow water discharges, and shore line attached discharges. Next,
submerged discharges could be considered in the near field. These would
consist of deep water discharges and shallow water discharges. Far fie'ld
models then may be considered as well as cooling ponds and cooling lakes.
On the other axis, the ordinate, one might look at receiving bodies of
water that have the following characteristics:
Strong directional currents (e.g., rivers)
Weak currents which may occasionally reverse themselves,
such as lakes and open coastal waters
Periodically reversing currents, such as lakes and open
coastal waters
Closed bodies of water which would include deep ponds,
shallow ponds with stratification, and shallow fully mixed
ponds.
Recently there have been a number of analyses of the different models of
these various types. These modeling guidelines are based primarily on a
^review of these analyses as well as a knowledge of the individual models.
The most comprehensive and perhaps the most objective analysis is that of
Dunn, Policastro, and Paddock (1975) for Surface Thermal Plumes. Other
current analyses include the MIT Review of Hydrothermal Models (Jirka et
1976) which tends to favor the MIT models; the Parker, .Benedict, and Tsai
(1975) review of Mathematical Models for Temperature Prediction in Deep
Reservoirs; and Policastro and Dunn (1978) Review of cooling pond models.
Older references which also evaluated some of these models are:
Benedict, Anderson, and Yandell (1974), Analytical Modeling
of Thermal Discharges: A Review of the State of the Art
Shirazi and Davis (1972), Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction,
Volume 2, Surface Discharge
Policastro and Tokar (1972), Heated Effluent Dispersion in
Large Lakes: State of the Art of Analytical Modeling
Butz et al., Ohio River Cooling Water Study (analyzes three
one-dimensional river temperature prediction models)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1976) in Reg Guide 1.113,
Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental
and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purposes of Implementing
Appendix I (supports liquid effluent transport and water use
models for non-tidal rivers, open coasts, estuaries, cooling
lakes, and cooling ponds. Except for far field models where
atmospheric cooling is important, NRC models could be used
for the estimation of the movement of thermal effluents if
heat loss to the atmosphere is neglected.)
70
-------
II.E.2.b. Modeling Difficulties. Although there is no specific definition
of the near field, one might characterize this area close to the discharge
point as the region where the characteristics of the discharge and the
discharge structure are of greater importance than the ambient conditions.
The hydrodynamics of the plume and the particulars of the outfall structure
must be considered carefully by the applicant. In this region the densimetric
Froude number, the ratio of the ambient to outfall velocities, the bottom
slope, and the ratio of the discharge depth to initial water depth are
important factors. The surface heat loss is minimal; the primary reduction
in temperature is due to dilution. In the far field, diffusion and dilution
by ambient turbulence and surface loss are the major means of temperature
reduction in this region. The region between the near field and the far
field is sometimes called the intermediate field. Generally, existing
models are less than adequate for this region. This region is treated when
models concern themselves with the entire plume and are called complete
field models. To achieve this coverage, they largely ignore the near field
conditions or treat them in such a cursory manner that they are of little
assistance in predicting impacts to aquatic biota.
II.E.Z.c. Modeling Techniques. As stated by Dunn et al. (1975), there are
five basic modeling techniques, three of which are applicable to power plants?
Phenomenological, which correlates jet characteristics such
as centerline temperature decay, plume half-widths, and
surface isotherm areas with variables such as densimetric
Froude number, outfall aspect ratio, bottom slope, and the
ratio of ambient to jet velocity from numerous hydraulic
modeling and field studies. As long as the phenomenological
models are within the range of those previously observed,
the methodology is suitable; however, if new conditions are
encountered the method may not be of substantial use.
Integral analysis technique, where the shapes of the lateral
and vertical temperature and velocity profiles are predeter-
mined. Then, with entrainment and drag coefficients, the
equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation can be
written and solved analytically or numerically. Generally
the integrated models solve equations that are less complex
than those for the numerical models. Most of the models to
date have been integral models which leads to some difficulty
because the physical processes such as entrainment, cross flow
interaction, buoyancy, ambient-turbulence induced diffusion,
and surface heat loss must be simulated in the jet structure.
Therefore, it means using a simplified model, with the
coefficients tailored to fit field results because the model
does not physically explain precisely what is happening in
thermal plume interactions. Most models which have been
verified are of the integral type. Currently the integral
analysis models are the most widely used.
71
-------
Differential-numerical method, where the general partial
differential equations of motion and heat transport are
solved to obtain the velocity and temperature distrubutions.
These primarily are finite difference models although
occasionally finite element schemes have been used. These
numerical models have some advantages over the integral models
in that fewer assumptions about the physical phenomena are
required. However, the uncertainty as to the form of the
diffusion coefficients and the flow and pressure boundary
conditions as well as the problem of numerical stability are
disadvantages.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1976) in its recommended mddels, which
may be used in EIA's, (other models can be used if they can be justified),
rely primarily on integral models. In any case, the applicant should under-
stand the role and function of all applicable models. Perhaps the final
conclusions from Dunn et al. (1975) might be useful in this respect, "It is
concluded that of the models (surface thermal plumes-added) so far compared
with prototype data, none has been shown adequate over a wide range of con-
ditions. Moreover, available models were found useful for only generalized
estimates of plume characteristics; precise predictions are not currently
possible." (P. 442)
This conclusion was reached through comparison of model predictions
with laboratory and field data. Comparisons with laboratory data
enable one to test the validity of the model within the geometry
and conditions assumed in model development. Comparisons with field
data indicate the extent to which prototype effects not accounted
for in model formulation limit the utility of the model. The major
reason for the generally poor performance of the existing models
seems to be a limited understanding of plume physics. An important
related reason is the inadequate assumption that plume characteristics
are controlled by discharge parameters alone. Experience has shown
that prototype plumes are controlled partly by discharge parameters
and partly by the nature and history of the receiving water body.
The effects of ambient turbulence, boundary 'bottom and shore line'
interference and wind induced shear currents are often omitted in
the formulation of mathematical models. These effects are clearly
not second order. Models that do not identify and correctly
treat the key physical mechanisms can not be expected to predict
reliably. Additional basic studies are needed to understand these
phenomena and their interrelationship with buoyancy and entrainment
and thereby provide a more sound basis for model development.
[The abstract notes] . . . the available models, in their present
state may be used to give only general estimates of plume character-
istics; precise predictions are not currently possible. The pre-
dictions show roughly a factor of 2 accuracy in centerline distance
to a given isotherm, a factor of 2 accuracy in plume width and a
factor of 5 accuracy in isotherm areas. The state of the art can
best be improved by pursuing basic laboratory studies of plume
dispersion along with further development in numerical modeling
techniques.
72
-------
The above comments apply to surface discharges only. For submerged discharges
no comparable analysis has been undertaken although the MIT report (Jirka
et al. 1976) presents comparable results as indicated in "Conclusions Re-
commendations" :
It is found that under the present state of the art no single
technique can be used to yield a comprehensive prediction of the
entire temperature field. This restriction stems from the diffi-
culties of representing the variety of transport processes which
govern the heat distribution in open and confined water bodies
in a single analytical or experimental technique. Thus reliable
techniques are zoned models only and a careful integration is
necessary to provide complete predictions of the temperature
field.
After citing a number of restricitons, they conclude,
Despite these restrictions, it may be stated that the overall
state of the art in mathematical modeling of heated discharges
is sufficiently advanced and reliable estimates of the tempera-
ture field in most practical applications are possible. If proto-
type conditions are outside the limits of applicability of any
particular mathematical model then, parametric sensitivity studies
may be performed.
Possibly the most ambitious model under development now is that of Eraslen
(1977) who is attempting to develop a unified tranport approach for the
assessment of all power plant impacts.
In short, the permit applicant must determine carefully which model to use.
It is well known that some models appear to give reliable results only when
used by the original developer of that model. In any case, caution should
be taken to use the models only in the region for which they have been
verified. As noted in Dunn et al. (1975) few of the numerical models have
been verified adequately to date.
Most of the major shortcomings of these models are that none of them consider
the chemical transformations that take place along with the physical changes
nor do they incorporate the biological changes that also take place. Some
of the models have been modified so that they will determine the time of
transport of the organisms through the various temperature zones, assuming
that the flow is uniform. There appears to be only one model that currently
is available for predicting the chemical changes in the chlorine from blow-
down from cooling towers. The model has been developed by M. H. Lietzke
(1977a; 1977b).
II.E.Z.d. Recent Studies. A recent summary of current modeling efforts
was presented at the Conference on Waste Heat Management and Utilization,
May 9-11, 1977, at Miami Beach, Florida (LEE et al. 1977). The proceeding's
volumes give an indication of the types of models that currently are being
used. There is, however, in the LEE reports little comparison of existing
models. The reports primarily consider individual models of different
investigators. Of particular relevance was a paper presented by G. S.
73
-------
Rodenhuis, "Numerical Models in Cooling Water Circulation Studies: Techniques,
Principal Errors, Practical Applications.," The paper addresses the problems
that develop in coupling the near field and the far field models, and coupling
the actual plume and near field model.
The conference proceedings emphasize the necessity of the modeler being
aware of all the inaccuracies inherent in each type of model, the advantages
and disadvantages of each, and the relative magnitude of the errors in each
particular system. He should be aware of the models (although limited) that
have been verified and widely used and tested against their predicitons.
II.E.2.e. Recommended Models. Currently, the models recommended for use
are those evaluated in the various META-type analyses. Dunn et al. (1975)
recommend the use of the Shirzai/Davis surface discharge model and the
Pritchard number 1 model for surface discharges. Wide-ranging familiarity
with the Motz/Benedict model and its deficiencies, and the wide use to which
it has already been put, make it useful for consideration as an alternative.
In the Ohio River cooling water study (Butz 1974), one-dimensional river
temperature prediction models were evaluated. The three evaluated were
COLHEAT (HEDL Environmental Engineering 1972), Edinger-Geyer (Edinger-Geyer
1965), and Stream (ORSANCO 1972). The criteria for selection: (1) compared
the average daily 1964 water temperatures predicted by the model with the
actual 1964 average daily water temperatures observed at four water tempera-
ture stations, (2) compared how quickly the user learned to implement the
model and how easy the model was to use, (3) compared how difficult it was
to obtain the data necessary to run each model, (4) compared the theoretical
completeness of each model and the validity of the assumptions in each model.
The COLHEAT model predicted the temperatures more accurately than did the
other two models. It was noted, however, that the COLHEAT model tended to
predict higher temperatures than actually were measured when the river was
warmest. Stream was the easiest model to use and all models were judged
approximately equal in ease of input data acquisition. The COLHEAT model
also was most theoretically complete. Based upon these criteria, Butz
concluded that the COLHEAT model was most appropriate for use at that time
for river temperature prediction on the Ohio River.
In general, there still is concern about the use of the exponential decay
of heat in all of the models. This methodology tends to give higher tempera-
tures downstream than actually observed. The problem is very difficult
because at the points of interest the temperature differences are very small.
They are so small that at times they are less than the temperature differences
at discrete points in that cross-section. For example, the water temperature
near the shore may be several degrees higher than the water temperature in
the center of the stream. The water temperature at the surface may be
several degrees higher than the water temperature below the surface even
in relatively well mixed rivers. Until it is possible to describe this
motion physically, it will be difficult to describe it mathematically, and
to arrive at correct predictions. Further work needs to be done for the
FAR Downstream River temperatures. Another problem common to all these
models is that they are designed for steady state conditions whereas plant
output, river flow, and meteorological conditions are constantly changing.
74
-------
It is unlikely that a steady state model can provide accurate values down-
stream.
Other applicable models are:
Submerged discharges
Shirazi/Davis model and Shirazi/Davis/Byram (Shirazi
et al. 1973); modifications to the Hirst model (Hirst
1971).
Cooling lakes
Parker/Benedict/Tsai model (Parker et al. 1975) and the
MIT model (Ryan and Harleman 1971)
Cooling ponds
Ryan/Harleman model (Ryan and Harleman 1973)
Estuarine areas
Harleman /Broeard/Najarian model (Harleman et al. 1973).
Although these models listed currently represent the state-of-the-art, the
applicant should consult the appropriate EPA officials about the status of
impact modeling techniques and the reliability and applicability of specific
models to the proposed new source facility.
75
-------
III. POLLUTION CONTROL
III.A. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: IN PROCESS CONTROLS,
WATER, AIR, SOLID WASTE
Selection of optimum water reuse and pollution control alternatives can
result in the reduction of waste streams and their associated impacts.
The following sections briefly describe the application of in-process
control measures for the major waste streams considered in Section II.C.
III.A.I. Water Treatment Wastes
Because boiler blowdown normally will be higher quality
than the water supply, recycling blowdown to the water
treatment system input will reduce the wast^e load.
Ion-exchange demineralization wastes are strongly acid or
alkaline. It may be possible to reduce the amounts of these
wastes by using reverse osmosis to accomplish most of the
demineralization and to use ion-exchange only to polish
the reverse osmosis output. Although reverse osmosis
produces a waste stream high in dissolved solids, the
wastes are less objectionable than those from ion-exchange
demineralization.
10
III.A.2. Ash-Handling Water
The standards of performance for new sources for the steam electric gener-
ating category state that there will be no discharge of suspended solids
from fly ash transport water; this limit dictates that there shall be no
discharge of ash-handling water, because no end-of-process treatment could
remove all suspended solids. In-process designs that can meet this stand-
dard include:
Use of dry ash-handling systems in place of wet systems
Recycling of ash-handling water with evaporation, or reuse
of any required blowdown
Treatment and reuse of ash-handling water
Possible use of fly ash as a cement additive.
Of these alternatives, the dry ash-handling system probably is the most
widely applicable, but the others may be applicable in select cases. For
each treatment method considered, the applicant also should investigate
possible energy conservation opportunities as well as overall efficiency.
10 Per the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals remand, standards of performance
for dry ash handling systems are being reviewed. The permit applicant should
consult with appropriate EPA officials on the current status of these regu-
lations.
76
-------
III.A.3. Coal Pile Runoff
In-process modifications to reduce coal pile runoff wastes include design
of storage areas so as to minimize the area subject to rainfall by diverting
away from the coal pile any runoff from other areas and by covering inactive
coal storage areas.
III.A.4. Stack Flue Gas Scrubber Systems
Various scrubbing processes are available and others are being developed.
The applicant should consider a system that will maximize the amount of
water recycled in order to reduce discharges. Other selection criteria
should include efficiency, reliability, and economics.
III.A.5. Cooling Tower Slowdown
The amount of cooling tower blowdown can be reduced by the use of a higher
concentration cycle. Softening of the cooling tower makeup water may be a
feasible method to reach higher concentration in certain circumstances.
III.A.6. Miscellaneous Waste Streams
The most widely applicable in-process modification to reduce miscellaneous
waste streams is to ensure segregation of the streams that are clean and
that can be discharged without harm, in order to reduce the volume of
water that must be treated by end-of-process methods. Efficient house-
keeping practices and dikes around potential spill areas can allow direct
discharge of drain water that otherwise might require treatment.
III.A.7. Air Emission Abatement Systems
Possible in-process modifications to reduce air polluting emissions prin-
cipally include combustion modifications to reduce nitrogen oxides in the
stack gases and the use of low-sulfur coal.
III.A.8. Solid Wastes
Major sources of solid wastes are ashes and sludges from water treatment and
stack-gas scrubbing. In-process modifications are not practiced to reduce
these wastes. Therefore it is important that the proper choice of processes
be made initially.
III.B. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: END-OF-PROCESS CONTROLS,
WATER STREAMS
III.B.I. Chemical Pollutants
Major pollutants encountered in most power plant wastes are metals,
suspended solids, oil and grease, and chlorine. All these can be
reduced by a process of oxidation, neutralization, and settling (or
skimming). Thus effluent guidelines standards are based largely on:
77
-------
Combining low-volume streams
Raising pH to neutral or slightly alkaline values
Allowing sufficient time for chlorine to dissipate
and for iron to be oxidized to a +3 state
Removing settleable solids and floating materials in
a settling pond.
In the more arid sections of the country, evaporation ponds are used to
reduce potential environmental impacts. If the ponds can be made suffi-
ciently impermeable to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies, they
are the most effective method available for disposing of a number of wastes,
particularly high solids wastes from water treatment processes. The appli-
cant should include plans for ultimate closure of the pond and for pre-
venting contamination when pond use is terminated.
III.B.2. Heat
Heat is a particularly troublesome pollutant in power plant operations
because of the large amount that requires disposal. Historically, power
plants used once-through cooling water to dispose of heat into a nearby
body of water. When the potential for damage to the aquatic resources
from excessive amounts of heat was recognized, however, water quality
standards were implemented for temperature, thereby making such a disposal
method impractical in many situations. Several alternatives to once-through
cooling systems are available, each of which should be evaluated carefully
before selection of the proposed cooling method.
The following types of cooling systems have been used commercially:
Evaporating (wet) cooling towers, mechanical or natural
draft
Dry cooling towers (closed systems)
Hybrid cooling towers (a combination of wet and dry)
Cooling lakes and cooling ponds
Spray ponds and canals.
The use of these cooling techniques, however, does not offer a panacea to
environmental problems. The applicant should evaluate systematically the
appropriateness of each method relative to the proposed facility, site-
specific conditions, costs, and other pertinent factors. The major
advantages and disadvantages of each are outlined below.
78
-------
III.B.2.a. Mechanical Draft Evaporating Cooling Towers. Air is moved by
fans over falling water droplets, so the water is cooled by evaporation.
Major advantages include:
Effective control over air movement and water temperature
Lower capital costs than for natural draft towers.
Major disadvantages include:
Potential blowdown disposal problems
High maintenance and power costs (fans consume up to 0.8
percent of power station generating capacity)
Potential icing and fogging problems
Possible mixing of vapor and stack gases
Potential environmental problems associated with dissolved
solids in drift losses.
III.B.2.b. Natural Draft Evaporating Cooling Towers. Cooling is by the same
mechanism as mechanical draft towers, but air is moved by natural draft by
means of a tall chimney structure. Diameters and heights typically are
about 500 feet. Major advantages include:
No fans are required so operation and maintenance costs are
lower
Less land area is required than for mechanical towers
Lower drift rate than mechanical towers.
Major disadvantages include:
Potential for blowdown disposal problems
Higher capital costs than for mechanical draft towers
Potentially disturbing aesthetic impact from height of
towers
Possible mixing of vapor and stack gases.
III.B.2.C. Dry Cooling Towers. Air is drawn over fins on tubes which act
as conduits for the heated water. Dry cooling towers eliminate water-
related problems, including the need to locate near a large waterbody;
however, their use for large plants has been minimal owing to:
High capital cost (two to three times that of wet towers)
Maintenance problems
79
-------
Reduction in power plant efficiency caused by higher
condensing temperatures.
III.B.2.d. Hybrid Cooling Towers. 'Hybrid cooling towers use both wet and
dry operations. They are intermediate in cost between wet and dry towers,
and have fewer plume (icing and fogging) and blowdown problems than wet
towers.
III.B.2.e. Cooling Lakes and Cooling Ponds. Large cooling lakes and cooling
ponds can be used to dissipate waste heat through evaporation, radiation,
and conduction. Major advantages of these cooling systems include:
Little or no blowdown except in hot, dry areas
. Capital costs usually are lower than those for cooling
towers
Operation is possible for extended periods without make-up
water
Cooling ponds (distinct from lakes) can serve as settling
basins to reduce chlorine and suspended solids
Cooling lakes can be multipurpose (i.e., cooling, recreation,
flood control, flow regulation).
Major disadvantages include:
Land requirements (1 to 2 acres/MW)
Potential seepage, icing, and fogging problems
Collection basin for wind-blown debris may develop weed
and algae problems
Potential problems associated with dissolved solids build
up during dry years.
III.B.2.f. Spray Ponds and Canals. The addition of spray reduces cooling
pond area, but increases fogging and icing problems and operation and
maintenance costs.
III.C. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: END-OF-PROCESS CONTROL, AIR
Fuel combustion for electric power generation results in emission of sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter or fly ash. Other emissions
which lately have earned considerable interest are trace elements and radio-
nuclides (Klein et al. 1975a, 1975b; Cuffe and Gerstle 1967). The EPA has
enacted New Source Performance Standards which place limitations on SO ,
X
11 See footnote 1, page 11 for definitions of these terms.
80
-------
NO , and particulate matter emissions from fossil-fueled fired power
plants. State and local air quality and emission standards also may be
imposed. To comply with these regulations, the operator of a new source
power plant has available a wide array of air pollution control devices
and techniques to reduce emissions to within allowable levels. The various
pollution control technologies differ in efficiency, reliability, cost, and
operational problems. The following is a discussion of the major emission
abatement methods that should be considered by the applicant. The methods
currently are considered technologically feasible and are in an advanced
state of development or sufficiently well developed to gain some acceptance
within the industry.
III.C.I. Particulate (Fly Ash) Control
III.C.I.a-. Electrostatic Precipitators. Electrostatic precipitators are
used conventionally ,for control of particulate emissions in coal-fired
electric generating stations. They consist of a chamber through which
passes the flue gas containing entrained ash particles. These chambers
contain flat parallel plates from 6 to 12 inches apart, with rod or
wire electrodes between them. A high voltage is applied to the electrodes,
the wire or rod serving as the negative discharge electrode and the
grounded collection plate as the positive electrode. A direct-current,
high-voltage corona is established in the interelectrode space around the
discharge electrode, ionizing the molecules of electronegative gases such
as 0_, C0«, and S0_ present in the flue gas. Under the action of the
electrical field, the gas ions move rapidly toward the collecting electrode
and transfer their charge to the particles by colliding with them. Once
the charged particles are in the electric field, they are directed toward
the collection electrode, where they are deposited, the magnitude of the
force depending on the particle charge and the intensity of the field.
The accumulated dust is removed from the collection electrode by rapping
at intervals to dislodge the deposit. It is then collected in a hopper
underneath the electrode compartment to await removal and ultimate disposal
(US-NRC 1977).
High overall mass collection efficiencies (> 99 and up to 99.9 percent) can be
achieved at a low pressure drop through the precipitator and at a low
power requirement. The amount of fly ash (0.4-1 percent of the total fly
ash) which escapes the precipitator is smaller than 1 or 2 microns in size.
Recent tests have shown that fractional collection efficiency, however,
depends on fly ash resistivity, which in turn is determined by flue gas
temperature and the sulfur content of the coal being burned. Low-sulfur
coal produces a high-resistivity fly ash that reduces the collection
efficiency at temperatures typical of conventional cold precipitators,
which operate near 300°F (Gottschlich 1968; Baruch 1976; Phelan et al. 1976).
This difficulty may be circumvented by use of hot precipitators, which
operate at 600 F or more and give high collection efficiencies that are
insensitive to coal sulfur content. The higher operating temperatures
are achieved by placing precipitators upstream of the air heater rather
than in the downstream position typical for cold precipitators. The use
81
-------
of hot precipitators is increasing owing to the current dependence on
low-sulfur coals (Henke 1970; Walker 1974).
Ill.C.l.b. Wet Scrubbers. Wet scrubbers generally remove particles by
impacting them with water droplets. However, particle collection in wet
scrubbers currently in use may involve three mechanisms: inertial impaction,
interception, and diffusion. Particles larger than about 1 micron in
diameter (the diameter of the collector droplet) are collected primarily
through inertial impaction, while particles of 1 micron are collected
through interception. . Diffusion into the collector droplet governs the
collection of particles smaller than about 0.1 micron. Particles in the
size range of 0.1 to 1 micron normally are the most difficult to collect,
as is the case with other collecting devices (Southern Research Institute
1975).
Removal of particulate matter may employ any of the following types of
scrubbers: plate column, packed-bed, preformed spray, gas atomized spray
(e.g., Venturi scrubber), centrifugal, and moving-bed. For power plant
application, the most widely used types are the Venturi and the moving-bed
scrubbers.
Venturi ScrubbersThe Venturi scrubber achieves fly ash
or particulate matter removal by bringing together the
liquid and the fly-ash-bearing gas in a region of high-
velocity gas flow (Venturi throat). The moving gas
stream atomize* the liquid into drops and, in the process,
accelerates the drops. Venturis have a nominal efficiency
of 99 percent and are capable of fly ash removal down to
0.02 gram per standard cubic foot with pressure drops across
the scrubber of 10 to 15 inches of water and a liquid-to-gas
ratio of 10 to 15 gal/10001 cubic ft for typical particle-size
distributions and dust loadings. Flue-gas velocities are
in the range of 200-400 feet per second (fps) to produce
a high relative velocity between gas and liquid collector
droplets, thus promoting the collection of particles.
Inertial impaction generally is considered the predominant
collection mechanism in Venturis (Southern Research Institute
1975).
Moving-Bed ScrubbersIn a moving-bed scrubber a zone of
mobile packing, usually consisting of a bed of plastic or
glass spheres, allows intimate contact between gas and
liquid. A perforated plate held within a cylindrical shell
supports the movable packing. The gas passes upward through
the packing, while the liquid usually is sprayed downward
over the bed of spheres. The spheres suspended in the gas
trend toward the use of low sulfur coal could change
because revised new source performance standards now require a
sliding scale percentage reduction in S02 for all coal burned.
82
-------
stream enhance turbulence, and therefore gas-liquid contact,
in addition to keeping the packing elements clean. Moving-
bed scrubbers also are used for removing part of the SO- in
addition to particulate matter, because mass transfer is
favored by long residence time. This is in contrast to
Venturi scrubbers, which are poor in SO- removal owing to
the high gas velocities. High particle-collection efficien-
cies have been reported ranging from 98.7 to 99.9 percent
at gas velocities of 8 to 10 fps, total pressure drops of
5.5 to 10 inches water, and liquid-to-gas ratios of 32-80
gal/1000 cubic feet. A nominal overall efficiency of 99
percent may be assigned but, in general, higher pressure
drops give higher overall removal efficiencies (Southern
Research Institute 1975).
Fabric FiltersFabric filters, usually in the form of bag-
houses , remove particles by filtering the gas through a
porous flexible fabric. Glass fibers have proven to be more
suitable than other natural fibers or synthetics for filter
fabric because of their greater resistance to the combined
action of heat and sulfur oxides in fly ash collection.
Protective coatings of silicones, graphite, fluorocarbon
polymers, and others have extended the life of glass fiber
fabrics at flue gas temperatures (Southern Research Institute
1975). The mechanisms of particulate collection with fabric
filtersimpaction, interception, and diffusionare similar
to those in scrubber operations. The nature and extent of
the collecting surface in a fabric filter, however, change
with the buildup of the layer of collected particles from
one cleaning to the next. The accumulation of particles on
the fabric causes a larger resistance to gas flow and a
greater pressure drop. The differnces in the method of
cleaning distinguish the various types of baghouses, e.g.,
shaker type, reverse flow, reverse jet, and reverse pulse
(Ottmers et al. 1975). Typical baghouse collection effi-
ciencies are greater than 99.9 percent for gas pressure
drops of 2 to 5 inches of water.
III.C.2. SO Control
x
The permit applicant should consider a number of near-term options for
air quality control systems which have been developed or are in the process
of being developed to meet SO- emission standards of coal-fired power plants,
These include use of flue gas desulfurization either alone or in
combination with low sulfur coal or coal benefication.
III.C.2.a. Low Sulfur Coal. Use of low sulfur coal cannot, by
itself, satisfy the new source performance standards for elec-
tric utility steam generating units because at least a 70%
reduction in potential S02 emissions has to be realized regard-
less of the sulfur content of the coal burned. However using
low sulfur coal at a site may be advantageous because it could
reduce operating and maintenance costs and solid waste dis-
posal problems of flue gas desulfurization.
83
-------
III.C.2.b. Coal Beneficiation. Coal beneficiation consists of crushing the
coal and separating the heavier pyritic-sulfur-bearing particles (3 1/2 times
as dense as the coal itself) from the lighter coal by physical or mechanical
means. Organic sulfur cannot be removed by beneficiation and therefore
places a limit on sulfur removal. The process of beneficiation also can '
significantly reduce the ash content of coal as well as the levels of trace
heavy metals (US-DOC 1975).
Sulfur reduction can be as high as 46 percent depending on the level of
beneficiation. Ash reduction can be as much as 65 percent, increasing the
net heating value of the coal as much as 20 percent and decreasing the
sulfur content by 55 percent on a Btu basis.
III.C.2.C. Flue-Gas Desulfurization. A flue-gas desulfurization system
may be classified as a "throwaway" system because it produces a waste
sludge, byproduct, or as a "regenerable" system because it regenerates' the
sorbent and produces sulfuric acid or a sulfur byproduct. Four of the most
developed control systems are: (1) lime/limestone scrubbing, (2) double
alkali scrubbing, (3) magnesia scrubbing, and (4) the Wellman-Lord process.
The first two are throwaway systems whereas the last two are regenerable.
These four systems represent approximately 90 percent of the systems in
operation or under construction, with the lime/limestone scrubbing processes
receiving the widest application (Ottmers et al. 1975; US-DOC 1975).
Lime/Limestone ScrubbingIn this process, the SO- in the flue
gas comes in contact and chemically reacts with a recircula-
ting lime or limestone slurry in the scrubber to form a pre-
cipitate or sludge. Sulfates are formed through oxidation
of sulfites. The reacted lime or limestone slurry from the
scrubber goes to the reaction tank where calcium sulfite and
calcium sulfate precipitate as hydrated solids upon addition
of fresh lime or limestone. To avoid the buildup of solids
in the system, a portion of the slurry from the reaction
tartk is sent to a solid liquid separator which may be a cen-
trifuge, a filter, or a holding pond. The waste sludge com-
posed of calcium sulfite, calcium sulfate, and fly ash is
withdrawn to a disposal area while the liquor is returned
to the process. Makeup water is added to the process to
compensate for evaporative losses and water lost with the
waste sludge. The cleaned gas is reheated above its dew
point and released through the stack. In lime/limestone
scrubbing processes, the fly ash may be collected separately
or processed with the scrubber slurry. Of the flue-gas
desulfurization systems, the lime/limestone scrubbing
processes are the best-developed and are capable of more
than 90 percent SO removal from flue gases of coal-fired
power plants (US-D&C 1975; Kim 1974).
Double Alkali ScrubbingSimilar to the lime/limestone
scrubbing processes, the double alkali process generates
a solid waste of calcium sulfate. SO,, in the flue gas
reacts with the sodium sulfite (Na~SO_) liquor as follows:
S02 + Na2S03 + H20 -» 2 NaHSO-
84
-------
The spent scrubber effluent is then regenerated with lime/
limestone scrubbing process, but makeup water and alkali
are first added to the separator effluent liquor before
being recycled to the scrubber. Soluble sodium sulfate
(Na-SO,) is removed from the process through a liquid
purge stream. Double alkali scrubbers have been reported
to achieve an SO- removal efficiency- of 90-97 percent
depending on the molar ratio of lime or limestone to S0_
(Lamantia et al. 1975; Cooper 1975).
Magnesia ScrubbingMagnesia scrubbing is a regenerable
process which uses a magnesium sulfite (MgSO_) slurry to
react with the SO- in the flue gas. The spent scrubber
liquor is regenerated with magnesium oxide (MgO). MgO
is regenerated by concentrating a part of the magnesium
sulfite (MgSO,) slurry in a solid-liquid separator, drying
the concentrated solid, and calcining the dried solid to
form MgO and S02. The SO- is recovered by being sent to
a sulfuric acid plant to produce 98 percent H-SO,. Makeup
water is necessary to replace evaporative losses in the
scrubber and dryer and for particulate solids disposal.
No reliable data on SO- removal efficiency have been
obtained for full-size units (US-DOC 1975).
Wellman-Lord ProcessThe Wellman-Lord process uses a sodium
sulfite (Na-S0_) liquor to react with the flue-gas SO-.
The spent liquor then is thermally regenerated in an
evaporator/crystallizer. Water from the gas stream emerging
from the evaporator/crystallizer is recovered by means of
a condenser and separated from the S0--rich gas stream
before being returned to the scrubbing loop. The regenerated
sulfite slurry joins this condensed water, the makeup alkali,
and the makeup water to serve as scrubber feed-liquor. The
SO- is recovered in a sulfuric acid plant.- Because of oxi-
dation of some sulfite to sulfate, a sulfate purge stream
is required. Water losses due to this purge stream and due
to evaporation in the scrubber are compensated by makeup
water. No reliable data on SO- removal efficiency have
been reported (US-DOC 1975)*
III.C.2.d. Coal Beneficiation Combined with Flue-Gas Desulfurization. Often,
sulfur removal through beneficiation is not sufficient to permit the direct
burning of coal under applicable emission standards. However, beneficia-
tion coupled with flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) reduces the demands on a
FGD system, resulting in capital and operating cost reduction. In addition,
beneficiation reduces ash content, increases the calorific rating of the
coal, and, if done at the mine site, substantially reduces shipping costs.
Beneficiation prior to flue-gas scrubbing reduces the quantity of sludge
gnerated at the power plant site, shifting the burden of solid waste to
the mine site where it is more amenable to disposal.
85
-------
III.C.2.e. Intermittent Control Systems. The strategy of Intermittent
rather than continous emission control may be a more cost-effective tech-
nique for compliance with emission standards (Yeager 1975) when the aim is
to control short-term groundlevel concentrations of SO near the source,
rather than overall emissions. During normal or favorable meteorological
conditions, the intermittent emission control technique relies on the re-
lationship between ambient air quality and stack height at which SO
emission occurs for the diffusion of the pollutant well above ground level.
During unusual or unfavorable atmospheric conditions such as inverison,
either of two emission abatement methods may be resorted to: (1) fuel
switching (temporarily burning a supply of low-sulfur fuel) or (2) load
switching or assigning a portion of the electrical load to another generating
station that has available capacity and can comply with emission standards.
Because'atmospheric dispersion rates vary widely, reliability of an inter-
mittent control system (ICS) to meet air quality standards greatly depends
on the accuracy of air quality forecasting, design of control system, and
dependability of system components. Constraints on ICS implementation
include local weather, terrain, stack height, and emission parameters.
Economic considerations connected with modifying the coal handling, feeding,
and firing systems of power plants to permit switching to low-sulfur coal
also are included in determining the feasibility of implementing an ICS.
Capital and operating costs for an ICS are significantly less than for an
FGD system but the use of the ICS for meeting all SO- ambient air quality
standards has not been demonstrated (Yeager 1975; US-DOC 1975).
III.C.3. Nitrogen Oxide (N0._) Control
X
Coal combustion remains as the largest stationary source contributor (42
percent) to NO emissions (Brown et al. 1974). Coal contributes 63
percent of thexNO emitted from electrical power generation. NO formed
in combustion originates from two distinct sources:
The thermal fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in the
combustion air to form NO , made possible by the high
temperatures in coal-firea furnaces
NO production from the conversion of chemically bound
nitrogen in the coal.
A number of NO control options have been studied in the past, including
the use of synthetic fuels, fuel additives, fluidized-bed boilers, and
flue gas treatment, but modification of the combustion process may be the
most viable means of reducing NO formation from stationary sources (Brown
et al. 1974; Crawford et at. 197&).
Overall control of excess air consistent with efficient burner operation
may be the simplest method for NO reduction. This approach reduces the
concentration of oxygen availablexfor combination with atmospheric or
coal-bound nitrogen, thus minimizing the formation of NO . In actual
practice, however, a certain amount of excess air is always required to
avoid the production of unburned fuel and smoke resulting from poor
86
-------
combustion. A decrease in excess air also can lead to furnace slagging,
with increased maintenance and possible operating problems (Brown et al.
1974).
Another possible approach to NO control that the applicant should consider
is staged combustion. This operation consists of firing the operating
burners in the lower burner rows or levels with substochiometric quanti-
ties of air and providing the additional air required for the burn-out of
combustibles through the air registers of the uppermost row or level,
keeping the quantity of overall excess air as low as possible. The effect
is to create two combustion zonesa primary reducing zone and a lower-
temperature post-flame oxidizing zone.
Control of excess air and staged combusiton appear to have similar results
in the control of NO formation. Reported data on reductions on NO emis-
x x
sion levels are in tne range of 50 to 65 percent (Armento 1975).
The permit applicant should discuss and substantiate the use of all proposed
air emission control equipment in the EIA. The above discussion of current
and emerging air pollution control technologies is not intended to be all
inclusive, but is meant to provide a preliminary framework for the assess-
ment and selection of pollution control technologies.
II1.D. STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY: END OF PROCESS CONTROLS, SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL13
Emission abatement at coal-fired power stations consists of procedures to
minimize release of particulate matter, sulfur oxide, and the pollutants
into the atmosphere via the stacks. These procedures, which were described
in Section III.C, also result in the accumulation of waste material; the
applicant should discuss the magnitude and significance of such wastes and
describe methods to treat and dispose of the wastes.
Fly ash collected from the electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, or
fabric filters can be conveyed to a mixing tank where it is mixed with
the bottom ash slurry, or piped directly to ash ponds. Dewatered fly ash
also may be disposed of in landfill sites or used in a number of ways. In
1972, about 16 percent of the coal ash (fly ash, bottom ash, slag) produced
in the United States was used rather than discarded. Uses included
application as fertilizer and filler in asphalt mixes, roads, cement
products, etc. The use of coal ash is discussed in some detail in Hecht
and Duvall (1975). It can be predicted that such use will increase,
mainly for economic reasons, but also to conform to the Nation's trend
toward recycling and conservation.
13 Any solid waste disposal operation not specifically regulated by the
NPDES permit would be subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (PL 94-580)either the sanitary landfill criteria of Section 4004
or the regulatory controls of the Subtitle C hazardous waste management
program. Owing to the draft status of these current regulations, the
applicant should consult with the appropriate EPA officials regarding
the applicability of solid and hazardous waste regulations.
87
-------
Methods for the removal of sulfur dioxide from the flue gas include at
least two processes that result in a waste sludge byproduct. The amount
of sludge produced by a given station will depend on the sulfur content of
the coal. The sludge, composed mainly of calcium sulfite, calcium sulfate,
and water, can be dewatered to about 50 percent solids (by .weight) and
transferred to settling ponds. Sludge-settling ponds usually are lined,
and evaporation is allowed to reduce the volume of the suspension. The
residue often is thixotropic and can be very difficult to dispose of or
use as landfill. One method that currently is in use to reduce the magni-
tude of this problem is to add fly ash to the limestone scrubber sludge
before transfer to the evaporation ponds (Carlton and Hargrove 1976). The
addition of fly ash (or bottom ash) to scrubber sludge or scrubber sludge
dewatering effluent also serves to neutralize the acidity (pH 5 to 5.5) of
the effluent (Cooper 1975). After evaporation, the material may be hauled
off-site to a landfill area.
Slag and bottom ash, which in 1972 accounted for about 30 percent of the
coal ash (Hecht and Duvall 1975) , are recovered from the. bottom of the
boiler. Newer installations commonly have "dry-bottom" boilers, in which
the ash falls through a grate into an ash hopper usually filled with water.
Other facilities have "wet-bottom" or slag tap boilers, in which the resi-
due is tapped in the molten state and drops into a water-filled ash hopper.
The amounts of slag or bottom ash will depend on the ash content of the coal
and the furnace type, among other factors. (It may amount to 500 tons per
day for a 1,000 MW plant burning low sulfur coal.) The ash-and-water slurry
from these wet- and dry-bottom boilers is sometimes mixed with fly ash and
piped to settling ponds, which can occupy 20 to 30 acres of the site, or is
dewatered and hauled by truck to an ash disposal area.
The applicant should consider lining the ash settling ponds with impervious
material (e.g., clay). In cases where the ash ponds are not lined, leaching
of water-soluble constituents of the ash into the underlying soil, and
perhaps into the groundwater, can occur.
The chemical composition of coal ash will depend largely on the geology of
the coal and the boiler operating conditions. In general, about 50-90
percent of the ash is in the glass state, with smaller quantities of quartz,
mullite, magnetite, and hematite. A range of values for the major consti-
tuents of coal ash is given in Table 12. An-analysis of the trace elements
in the ash of a particular coal is given in Table 13. The high concentra-
tions of the alkali and alkaline earth elements (Ca, Mg, K, Na) tend to give
coal ash solutions alkaline reactions. Under these conditions trace ele-
ments form insoluble compounds, which, together with solids in the suspen-
sions, will tend to fill and seal the pore spaces of the underlying soils.
Therefore, the rate of movement of leachates from the pond should decrease
over an extended period of time. This decrease should be more rapid in
fine-textured soils.
14 Becoming fluid when disturbed and setting to a gel when allowed to
stand.
88
-------
Table 12. Major chemical constituents of coal ash
Constituents Range, Percent
Silica (Si02) 20-60
Alumina (Al^) 10-35
Ferric Oxide (Fe^) 5-35
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 1-20
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.25-4
Titanium Dioxide (Ti02) 0.5-2.5
Potassium Oxide (K20) 1.0-4.0
Sodium Oxide (Na20) 0.4-1.5
Sulfur Trioxide (SO.) 0.1-12
Carbon (C) 0.1-20
Source: N. L. Hecht and D. S. Duvall. 1975. Characterization and
utilization of municpal and utility sludges and ashes. Vol. II, Coal
Ash, EPA-670/2-75-033C NERC-EPA, Cincinnati, OH. May.
89
-------
Table 13. Trace element constituents of coal ash*
Element Coal (ppm) Bottom Ash (ppm) Precipitator Ash (ppm)
Sb .08 < 1.0 4.4
As .87 4.4 61.
Ba 440. 5,600. 15,000.
Be .29 .40 5.2
B 37.7 83.2 1,040.
Cd . .11 1.1 4.2
Cr U8 15..6 8.9
F 78.5 44.6 2,880.
Ge .48 < .1 9.2
Hg .131 .010 < .010
Pb .15 1.0 4.0
Mn 26.2 56.7 374.
Mo .87 3.2 12.
Ni 3.67 14.5 92.9
Se .98 .14 16.4
V < 13. < 100, < 100.
Zn 16.2 < 8.0 386.
Cu 5.2 68. 238.
Source: Holland et al. 1975. The environmental effects or trace elements
in the pond disposal of ash and flue gas desulfurization sludge. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto CA.
* Data are for a particular batch of coal and are not necessarily
representative of all coal.
90
-------
The data in Table 13 indicate that partitioning and concentration of the
trace elements occur during combustion. In a study of the pathways of
thirty-seven trace elements through a coal-fired power plant it was indi-
cated that these elements could be roughly classified as follows (Klein
et al. 1975):
Class IElements that are not volatilized in the combustion
zone, but instead form a rather uniform melt that becomes
both fly ash and slag. These elements include Al, Ba, Ca,
Ce, Co, Eu, Fe, Hf, K, La, Mg, Mn, Rb, Sc, Si, Sm, Sr, T»,
Th, and Ti.
Class IIElements that are volatilized on combustion, and
condense or adsorb on the fly ash as the flue gas cools,
leading to depletion from the slag and concentration in the
fly ash. These elements include As, Cd, Cu, Ga, Pb, Sb,
Se, and Zn.
Class IIIElements that remain almost completely in the gas
phase. These elements include Hg, Cl, and Br.
Intermediate between Classes I and II are the elements in coal that could
not definitely be assigned to either class on the basis of the data ob-
tained in the study (Klein et al. 1975).
91
-------
IV. OTHER CONTROLLABLE IMPACTS
IV.A. AESTHETICS
New source steam electric generating stations, may be large and complex
facilities occupying an area of up to several hundred acres. Cooling
towers, air emission stacks, raw material storage and handling area, and
other plant components may detract considerably from the surrounding
landscape. Particularly in rural and suburban areas, this configuration
may represent a significant intrusion on the landscape; existing industrial
areas would be less affected. Measures to minimize the impact on the
environment should be developed primarily during site selection and design.
The applicant should consider, as applicable, the following factors to
reduce' potential aesthetic impacts:
Existing Nature of the AreaThe topography and major land
uses in the area of the candidate sites can be important
aesthetic considerations. Natural topographic conditions
perhaps could serve to screen the plant from public view.
A lack of topographic relief will require other means of
minimizing impact, such as regrading or vegetation buffers.
Analysis of major land uses may be useful to assist in the
design and appearance of the facility. The design of the
facility should reflect the nature of the area in which
it is to be placed (i.e., the stuctures should blend into
the existing environment as much as possible). The use of
artists' conceptions, preferably in color, will be most
useful in determining the visual impact and appropriate
mitigation measures and should be included in the EIA.
Proximity of Sites to Parks and Other Areas Where People
Congregate for Recreation and Other ActivitiesThe location
of these areas should be mapped and presented in the EIA.
Representative views of the plant (site) from observation
points should be described. The visual effects on these
recreational areas should be described in the EIA in order
to develop the appropriate mitigation measures.
Transmission Lines and Transportation SystemThe visual
impact of new transmission lines, access roads, railroad
lines, pipelines, etc., on the landscape should be considered.
Specific locations, construction methods and materials,
maintenance activities and mitigation plans should be
specified. (The US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Handbook 478, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2,
Chapter 2, Utilities, details methods of minimizing aesthetic
impacts of transmission lines.)
Creation of Aesthetically Pleasing AreasIn some cases, the
development of a power plant will create aesthetically
pleasing areas. Screening the facility by vegetation or
using the natural topography may improve the appearance of
92
-------
an area. Construction of a cooling lake and development of
recreational facilities also may be an improvement to the
area. Such positive impacts should be described in the EIA.
IV.B. NOISE
To evaluate noise generated from a proposed power plant site, the applicant
is required to:
Identify all noise-sensitive land uses and activities ad-
joining the proposed site (include habitats of various
species of wildlife)
Measure the existing ambient noise levels of the areas
adjoining the site
Identify existing noise sources, such as traffic, aircraft
flyover, and other industry, in the study area as defined
Identify all applicable State and/or local noise regulations
Estimate the noise level of the power plant during operation
and compare with the existing community noise levels and the
applicable noise regulations
Calculate the change in community noise levels resulting
from construction of the power plant
Assess the noise impact (on man and wildlife) of the power
plant operational noise and construction noise, and, if
required, determine noise abatement measures to minimize
the impact.
A brief description of noise measurement techniques is presented below.
IV.B.1. Existing Noise Levels
The applicant should conduct a noise measurement survey of the proposed
power plant site to determine the existing noise levels of the adjoining
areas. The survey should consist of at least one stationary measurement
location where a continuous 24-hour measurement is obtained and several
additional locations where random sample measurement are made. The number
of sample measurements should be based on the size of the proposed site.
These measurements can be made for a period of one-half hour, four times
during the day: 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.,
and 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. All noise-sensitive land uses and activities adjoining
the site should be identified. All sources of existing noise, such as
traffic, aircraft, and other industry, also should be identified. The
measurement of the existing noise levels will provide a comparison with the
predicted power plant noise to assess the noise impact. The applicant
should review State and local noise regulations to determine their applica-
bility to the proposed power plant. Other criteria, such as the EPA Levels
Document, also should be used to identify noise impacts of the project.
93
-------
IV.B.2. Construction Noise Impacts
To assess construction-related noise impacts, the applicant should calculate
noise levels at the property line for each major phase of construction.
For this calculation, the total construction of the plant should be divided
into different phases of activity, such as site preparation (excavation) '
and construction (steel erection). An inventory of equipment should be
made for each of the construction phases and should include the anticipated
duration of equipment operation. The noise level of the individual construc-
tion equipment can be determined from the available literature. With this
information, the cumulative noise level of the construction equipment being
used can be calculated. The resulting construction noise then can be com-
pared with the measured existing noise levels to determine the extent of
impact. The effect of the impact should be discussed and noise abatement
measures should be presented in the EIA.
IV.B.3. Operation Noise Impacts
The major sources of noise associated with the operation of a fossil-fuel
power plant that contribute to property line noise are:
Fans, which include induced draft, forced draft, and
ventilation fans
Cooling towers, natural draft or mechanical draft, which may
be required for power plants that are restricted by thermal
effluent discharge regulations or lack of cooling water
Substation, i.e., transformers and air blast circuit breakers.
To determine the resultant operational noise of the plant, the applicant
should gather data on all major noise sources. The data can be collected
either from literature sources or from actual measurements of a similarly
sized plant. The equipment noise should be used in a calculation model
that will determine the noise at the property line of the site based on
distance, terrain, and capacity of equipment operation. The plant noise
at the property line should then be compared with the measured existing
noise levels and the applicable noise regulations or criteria to assess
any noise impact. If an impact is identified, it should be discussed in
terms of its magnitude and effects and methods of noise abatement should
be developed. The applicant should consider the following noise control
treatment, where applicable:
Forced Draft FanInstall fan in acoustically lined plenum
or use a silencer on the fan inlet
Induced Draft FanInsulate fan case or use a discharge
silencer
Natural Draft Cooling TowerProvide sufficient setback from
property line
94
-------
Mechanical Draft Cooling TowerProvide inlet silencers,
orient inlet toward nonsensitive land uses
Power TransformersProvide a sound barrier between trans-
former and closest noise-sensitive land use.
IV.C. SOCIOECONOMIC
Introduction of a large new power generating facility into a community may
cause economic and social changes. Therefore, it is necessary for an
applicant to understand the types of impacts or changes that may occur so
that they can be evaluated adequately in the EIA. The importance of these
changes usually depends on the nature of the area where the plant is located
(e.g., size of existing community, existing infrastructure). Normally,
however, .the significance of the changes caused by a plant of a given size
will be greater in a small, rural community than in a large, urban'area.
This is primarily because a small, rural community is likely to have a
nonmanufacturing economic base and a lower per capita income, fewer social
groups, a more limited socioeconomic infrastructure, and fewer leisure
pursuits than a large, urban area. There are situations, however, in which
the changes may not be significant in a small community and, conversely,
in which they may be considerable in an urban area. For example, a small
community may have had a manufacturing (or natural resource) economic base
that has declined. As a result, such a community may have a high incidence
of unemployment in a skilled labor force and a surplus of housing. Con-
versely, a rapidly growing urban area may be severely strained if a new
power plant is located there.
The rate at which the changes occur (regardless of the circumstances) also
is an important determinant of the significance of the changes. The
applicant should distinguish clearly between those changes occasioned by
the construction of the plant and those resulting from its operation. The
former changes could be substantial but usually are temporary; the latter
may or may not be substantial but normally are more permanent in nature.
During the construction phase, the impact usually will be greater if the
project requires large numbers of construction workers to be brought in
from outside the community than if local, unemployed workers are available.
The impacts are well known and include:
Creation of social tension
Demand for increased housing, police and fire protection,
public utilities, medical facilities, recreational facilities,
and other public services
Strained economic budget in the community where existing
infrastructure becomes inadequate.
Various methods of reducing the strain on the budget of the local community
during the construction phase should be explored. For example, the company
itself may build the housing and recreation facilities and provide the
95
-------
utility services and medical facilities for its imported construction force.
Or the company may prepay taxes and the community may agree to a corre-
sponding reduction in the property taxes paid later. Alternatively, the
'community may float a bond issue, taking advantage of its tax-exempt status,
and the company may agree to reimburse the community as payments of prin-
cipal and interest become due.
During plant operation, the more extreme adverse changes of the construction
phase are likely to disappear. Longer run changes may be profound, but less
extreme, because they evolve over a longer period of time and may be both
beneficial and harmful.
The permit applicant should document fully in the EIA, the range of
potential impacts that are expected and demonstrate how possible harmful
changes will be handled. For example, an increased tax base generally is
regarded as a positive impact. The revenue from it usually is adequate to
support the additional infrastructure required as the operating employees
and their families move into the community. The spending and respending
of the earnings of these employees has a multiplier effect on the local
economy, as do the interindustry links created by the new plant. Socially,
the community may benefit as the increased tax base permits the provision
of more diverse and higher quality services and the variety of its interests
increases with growth in population. Contrastingly, the transformation of
a small, quiet community into a larger, busier community may be regarded as
an adverse change by some of the residents, who chose to live in the
community, as well as by those who grew up there and stayed, because of
its amenities. The applicant also should consider the economic repercus-
sions if, for example, the quality of the air and water declines as a
result of various waste streams from the new source power plant and its
ancillary facilities.
In brief, the applicant's framework for analyzing the primary and secondary
socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating a power plant must be
comprehensive. Most of the changes described should be measured to assess
fully the potential costs and benefits. The applicant should distinguish
clearly between the short term (construction) and long term (operation)
changes, although some changes may be common to both (e.g., the provision
of infrastructure) because the significance of the changes depends not only
on their absolute magnitude but on the rate at which they occur.
The applicant should develop and maintain close coordination with State,
regional, and local planning and zoning authorities to ensure full under-
standing of all existing and/or proposed land use plans and other related
regulations.
IV.D. ENERGY SUPPLY
The impact of a fossil-fueled power plant on local energy supplies will
depend largely on the type of processes proposed and the ancillary facil-
ities. The applicant should evaluate the energy efficiencies of all
processes considered during project planning and then consider the alterna-
tive analysis. Also feasible design modifications should be considered in
order to reduce energy needs.
96
-------
At a minimum, the applicant should provide the following information:
Total external energy demand for operation of the plant
Total energy generated on site
Energy demands by type
Proposed measures to reduce energy demand and increase plant
efficiency.
For a detailed discussion of energy demands in the fossil-fueled steam
electric generating industry see US Department of Commerce (1977) .
IV.E. . IMPACT AREAS NOT SPECIFIC TO FOSSIL-FUELED STEAM ELECTRIC
GENERATING STATIONS
The intent of the preceding sections was to provide guidance to new source
NPDES permit applicants on those impact areas that are specific to or
representative of fossil-fueled steam electric generating facilities. It
is recognized that many impacts resulting from the construction and opera-
tion of a fossil-fueled power plant are similar to impacts associated with
many other new source facilities; therefore, no effort has been made to dis-
cuss these types of impacts, but, instead, reference is made to more
general guideline documents. For example, general guidelines for developing
a comprehensive inventory of baseline data (preproject conditions) and a
general methodology for impact evaluation are contained in Chapters 1 and 2
of the EPA document, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Selected
New Source Industries. Although broad in scope, this document and other
appropriate guidance materials should be used by the applicant for assis-
tance in evaluating non-industry-specific impacts.
97
-------
V. EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES
V.A. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Inherent in the environmental assessment process is the need to determine the
impact of not constructing the proposed facility, usually referred to as the
"no-build alternative." To assess this alternative:
First, the demand for power during the life of the proposed
facility must be estimated.
Second, the amount of power that will be available without the
facility must be determined.
Third, the impacts of the estimated short-fall must be
considered.
These steps are considered in this section.
Figure 5 presents a framework for evaluating the no-build alternative. Given
present generating capability (1), the projected demand for electricity (22)
is the basis for the additional unit proposed (2). Therefore, an analysis
and justification of the projected demand fo power is of prime importance.
Not providing the power (3) has consequence.'. (5), the most important of
which are loss of load (6) and effect on the regional economy (7).
Given the projected demand, and that additional electricity is to be provided
(4), various alternative choices can be explored (see items 8 through 21).
The analysis of these choices belongs in the alternatives evaluation. Three
of the options, however, are directly relevant to the need for power:
installation of solar units (10), load switching (20), increase in generating
efficiencies (21). To the extent that these are achieved, the need for the
new fossil fuel-fired unit is reduced:
Installation of solar units reduces the demand for electricity
generated by a power plant.
Load switching and an increase in generating efficiencies increase
the supply of electricity from existing power plants.
V.A.I. Projecting the Demand for Power
A number of variables underlie a projection of power demand (Figure 5, 20-35),
which raises the issue of the extent to which they must be explicitly inclu-
ded in this section. Early environmental impact analyses often were limited
to projecting the demand for electricity by extrapolation from past trends.
Given the dramatic drop in electrical consumption in the United States in the
early 1970's described in Section I.B.I, this approach is inadequate. Some
projections have taken account of recent factors Tjy extrapolating the historical
trend from a lower base, or by assuming a growth trend somewhat lower than
historical, or both. The assumptions underlying these shifts usually are not
made explicit. This approach, too, is inadequate.
98
-------
~°l
"S, -
!
1
o
^H
9i
R
^ £
Si
U
W
3
ew
X
A.
3
n
^
o c »-
e n iu:
>-l U Ul
S> o
C u
H >.
41 b c
u w
3 U
e
o o
01 *"
71 tj
a
41
b 3
U V)
C C
:
I CO «
c u
i * e
3
M
O
J
J
0
N
«
ao
, e
u o
c »*
V
M U
u _
w b
e «
a
e M
«4
« >
a c
f. «
u a
SI
(X. U
-
~*
.e
*4
2 8
V
r u
ee n
c >
« V)
a
a >
f. c
U
1
C
^»
p>^
U
a
V
v
£
^
03
»*
(«
V
u
C
-T-
tl
M in
c5S
a »< c
c u tn
4J 0
e
b
£ 2 -
U 1-4 C
O < D
c in
w
0
q u -!
S x o <-i
r> p u a
C C O vl X U -O
O 7 «M y ^ u u
^i O »« ^* c "
u u 13 b « a/ n
u c u u o u
3 i* n y *J I u
o « E o c c c
CI U <~i V O 1»
>- o u; u z u
£ C B
W *4 U >
a 2 in
w 3 «
« -o
j: « e -i
u -« u u
O > ft. O
a
tl
a. >
tn
M
C tJ
a o »<
*4 V<
U ^3 b
« C «
VI U
O 1 V
e a
b B
U
C ««
- « C
(U u
B C
C «
o u
4 Q
w b U
-1 C i.
a c -H
a v c
< O 3
«
u c
O O
c w
o -<
»4 T>
t5
o v
a. u S
O
0)
a
u
e
D.
O
(U
z
00
o
e a
0 c
-H S >.
C >*H U
> »-» y
0 -0
b ^r b
CL<
-------
A more thorough approach is possible, and is recommended, involving the use
of econometric models. These may include any or all of the variables 23-24.
Table 14 is a list of the variables used in one econometric model. Studies
using this approach have been commissioned by individual utilities, by public
utility commissions, by other State and Federal agencies, and by foundations.
There also is a growing volume of literature in professional journals and '
private groups or individuals have testified at hearings relative to this
topic. These studies have examined:
Increased efficiency in the production of electricity (23)
especially by load switching (20)
Reduction in the ratio of peak to average demand (24),
especially by peak load pricing (26)
Various methods (28-34) of reducing the year-round demand for
electricity (25)
The merits of an econometric model are that the assumptions underlying the
projected demand are elucidated. This factor is critically important and
the applicant should discuss it thoroughly in this section. Whether this
discussion should be based on an econometric model individually tailored to
each and every utility's circumstances, or (for each utility) developed ad
hoc each time a utility proposes a new plant, is optional. Another option
is to build on the results of other studies, using a step-down procedure if
the model is designed for the region (or pool) of which the utility forms a
part, or adjusting the model if it was designed for another utility, to take
account of differences in the characteristics of electricity users. In this
case, the step-down or other adjustment procedures must be defined as clearly
as the assumptions, relations, and calculations of the underlying model.
Once a model has been chosen, the future power demand can be calculated and
the assumptions that went into the determination can be identified clearly.
V.A.2. The Relationship of Demand for Power to Present and Planned
Generating Capacity
Table 15 is an example of a utility's load and capability forecast. Given
the projected demand, the need for additional generating capacity must be
shown within that forecasting framework.
An electrical utility is obliged legally to provide service to its customers.
To meet this obligation, its generating capability must be adequate to meet
peak load demand. In addition, and to allow for unforeseen contingencies, a
desired minimum reserve (i.e., generating capability in excess of peak load
demand) is required. The reserve margin is expressed as the percent of
excess capability over peak load. A 15 percent margin commonly is used.
Thus, if the peak load is 5,000 MW, a generating capability of 5,750 MW
is desirable.
Generating capability is a current given. The reserve margin sought is both
a current and a future given. Therefore, the future level of generating
capability required varies solely with the peak load demand expected in the
future, as calculated by the model. The difference between the future level
100
-------
Table 14. Factors affecting the demand
for electrlcty
Growth rate of real per capita Income
Growth rate of real electricity cost per unit
Growth rate of real price of alternative energy sources
Growth rate of service area population
Growth rate of service area nonmanufacturing employment
Growth rate of service area manufacturing employment
Growth rate of service area peak air conditioning demand
Elasticity of residential demand with respect to electricity price
Elasticity of commercial demand with respect to electricity price
Elasticity of industrial demand with respect to electricity price
Elasticity of residential demand with respect to income
Elasticity of commercial demand with respect to income
Elasticity of industrial demand with respect to wage rate
Elasticity of residential demand with respect to alternative energy prices
Elasticity of commercial demand with respect to alternative energy prices
Elasticity of industrial demand with respect to alternative energy prices
Source: Tolley, George S., Charles W. Upton, and V. Stevens Hastings. 1977,
Electric energy availability and regional growth. Ballinger.
Cambridge MA.
101
-------
ps»
4J
e
Z 2
00
o\
rH
1*4
E
CO
4J
C
. 1
CM 3
co
rH
b
e
3
CO
4J
c
O 3
CO
rH
W rl
2 -
U CO
V
O
*" C
^_ ^H
u co 3
H PS.
rH 0"v
H rH
A 1-
« E
CX 3
a to
a
C *->
«j c
O vO 3
a P*
O O^
|J rH
E
in eo
-H
0)
rH 4J
& G
10 "rt
H sr 3
r-l
^|
g
3
SO
E
0)
4J
M
m
"1
00
O P*
O en
ps. in
CO
PS,
en
rH
PS,
0 P«.
O en
ts. rH
PS,
(S.
en
PS.
m
m P*
rH CO
m PS,
m
(S,
o
^r"
m rs.
rH O
in PS.
sr
r.
^»
^
CO
r«*
fN,
vO
en
fs.
CM
rH
M
en
^
C*4
ps. ^j*
in cn cn oo co rv o
eo m T r*. rH I-H
rs»comors.OrHoo
CnCMsTOrHCMOsr
rH cn cn co co cn ON
PS. sr sr CM
PS. ps. in 00 ON rH ON
en fs. 00 O CM O rH
rH NO VO O rH ON
« * »
Ps. NO vO rH
ps.vominsrenmsr
mp-sr rHOommsr
p» CM cn ON ON P-. r*.
«n cn cn rH
r-s in o m CM «n sr
cn CM vo en o m rH
PS, Vfl NO O fs> PS.
in m m
>>
p^inminmcMONCM E
co x U 3 «n
ffl 4J T3 U 6 r"
ff. -HOJ -ox m -HON
UOrHCa (OUx-s, IUC C rH
^ rH iH »-N 13 O-H3 VjQx-> SH
3«j03^: rHrHS 3 £
CLCOOSUM -H>^ Euxg o
O. v^ IH rH g^ 3 J>4Js-' "QCM
WhC33eaVlHx-\^-\Elris.t 1)
4) r-io u^:
35 o oic Sc«iHo -HO
O O E ti JJ XO+s^^ Uj3i-l MWi
D. D. 4) 1 O 01 0) a C E l-iiH 11 «
*J33 WVO-H^S, «X OS
E E OICMO o u ci MOO -a *j c i
C >-> >^ c. c. tn u + i-i u co^-s i "O
rl /-^ -H <-» 8] -f x^ ^sO)- . BII-i^sCJC.00 V
u-'?u-'3 ESrS iS^310^ -ri 3 U 01 ^s. 4)3
c5=Sj-'-Hl-S^CgMgo|^sro!£l-0-H *J 50
21 S 2 (^ (x S r4 g^e^pu ^ 2M
CM
co
102
-------
of generating capability required and current generating capability measures
the need for new capacity. In practice, firm and nonfirm power sales are
netted out: netting out the former from peak demand yields load responsibil-
ity; netting out the latter from generating capability yields net system
capability. Load responsibility and net capabilityrather than peak load
and gross capabilityare the basis for establishing the need for additional
capability.
In Table 15, this particular utility planned additional generating capability
that would have given it summer reserve margins ranging from 14 to 24 percent
over the forecast period 1974-1984. The mean is 17.8 percent, compared to a
desired summer reserve margin of 15 percent. (The summer peak load is about
50 percent higher than the winter peak load; hence the winter reserve margin
is much higher than the summer reserve margin. This major difference indi-
cates the use of air-conditioning equipment during summer months.)
Data at this level of detail are necessary to verify the need for the pro-
posed capacity, given that the projected demand for power has been justified
V.A.3. Impacts of Not Constructing Facilities
The consequences of not providing power are legitimately regarded as a measure
of the need for power. A detailed analysis of the consequences of the no-
build alternative should be undertaken by the applicant and presented here.
A recommended framework for the analysis is described below.
The most direct consequence of the no-build alternative is the loss of load,
which may be measured as the quantity of electricity that would have been
provided to the utility's customers with the proposed generating unit minus
the quantity of electricity that the utility can provide without the unit,
multiplied by the price of the electricity not provided.
A number of assumptions may be used and may include, but should not be
limited to, the following assumptions:
The difference in quantities of electricity provided with and
without the unit will never be made up.
The difference will be made up at a later date.
Existing units will run longer and be retired later.
Purchasable power is available.
The cutback in planned system capacity is allocated across
customer classes in such a way as to reduce the costs incurred.
The utility has the choice of the appropriate adjustment period.
Under all these assumptions the relevant measure of the different quantities
of electricity with and without the planned unit is peak demand projected
with the new capacity minus peak demand available without it, when the same
reserve margin is used.
103
-------
This direct measure of the value of the electricity forgone is likely to
underestimate the total value because of indirect consequences. For example,
the lack of the additional electricity affecting customer classes may Lead
to reduced output by industries, which in turn may both reduce their purchases
from other industries and lay off workers. The supplying industries, whose
sales now are reduced, may reduce their consumption of electricity. Unemployed
workers may spend less on goods and services, further reducing the consumption
of electricity by the suppliers of goods and services. In short, the initial
short-fall in electrical output may have a multiplier effect throughout the
economy. This indirect, or multiplier effect must be added to the direct short-
fall to measure the total effect. It is measured in the same way, that is:
quantities of electricity with and without the unit, multiplied by price.
Additional measures of impact may be necessary. For example, a utility.may
retain its reserve margin by increasing rates to reduce peak load to what
it can provide. The result of this action is a burden to the consumer and is
measured by the rate differential multiplied by the quantity of electricity
purchased. From the standpoint of the efficient allocation of the resource,
this is not a cost to society as a whole. In terms of equity, mechanisms
are available to society for redress, such as the reduction of taxes, or
rebates.
Employment, or the loss of jobs, may be measured as a consequence of not
providing the power needed. In turn, this employment loss may lead to
losses in earnings and population. These effects tend to be regional rather
than national, but must be explored thoroughly to explain the need for power.
Thus, the applicant should analyze the sensitivity of industrial sectors to
electricity, and should supplement the analysis by input-output and/or eco-
nomic base analyses in measured earnings, gross regional product sales,
employment, and population consequences for the regional economy.
V.B. SITE ALTERNATIVES
Preliminary site selection activities should take place before the EIA docu-
ment is prepared. These activities should include a thorough analysis of the
potential site areas within or outside the utility's franchise service area.
This identification and analysis should be described in the EIA and the
reasons for eliminating a site(s) should be specified.
The permit applicant is encouraged to consult with the appropriate resource
agencies during the early stages of site selection. Key agencies that can
provide valuable technical assistance include:
State, regional, county, or local zoning or planning commissions
can describe their land use programs and where variances would
be required. Federal lands are under the authority of the
appropriate Federal land management agency (Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, etc.).
State or regional water resource agencies can provide information
relative to water appropriations and water rights.
Air pollution control agencies can provide assistance relative
104
-------
to air quality allotments and other air-related standards and
regulations.
The Soil Conservation Service and State Geological Surveys can
provide data and consultation on soil conditions and geologic
characteristics.
If the State has a power plant siting law, the law should be cited and any
applicable constraints described. An initial survey of site availability
and suitability should be presented, using a screening process that, after
identifying areas containing possible sites, eliminates those sites with
less desirable characteristics.
In the EIA the applicant should display the potential site locations on maps,
charts, etc., that show the power network, environmental conditions, and other
relevant site information. (A consistent identification system for the
alternative sites should be established and retained on all graphic and text
material.) The maps should be related to the applicant's service area (and
adjacent areas if relevant). They should display pertinent information that
includes, but is not limited to:
Areas and sites considered by the applicant
Major centers of population density (urban, high, medium,
low density, or similar scale).
Water bodies suitable for use in cooling systems
Railways, highways (existing and planned), and waterways
suitable for the transportation of fuels, wastes, and raw
materials
Important topographic features (such as mountains and marshes)
Dedicated land use areas (parks, historic sites, wilderness areas',
testing grounds, airports, etc.)
Other sensitive environmental areas
Existing generating stations, if any, with total capacities of
all units in megawatts and types of fuel used
Other planned generating additions to the network to be
installed before the proposed facility goes on line
Transmission lines (as distinguished from distribution lines)
and termination points on the system for proposed and potential
lines from the applicant's proposed facility
Major interconnections with other power suppliers
Industrial complexes, significant mineral deposits, and
mineral industries.
105
-------
Maps of areas outside the applicant's service area should include the preferred
transmission line corridor for the applicant's power generating system.
Suitable correlations should be made among the maps. For example, one or
more of the maps showing environmental features may be to the same scale as
a map showing power network configurations or present generating sites.
Major transmission lines may be overlaid on the environmental maps where
this treatment is helpful to the discussion. Power networks for the various
candidate areas (for 115-kV lines and above) should be presented when different
from the power network for the prime site.
Using the foregoing graphic materials, the applicant should provide a condensed
description of the major considerations that led to the selection of the final
candidate areas, including proximity to load centers and raw materials,
economic analyses with tradeoffs, adequacy of transportation systems, environ-
mental aspects including likelihood of floods, license or permit problems, and
compatibility with any existing land use planning programs, and current atti-
tudes of interested citizens.
Having discussed candidate areas and appropriate power sources, the applicant
also should indicate the steps, factors, and criteria used to select the
candidate site. The applicant should present a cost-effectiveness analysis
of the candidate sites including pertinent environmental, social, and economic
considerations to show why the proposed site-plant combination is preferred
over all other candidate site alternatives for the facility.
Quantification, although desirable, may not be possible for all factors because
of lack of adequate data. Under such circumstances, qualitative and general
comparative statements, supported by documentation, may be used. Where
possible, experience derived from operation of other plants at the same site,
or at an environmentally similar site, may be helpful in appraising the
nature of expected environmental impacts.
Economic estimates should be based at least on a preliminary conceptual
design that considers how construction costs are affected by such site-
related factors as topography, geology, and tectonics; length of cooling water
conduit; and cooling tower configuration as determined by meteorological
factors.
Once a specific site for location of the plant is proposed it may receive
considerable opposition locally, statewide or even nationally. Such
opposition may derive from the fact that the proposed plant would signifi-
cantly impact a unique recreational, archaeological, or other important
natural or manmade resource area. It may destroy the rural or pristine
character of an area. It may conflict with planned development for the area.
The site may be opposed by citizen groups. It may have significant geological
and hydrological constraints. It may be subject to periodic flooding,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters.
Therefore, if the proposed site location proves undesirable, then alternative
sites from among those originally considered should be reevaluated or new
sites should be identified and evaluated. Expansion or technological changes
at an existing plant site may be a possible alternative. Therefore, it is
critical that a permit applicant systematically identify and assess all
106
-------
feasible alternative site locations as early in the planning process as possible.
V.C. PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
V.C.I. Alternative Generating Methods
Several alternative methods of electrical generation should be considered for
the principal alternative sites. Those alternatives that appear practical
should be considered on the basis of criteria such as:
Land requirements of the station, fuel storage facilities,
waste storage facilities, and exclusion areas
Release to air of dust, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
other potential pollutants, subject to Federal, State, or
local limitations
Releases to water of heat, chemicals, and trace metals in blowdown,
subject to Federal, State, and local regulations
Water consumption rate
Fuel consumption and the generation of ash with associated waste
treatment disposal problems
Social impacts of increased traffic as the fuel is trans-
ported to the site and wastes are transported from the site
Social effects resulting from the influx of construction, operation,
and maintenance crews
Economics
Aesthetic considerations for each alternative process
Reliability and energy efficiency
A tabular or matrix form of display often is helpful in comparing the
feasible alternatives. Alternative processes which are not feasible should
be dismissed with an objective explanation of the reasons for rejection.
The following are the major alternative methods of power generation. They
are discussed further in the Development Document for Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category (EPA 1974):
Coal-Fired Units: Major considerations are the impact of
transport and storage of fuel and wastes, gaseous emissions,
aqueous effluents, and coal pile runoff.
Oil-Fired Units: Major considerations are effluent discharges,
transportation and storage of fuel, and potential impacts from
spills.
107
-------
Gas-Fired Units: Major considerations are high accident
potential resulting from the nature of the gas and transportation
of fuel. Competitive uses of natural gas should be considered
before selecting it as a fuel for an electric power generating
facility.
Nuclear-Powered Units: Major considerations are releases, transport,
and disposal of wastes, water consumption, and thermal effluent
disposal.
Synthetic and Natural Gas Turbine Units: Gas turbine units often
are used for peaking facilities because of their quick start-up
characteristics. This type of unit has been installed for
emergency capacity additions because of the extremely short
lead time required for their construction and installation.
Their small size makes them easy to locate. These units, however,
are highly inefficient, experience long down times, require
extensive maintenance and generate a significant amount of noise.
Major considerations for their choice are small capacity additions
required, and little or no significant environmental impacts from
effluents.
Combined Cycle Units: To circumvent the low efficiency of
operation of gas turbines, a boiler may be added that uses the
gases from combustion in the turbines, and in some cases minor
supplemental burning, to generate electricity in a steam cycle.
Low reliability factors and high maintenance rates present
problems. Major positive considerations are the need for
medium sized, intermediate load capacity requirements, and
relatively moderate environmental impacts.
Hydroelectric Facility: Major considerations are influences on
terrestrial and aquatic ecology, interference with fish
migration and spawning patterns, and exclusion of competitive
uses of occupied lands.
Pumped Storage Facility: Major considerations are similar to
those presented for the hydroelectric facility.
Geothermal: Major considerations are disposal of wastewater
(brine), air pollution O^S), and the possible inducement of
tectonic activity in some areas.
Other Techniques: If applicable, identification and general
description should be made of other techniques available for
the generation of electrical energy during the lifetime
proposed for the facility, such as the magnetohydrodynamic
generator (MHD), fuel cells, solar cells, wind power devices,
fusion reactors, breeder reactors, and coal gasification.
V.C.2. Alternative Facility Designs
The proposed plant should incorporate a combination of component systems that
108
-------
have been selected through an analysis of economic, environmental, and
engineering factors.
Economic comparisons should include initial capital costs and operating costs
of the individual systems and should be expressed in terms of cost of
power generation.
Environmental effects should be documented and the magnitude of the effects
should be quantified wherever possible. The extent of the population or
resources affected by the various alternative systems should be presented in
the comparison.
Engineering comparisons must include the projected length of time the
alternative systems would be operable. Estimated maintenance costs over the
useful life of each system should be included, as should an analysis of the
effect of maintenance on the overall utility's generating reliability.
Throughout the sections that follow, the applicant should discuss the
design alternatives for relevant plant systems. A description of each
alternative, composed of economic, environmental, and engineering features,
should be presented to permit comparisons.
V.C.2.a Fuel Type. Major factors include availability, costs, quality, and
compatibility with national energy policies and objectives.
V.C.2.b. Thermodynamic Cycle. The applicant should provide sufficient
information to support the evaluation that has been conducted to determine
the characteristics selected for the turbine-generator units. Reasons such
as efficiency, capability for water reuse, and flexibility of operating
conditions, used in the selection of the proposed cycle, should be presented.
V.C.2.C. Cooling Systems.-1--* The applicant should identify and describe those
heat dissipation systems that were evaluated for use in the proposed plant
(exclusive of intake and discharge) and the reasons for selection of the
proposed system. The discussion should consider at a minimum once-through
cooling, cooling towers, cooling lakes, cooling ponds and their respective
variations in evaporation rates, drift, blowdown, potential environmental
impacts, and relative costs.
For once-through cooling systems or cooling lakes, the following factors
should be addressed:
Adequacy of water supply
Modeling predictions of extent of thermal plume
Predictions of compliance or noncompliance with water quality
and effluent standards
15 See footnotes 1 and 7.
109
-------
Absolute temperatures expected in the mixing zone and downstream
Expected effects on phytoplankton, periphyton, aquatic macrophytes,
zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, shellfish beds, larval fish, and
adult fish
Effects of the thermal effluent on dissolved oxygen levels
Effects on recreation
Effects on spawning areas and commercial fishing
Synergistic effects.
If a cooling lake(s) system is considered then a checklist of important
ecological parameters should be developed to ensure a thorough evaluation of
the expected impacts from such a cooling system.
The creation of a cooling lake may result in multiple environmental benefits
if the project is planned carefully. The primary impact is the conversion
of large areas of terrestrial habitat into aquatic habitat. The character
of existing water courses on the site also may be altered and much of the biota
inhabiting both land and water areas potentially could be destroyed or
certainly displaced. The applicant, therefore, should evaluate land use
tradeoffs and should justify the conversion of existing terrestrial and
aquatic habitats to a new lake ecosystem. The applicant should consider the
ecological and social values of the land to be inundated and compare them
with values to be derived from a cooling lake. Examples of questions that
should be addressed are:
Are the terrestrial or aquatic habitats which are proposed for
inundation unique, ecologically or otherwise?
Are these habitats part of isolated and limited types of environ-
ments?
Does the land or water support ecologically unique, important,
endangered, or threatened flora and fauna?
Will inundation mean the loss of prime agricultural land or - -
the loss of a valuable recreational resource?
Is the land historically or archaeologically important?
How will the proposed lake change the local hydrological
characteristics?
What is the expected lifespan of the proposed cooling lake?
What is the depth configuration? What is the expected sil-
tation rate?
What is the anticipated thermal regime of the lake? Will the
thermal regime allow for the development of a usable recreation
source?
110
-------
Will the lake be open to the public? Will public boat access
areas or recreation areas be provided and maintained by the
applicant? by the State?
Can the lake be used to produce a marketable commercial fish,
shellfish, or sport fishery?
The creation of a large cooling lake may commit thousands of acres of land
and represents a major impact. Therefore, early in the planning process,
land use tradeoffs associated with this major construction activity and
site components should be carefully considered. The design of the lake .
(depths, temperatures, volume, etc.) should reflect a maximized development
of usable aquatic resources. The applicant should then compare and contrast
the impacts associated with the proposed use of a cooling lake with those
of other cooling systems (once-through cooling, cooling towers, etc.).
Because the creation of a cooling lake represents a large-scale change in
land use, the applicant should demonstrate thoroughly that the net changes
are clearly favorable.
Cooling ponds by legal definition differ somewhat from cooling lakes, but
must be evaluated in the same manner as other cooling system alternatives.
The extent of the consideration is not so broad as with cooling lakes. At
a minimum, the applicant should address:
Impacts associated with usurpation of existing terrestrial
habitats
Evaporative losses
Projected blowdown characteristics and resultant effects
Potential leachate and subsequent groundwater contamination
problems
Precautionary measures for public safety
Possible accumulation of potentially toxic wastes.
If cooling towers are selected as a viable cooling alternative, their
potential for impact should be outlined. Evaluation factors should include
at a minimum:
Volume and type of construction materials (concrete, sand
and gravel, etc.)
Impact of construction material acquisition (strip mines,
gravel dredging, truck transport)
Energy requirements for material synthesis
Projected blowdown characteristics
Projected terrestrial deposition effects
111
-------
Evaporative losses
Consumptive losses of entrained aquatic organisms
Visual and aesthetic impacts (fogging and icing).
The expected areal coverage of cooling tower drift and the expected chemical
composition of the resultant deposits must be evaluated in terms of its
potential effects on natural plant and animal communities and agricultural
production. The potential for interaction of atmospheric components with
stack emissions and the formation of "acid rain" also should be discussed.
V.C.2.d. Cooling Water Intake Structure.16 The applicant should identify
and describe those alternative concepts that were evaluated for the design
and location of the water intake structure, and compare them to the design
and location of the proposed intake. The applicant should consider environ-
mental, engineering, and cost factors in the selection of the proposed intake
structure. A comparison of these factors for each alternative intake design
and location should be presented in the EIA.
V.C.2.e. Cooling Water Discharge Structure. The applicant should identify
and describe alternatives that were evaluated for the conceptual design of
the water discharge structure and compare them to the design and location
of the proposed discharge. Environmental, engineering, and cost considerations
for all alternatives considered should be compared and evaluated in the EIA.
V.C.2.f. Chemical Waste Systems. The applicant should identify and describe
alternative chemical waste systems. Reductions in maximum and average chemi-
cal concentrations in the discharge stream, discharge flows, or other aspects
of each system that would result in reducing environmental effects should be
discussed and compared. The ability of the systems to meet EPA effluent
guidelines should be noted.
V.C.2.g. Fouling Control System. The applicant should identify both
mechanical and chemical methods of fouling control and should describe them
in a manner similar to alternative chemical waste systems (see V.C.2.f.).
The initial choice of physical or chemical cooling water treatment systems
is critical in order to reduce potential impacts. A mechanical cleaning
system would normally be the mechanism of least impact, but there may be
locations and water quality situations where the use of chlorine or other
biocides might be required to prevent condenser fouling. Where the use
of biocides is proposed, it should be justified fully and the toxicity of
the expected discharge concentrations must be compared with the tolerance
levels of important biota present in the waterbody. The type of chlorine
compounds expected primarily depends upon the constituents of the cooling
water, water temperature, and pH.
V.C.2.h. Sanitary Waste System. This source of pollution is not unique
to the power generating industry and many adequate treatment systems are
available. Alternative sanitary waste treatment systems should be identified
16 See footnote 9.
112
-------
and described, relative to both waste products and to chemical additives
for waste treatment.
V.C.2.-i. Solid Waste Handling and Disposal System. The applicant should
identify and describe all feasible alternative solid waste handling and
disposal systems. Of special interest for power plants are the disposal
systems for fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludges.
Where a landfill is used as the ultimate point of disposal, alternative
locations, both on-site and off-site, should be discussed. The possibility
of using existing private and/or county facilities for off-site disposal
should be discussed.
V.C.Z.j. Stack Emission Control System. The applicant should identify
and describe the stack emission systems considered as alternatives for .the
new source generating facility. Measures to reduce the discharge of con-
taminants or other aspects of each system that would lessen environmental
effects should be discussed and compared. The ability of the systems to
meet new source performance standards should be noted. The applicant also
should state whether or not a scrubber bypass capability will be designed
into the stack emission system.
113
-------
VI. REGULATIONSOTHER THAN POLLUTION CONTROL
The applicant should be aware that various regulations other than pollution
control may apply to the siting and operation of new power generating
facilities. The applicant should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator regarding applicability of such regulations to the proposed
new source. Some Federal regulations that may be pertinent to a proposed
facility include, but are not limited to, the following:
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1974 (16 USC 661-666)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.)
USDA Agriculture Conservation Service Watershed Memorandum 108
(1971)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 (16 USC 1274 et seq.)
Flood Control Act of 1944
Federal-Aid Highway Act, as amended (1970)
Wilderness Act of 1964
Endangered Species Preservation Act, as amended (1973)
(16 USC 1531 et seq.)
National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.)
Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of Cultural
Environment, 16USC 470) (Sup. 13 May 1971)
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469
et seq.)
Procedures of the Council on Historic Preservation (1973)
(39 FR 3367)
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management - replaced EO
11296 on 10 August 1966)
Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)
In connection with these regulations, the applicant should place particular
emphasis on obtaining the services of a recognized archaeologist to determine
the potential for disturbance of an archaeological site, such as an early
Indian settlement or a prehistoric site. The National Register of Historic
Places also should be consulted for historic sites such as battlefields.
The applicant should consult the appropriate wildlife agency (State and
114
-------
Federal) to ascertain that the natural habitat of a threatened or endangered
species will not be affected adversely; other resource agencies also should
be consulted to avoid or minimize impact to areas that previously have been
determined to be sensitive or, uniquely important (wetlands, floodplains,
prime farmland, etc.).
From a health and safety standpoint, most industrial operations involve a
variety of potential hazards and to the extent that these hazards could
affect the health of plant employees, they may be characterized as
potential environmental impacts. All plant operators should emphasize that
no phase of operation or administration is of greater importance than
safety and accident prevention. Company policy should provide and maintain
safe and.healthful conditions for its employees and establish, operating
practices that will result in safe working conditions and efficient oper-
ation. All proposed plans to maximize health and safety should be described
by the permit applicant in the EIA.
The plant must be designed and operated in compliance with the standards of
the U.S. Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion, and the appropriate State statutes relative to industrial safety.
The applicant also should coordinate closely with local and/or regional
planning and zoning commissions to determine possible building or land
use restrictions.
In addition to these regulations, State and local regulations may exist
that affect the proposed power plant. For example, certain States have
power plant siting regulations (see Section I.D.3) which must be considered.
Individual State Public Service Commissions (PSC's) also should be consulted
regarding their involvement in the planning process, because many PSC's
require certification for construction and operation.
Table 16 presents a range of typical permits, licenses,- certifications, and .
approvals that may be required from local, regional, State, and Federal
officials for construction and operation of a new source power plant.
Although this list doubtless will vary between jurisdictions, it is intented
primarily to be illustrative. Further, the permit applicant could facilitate
significantly the new source NPDES permit review process by documenting in
the EIA, all permits,licenses, etc. which are known to be needed to construct
and operate the proposed plant, and the status of each.
115
-------
Table 16.
Typical permits, licenses, certifications, and approvals
required from Federal, State, regional, and local authorities for
construction and operation of a typical new source fossil-fueled power plant.
Agency
Local Planning Organization
(regional, county, city)
Local Department of Public Works
Local Beautification Board
Requirement
Rezoning of plant site
Approval of transmission line rights-
of-way
Special exception for meterological
tower
Minor subdivision plan approval of
roads and plot plan
Permit for filling or construction
operations in flood plains
Construction on public property if
required
Local Department of Development Building permit for meterological
and Licensing
State Planning Department
State Fire Marshall
State Department of Natural
Resources & Environmental
Control
tower
Building permit for each structural
component of station
Use and occupancy permits
Coastal zone permit, if required
Permit to store flammable liquids
Approval of facility for fire pro-
tection
Water use and discharge permit for
cooling tower makeup and blowdown,
including other discharges
Test well permit
Commercial well permit
Permit for dewatering excavation
Permit for fuel oil storage tanks
116
-------
Table 16 (continued)
State Air Pollution Control
Department
State Board of Health
State Public Service Commission
State Department of Highways
and Transportation
Dredging and construction of intake
structure
Transmission line crossing of water
bodies
Sedimentation control approval
Noise control approval
State water quality certification
Construction and operation of ash
disposal area
Construction permit for combustion
equipment
Registration of gaseous emissions
Permit to construct a dam
Permit for construction of stationary
source of air pollutants covering the
following anticipated sources:
- Stock discharges (main and auxiliary
boilers)
- Coal pile dusting
- Coal handling facilities
- Ash disposal area
- Open burning of construction refuse
- Concrete batch plant
Review of indirect (mobile) emission
sources
Permit to construct and operate
approved sewage disposal and potable
water facilities
Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for: (1) construction of
station and (2) for transmission lines
Construction permit and franchise for
transmission line crossing of roads
117
-------
Table 16 (continued)
US Environmental Protection
Agency (Regional Office)
Federal Aviation Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers,
(District Office)
(COE, Washington Office)
Permit for highway entrance of plant
access road
Approval of public road improvements
Permits for oversize or overweight
vehicles
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System Permit (NPDES) for waste-
water discharge
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of air quality (PSD) permit prior to
commencement of construction activities
Waiver of Section 316(a) FWPCA require-
ments; certification of Section 316(b)
requirements
Notice to construct (review of lighting
and marking):
- Emission stacks
- Transmission tower(s)
- Meteorological tower(s)
- Other structures 200 feet above
ground unless shielded by topography,
etc. also structures less than 200*
if in flight path of an airport
Permit to construct structures or works*
in navigable waters (Section 10,
Rivers and Harbors Act 1899)
Permit to dispose of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the US (including
wetlands) (Section 404, FWPCA)
Permit to construct any dam or dike in
a navigable water of the US (Section 9,
Rivers of Harbor Act 1899)
Structures may include piers, breakwaters, bulkheads, revetments, power
transmission lines, underwater utility cables, and aids to navigation;
works may include dredging, stream channelization, excavation and filling.
118
-------
Table 16 (concluded),
Permit to ocean dump dredged materials
(Section 103, Ocean Dumping Act)>
Permit to dscharge refuse matter into
navigable waters of the US or their
tributaries (Section 13, The Refuse
Act 1899)
Lease for cooling water pipes and in
take structure on Federal land
Test boring on Federal land
Occupational Safety and Health Certification of safety and health
Administration criteria for plan oepration (noise
in the work place, etc.).
119
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Environmental Impact Assessment: General
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. 1974. General environmental guidelines for
evaluating and reporting the effects of nuclear power plant site prepara-
tion, plant and transmission facility construction. Hittman Associates, Inc.
Washington DC.
Baird, N. J., Jr. 1975. Guidelines for the preparation of environmental
reports for fossil-fueled steam electric generating stations. US Department
of the Interior Contract No. 14-31-0001-5238. Draft. United Engineers and
Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia PA.
Battelle Columbus and Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1973. Environmental
considerations in future energy growth, Vol. 1: Fuel/energy systems: Techni-
cal summaries and associated environmental burdens. Columbus OH.
Chiang, S. S., and R. N. Snead. 1976. An annotated bibliography: social and
economic factors associated with electric power generating stations. Atomic
Industrial Forum, Inc. INFORUM-001, Washington DC.
Eichholz, Geoffrey. 1976. Environmental aspects of nuclear power. Ann
Arbor Science.
Handbook for environmental planning, the social consequences of environmental
change. 1977. Wiley.
Hittman Associates, Inc. 1974. Environmental impacts, efficiency, and cost
of energy supply and end use, Volume I.
Jain, R. K. 1977. Environmental impact analysis, a new dimension in de-
cision-making. Van Nostrand.
Karam, R. A.f and K. Z. Morgan, eds. 1976. The environmental impact of
nuclear power plants. Pergamon Press.
Leholm, Arlea G., F. Larry Leistritz, and James S. Wieland. 1976. Profile
of electric power plant construction work force. Department of Agricultural
Economics, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State
University, Fargo ND, Argicultural Economics Statistics Series Issue 22, 53 p.
MacFarlane, D. R., et al. 1975. Power facility siting in the state of
Illinois. Part II. Environmental impacts of large energy conversion facili-
ties. Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality.
Murphy, Brian, James R. Mahoney, David Bearg, Gale Hoffnagle, and Joel Watson.
1978. Energy consumption of environmental controls: Fossil fuel-steam elec-
tric generating industry. Final report. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Commerce, Office of Environmental Affairs. Washington DC.
Temple, Barker and Sloan, Inc. 1976. Economic and financial impacts of
federal air and water pollution controls on the electric utility industry.
120
-------
US Bureau of Mines. 1974. Assessment of the impact of air quality require-
ments on coal in 1975, 1977, and 1980. Division of Fossil Fuels, Mineral
Supplies.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities.: 1975.
Environmental impact assessment guidelines for selected new source industries.
EPA, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. 1978. Toxic
substances control act (TSCA), PL 94-469. Candidate list of chemical
substances. Addendum 3: Chemical substances of unknown or variable composi-
tion, complex reaction products and biological materials. EPA, Washington,
DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities 1976. Guide-
lines for review of environmental impact statements. Vol 3, Impoundment
Projects; Vol 4, Channelization Projects. Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Impact of construction activities
in wetlands of the United States. Environmental Research Lab, Office of
Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon.
US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Steam electric
power plant review manual. Washington, DC.
US Department of Interior. 1975. Considerations in evaluating utility line
proposals. Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Programs, Washington, DC.
US Atomic Energy Commission. 1975. General environmental siting guides for
nuclear power plants. Washington, DC.
US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation. 1978. Visual resource
management. Washington, DC.
US Department of Interior, Bueau of Land Reclamation. 1970. The impact of
power transmission lines. Washington, DC.
121
-------
Air Emissions, Associated Impacts, and Control Technologies
Aghassi, William J., and Paul N. Cheremisinoff. 1975. NO control in
central station boilers. Power Engineering, June. X
Albrecht, P. F., and J. A. Lieberman. General Electric Co. 1975.
Reliability of flue gas desulfurization systems. Power Engineering, June.
Armento, W. J. 1975. Effects of design and operating variables on NO
from coal-fired furnaces - phase II. Prepared by Babcock and Wilcox Co.,
for the Office of Research and Development, USEPA, EPA-650/2-74-002-b,
NTIS PB-241283, Feb.
Baruch,' S. B. 1976. Trends in pollution control at coal-burning power
plant. Paper presented at the American Power Conference, Chicago,
April 20-22.
Botts, W. V., and R. D. Oldenkamp. 1972. The molten carbonate process for
S0» removal from stack gases: process description, economics, and pilot
plant design. Presented at 65th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control
Association, Miami Beach FL, June.
Brown, R. A., H. B. Mason, and R. J. Schreiber. 1974. Systems analysis
requirements for nitrogen oxide control of stationary sources. Prepared
by Aerotherm/Acurex Corp. for the Office of Research and Development,
USEPA, EPA-650-2-74-091, NTIS PB-237367, Sept.
Cogbill, C. V., and G. E. Likens. 1974. Acid precipitation in the north-
eastern United States. Water Resources Research 19:1133-1137.
Commerce Technical Advisory Board Panel on Sulfur Oxide Control Technology.
1975. Report on sulfur oxide control technology. Prepared for the US
Department of Commerce, Sept.
Cooper, H. B. The ultimate disposal of ash and other solids from electric
power generation. In: Water Management by the Electric Power Industry,
Water Resour. Symp. No. 8, Center for Res. in Water Resour., Univ. of Texas
at Austin TX.
Crawford, A. R., et al., Exxon Research and Engineering Company. 1975.
The effect of combustion modification on pollutants and equipment performance
of power generation equipment. Prepared for a Symposium on Stationary
Source Combustion, Sept.
Crawford, A. R., et al. 1976. NO emission control for coal-fired utility
boilers. Paper presented at the American Power Conference, Chicago, Apr.
20-22.
Cuffe, S. T., and R. W. Gerstle. 1966. Emissions from coal-fired power
plants: a comprehensive summary. National Center for Air Pollution
Control, prepared for the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, NTIS PB 174708.
122
-------
Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. 1975. An evaluation of sulfur
dioxide control requirements for electric power plants. P-1547B, Apr.
Fuchs, N. A. 1964. The mechanics of aerosols. Pergamon Press.
Gottschlich, C. F. 1968. Source control by electrostatic precipitation.
In: A. C. Stern, ed., Air Pollution, Volume III - Sources of Air Pollution
and Their Control. Academic Press NY.
Henke, W. G. 1970. The new 'hot1 electrostatic precipitator. Combustion,
Oct.
Jayt, F. C. 1973. Monitoring instrumentation for the measurement of sulfur
dioxide .in stationary source emissions. R2-73-163. US EPA.
Kin, Y. K. 1974. Abatement of sulfur oxides from power plant stack gases.
Proc. Integrated Symp. of Sci. and Techno., Seoul, Korea, July 29-August 2.
Larsen, R. I. 1971. A mathematical method for relating air quality
measurements to air quality standards. US EPA.
LaMantia, C. R., R. R. Lunt, and I. S. Shah. 1975. Dual alkali process
for SCL control. In: C. Rai and R. D. Siegel, eds., Air: II. Control
of NO and SO Emissions, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. No. 148, Vol. 71.
X X
Miller, S. G. 1977. Analysis of the mechanisms of atmospheric sulfate
formation. Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Toronto, Canada.
Oglesby, S., and G. B. Nichols. 1970. A manual of electrostatic
precipitator technology. Part II: Application areas. Southern Research
Institute, Aug.
Ottmers, D. M., Jr., P. S. Lowel, and J. G. Noblett. 1975. Energy and
water requirement for air quality control. In: E. F. Gloyna et al., eds.,
Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, Water Resources Symp.
No. 8, Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin TX.
Perl, Lewis J., and Joe D. Pace. The costs of reducing SO. emissions from
electric generating plants. National Economic Research Associates, Inc.,
Apr.
Phelan, J. H., A. A. Reisinger, and N. H. Wagner. 1976. Design and
operation experience with baghouse dust collectors for pulverized coal
fire utility boilers - Sunbury Station, Holtwood Station. Paper presented
at the American Power Conference, Chicago, April 20-22.
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Acid Precipitation and
the Forest Ecosystem. 1975. Columbus OH.
123
-------
Ruch, R. R., H. J. Gluskoter, and N. F. Shimp. 1974. Occurrence and
distribution of potentially volatile trace elements in coal. Environ.
Geol. Note No. 72, 111. State Geol. Surv.
Shriner, D. S., S. B. McLaughlin, and C. F. Bacs. 1977. Character and
transformation of pollutants from major fossil fuel energy sources.
Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, W. S., and C. W. Gruber. 1966. Atmospheric emissions from coal
combustion: An inventory guide. No. 999-AP-24. US HEW, Public Health
Service.
Southern Research Institute. 1975. Survey of information on fine-particle
control. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI-259,
NTIS PB-242383, Apr.
Stern, Arthur C., ed. 1968. Air pollution. Volume III: Sources of air
pollution and their control, Academic Press, New York NY.
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1969a. Air quality
criteria for particulate matter. Publication No. AP-49. National Air
Pollution Control Administration.
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1969b. Control techniques
for sulfur oxide air pollutants. Publication No. AP-52. National Air
Pollution Control Administration.
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1969c. Air quality
criteria for sulfur oxides. Publication No. AP-50. National Air Pollution
Control Administration.
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1970a. Air quality
criteria for photochemical oxidants. Publication No. AP-63. National Air
Pollution Control Administration.
US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1970b. Control
techniques for nitrogen oxides for stationary sources. Publication No.
AP-67. National Air Pollution Control Administration.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1969. Control techniques for
particulate air pollutants. Publication No. AP-51. Office of Air Programs.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Air quality criteria for
nitrogen oxides. Publication No. AP-84. Air Pollution Control Office.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. User's guide for the
climatological dispersion model. R4-73-024.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Guidelines for air quality
maintenance planning and analysis. Volume 11: Air quality monitoring
and data analysis. 450/4-74-012.
124
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Position paper on regulation
of atmospheric sulfates. 450/2/75-007.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Statement of sulfates research
approach. 600/8-77/004.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Environmental effects of
increased coal utilization: ecological effects of gaseous emissions
from coal combustion. 600/7-78-108.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1977. The environmental -effects of
using coal for generating electricity. Prepared by Argonne National
Laboratory, Division of Environmental Impact Studies, Argonne 111.
Draft. Washington, D.C.
Vaughan, B. E., et al. 1975. Review of potential impact on health and
environmenal quality from metals entering the environment as a result
of coal utilization. Battelle Energy Program. Pacific Northwest
Laboratories. Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland WA.
125
-------
Effects of Air Emissions on Biota
Alarie, Y. C., et al. 1975. Long-term exposure to sulfur dioxide, sulfuric
acid mist, fly ash, and their mixturesresults of studies in monkeys and
guinea pigs. Arch. Environ. Health 30:254-262.
Berry, W. L., and A. Wallace. 1974. Trace elements in the environment -
their role and potential toxicity as related to fossil fuels - a preliminary
study. Univ. Calif. Lab. Nuclear Med. and Rad. Biol., AEC Contract No.
AT)04-1) GEN 12.
Bromenshenk, J. J. 1975. Biological impact of air pollutants on insects,
Proc. Fort Union Coal Field Symp., Vol. 5, Montana Acad. Sci., Billings,
pp. 596-607.
Cardwell, R. D., et al. 1976. Acute toxicity of selenium dioxide to fresh-
water fishes. Arch. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 4:129-144.
Cogbill, C. V., and G. E. Likens. 1974. Acid precipitation in the North-
eastern United States. Water Resour. Res. 10(6)1133-1137.
Davis, C. R. 1972. Sulfur dioxide fumigation of soybeans: Effect on yield.
J. Air Pollut. Cont. Assoc. 22(12):964-966.
Durocher, N. L. 1969. Air pollution aspects of beryllium and its compounds.
Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda MD.
Doudoroff, P., and M. Katz. 1953. Critical review of literature on the
toxicity of industrial wastes and their components to fish - II. The metals
as salts. Sewage Ind. Wastes 25:802-839.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Effects of sulfur oxides in the
atmosphere on vegetation. Revised Chapter 5 for Air Quality Criteria for
Sulfur Oxides, National Environmental Research Center, EPA-R3-73-030, Sept.
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee. 1969. Water quality criteria
for European freshwater fish. Report on Extreme pH Values and Inland Fisher-
ies, Water Research 3:593-611. ~~
Gordon, C. C., and P. C. Tourangeau. 1975. Biological effects of coal-fired
power plants. Proc. Fort Union Coal Field Symp., Vol. 5, Montana Acad. Sci.,
Billings, pp. 509-530.
Gorham, E., and A. G. Gordon. 1960. The influence of smelter fumes upon the
chemical composition of lake waters near Sudbury, Ontario, and upon the
surrounding vegetation. Can. J. Bot. 38:477-487.
Groth, E., III. 1975. An evaluation of the potential for ecological damage
by Chronic, low-level environmental pollution by fluoride. Fluoride 8:224-240.
Haghiri, F. 1973. Absorption and uptake of cadmium by plants. Ohio Report
on Research and Development, Vol. 58.
126
-------
Hiatt.V., and J. E. Huff. 1975. The environmental impact of cadmium: an
overview. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 7:277-285.
Hesketh, H. E. 1973. Understanding and controlling air pollution. Ann
Arbor Sci. Publ., Ann Arbor, Mich. Cited in:J. B. Mudd and T. T. Kozlowski,
Responses of plants to air pollution. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-22,
1975.
Holland, W. R., et al. 1975. Environmental effects of trace elements from
ponded ash and scrubber sludge. Rep. 202, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto CA.
Horton, J. H., and R. S. Dorsett. 1976. Effect of stack releases from a
coal-fired powerhouse on minor and trace element contents of neighboring soil
and vegetation. Paper proposed for presentation at the Environmental Chemis-
try and Cycling Processes Symposium in Augusta, Georgia, April 28-30, 1976,
and for publication in the proceedings, 1976.
Klein, D. H., and P. Russell. 1973. Heavy metals: fallout around a power
plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 7:357-358.
Klein, D. H., et al. 1975. Pathways of thirty-seven trace elements through
coal-fired power plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9(10):973-979.
Livingston, R. G., et al. 1974. Synergism and modifying effects: interacting
factors in bioassay and field research. In: Proc. of a workshop on marine
bioassays, Geraldine V. Cox, ed., Marine Technol. Soc., 1730 M St., NW,
Washington DC.
Loman, R. A., R. A. Blanel, and D. Hocking. 1972. Sulfur dioxide and forest
vegetation. Rep. No. NOR-X-49, Northern Forest Research Center, Edmonton,
Alberta.
Lowe, R. L. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerances of
freshwater diatoms. EPA-670/4-74-005, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati OH.
Mose, B. 1973. The influence of environmental factors on the distribution
of freshwater algae: An experimental study. II. The Role of pH and the
Carbon Dioxide-Bicarbonate System, J. Ecol. 61:157-177.
Ricks, G. R., and R. H. J. Williams. 1974. Effects of atmospheric pollution
on deciduous woodland, Part 2: Effects of particulate matter upon stomatal
diffusion resistance in leaves of Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Leibl. Environ.
Pollut. 6:87-109.
Schofield, C. L. 1976. Effects of acid precipitation on fish. Presented
at Int. Conf. on Effects of Acid Precipitation, June 1976. Telemark, Norway.
In press.
Stahl, Q. R. 1969. Air pollution aspects of mercury and its compounds.
Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda MD.
127
-------
Stahl, Q. R. 1969. Air pollution aspects of selenium and its compounds.
Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda MD.
Sullivan, R. J. 1969. Air pollution aspects of nickel and its compounds.
Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda MD.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1974. Air pollution effects on soybeans. TVA
Today, 5(3):2-3, Oct.
Treshow, M. 1970. Environment and plant response. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
Vaughan, B. E., et al. 1975. Review of potential impact on health and
environmental quality from metals entering the environment as a result of
coal utilization. Battelle Energy Prog. Rep., Pacific Northwest Laboratories-
Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland WA.
Wright, R. F. Undated. Acid precipitation and its effects on freshwater
ecosystems: An annotated bibliography. Prod. First Int. Symp. on Acid
Precip. and the Forest Ecosystem, Ohio State Univ. In press.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Preliminary investigation of
effects on the environment of Boron, Indium, Nickel, Selenium, Tin, Vanadium
and their compounds, Vol. VI Vanadium. Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA,
EPA-560/2-75-005F.
128
-------
Effects of Air Emissions on Human Health
Bulka, J. J., and T. H. Risby. 1976. Ultratrace metals in some environmental
and biological systems. Analytical Chemistry 48(8):640A, Jul.
Casarret, L. J., and J. D. Doull, eds. 1975. Toxicology: the basic
science of poisons. Macmillan, New York.
Comar, C. L., and L. A. Sagan. 1976. Health effects of energy production
and conversion. In: J. M. Hollander, ed., Annual Review of Energy 1:581-600.
Freudenthal, R. I., et al. 1975. Carcinogenic potential of coal and coal
conversion products. A Battelle energy report. Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus OH, Feb.
Hackney, A. J. 1975. Relationship between air pollution and cardiovascular
disease; a review. In: A. J. Finkel and W. C. Dues, eds., Clinical
implications of air pollution research, AMA Air Pollution Medical Research
Conference, Dec 5-6 1976. Publishing Sciences Group, Acton MD.
Hamilton, L. D., ed. 1974. The health and environmental effects of
electricity generation - a preliminary report. Cited in C. L. Comar
and L. A. Sagan. 1976. Health effects of energy production and conversion.
In: J. M. Hollander, ed., Annual Review of Energy 1:581-600.
Klein, D. N., et al. 1975. Pathways of thirty-seven trace elements
through coal-fired power plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9(10):973-979, Oct.
129
-------
Aquatic Biota: Impact Assessment
Brungs, W. A., and B. R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for fresh-
water fish: Protocol and procedures. US-EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth MN.
Dynatech R/D Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1969. A survey of
alternate methods for cooling condenser discharge water - large scale
heat rejection equipment. For: Water Quality Office, EPA, July.
Hartman, R. 1976. Proposed ANSI guide for aquatic ecological surveys
at thermal power plants. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Waste
Heat .Management and Utilization, Miami Beach FL.
Jacbos, Fred, and George C. Grant. 1978. Guidelines for zooplankton
sampling in quantitative baseline and monitoring programs. EPA-600/
3-78-026. US-EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR.
Jenson, Lauren D. 1977. Biofouling control procedures. Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York NY.
Kjelson, M.A. 1977. Estimating the size of juvenile fish populations
in southeastern coastal plain estuaries. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power-Plant-Induced Mortality
of Fish Populations, Gatlinburg TN, pp. 71-89.
McFadden, J. T. 1975. Environmental impact assessment for fish popu-
lations. In: Proceedings, Workshop on Biological Significance of
Environmental Impacts, NR-CONF-002, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC, pp. 89-137.
Sonnichsen, J. C., W. E. Farr, and H. S. Riesbol. 1975. Fish
protective devices: A compilation of recent designs, concepts, and
operating experience of water intakes used in the United States.
HEDL-TME-75-38 UC-79. Energy Research and Development Administration,
Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland WA.
Stofan, Paul E., and George C. Grant. 1978. Phytoplankton sampling in
quantitative baseline and monitoring programs. EPA-600/3-78-025. US-EPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Regulatory program of the Corps of
Engineers: Final rules. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 138, Tues.,
July 19, pp. 37122-37164.
US Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology
and Office of Environmental Project Review. 1976. Guidelines for the
preparation of environmental reports for fossil-fueled steam electric
generating stations. Washington DC.
130
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field and laboratory
methods manual. EPA-670/4-73-001, Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for
effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the steam electric power generating point source category. EPA
Publication Number 440/l-74/029a, Group 1.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. A state-of-the-art report
on intake technologies. Tennessee Valley Authority. EPA-600/7-76-929.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Development document for
best technology available for the location, design, construction, and
capacity of cooling water intake structures for minimizing adverse en-
vironmental impact. EPA Publication Number 440/1-76/015-a.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Interagency 316(a) technical
guidance manual and guide for thermal effects of nuclear facilities
environmental impact statements. Draft. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Guidance for evaluating the
adverse impact of cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environ-
ment. Section 316(b). Public Law 92-500. Draft. Washington DC.
Van Winkle, W. 1977. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the
Effects of Power-Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. Permagon
Press, New York NY.
131
-------
Solid Waste Generation, Associated Impacts, and Control Techniques
Bradford, G. R., et al. 1975. Trace element concentrations of sewage
plant effluents and sludges; their interactions with soils and uptake by
plants. J. Environ. Quality 4:123-126, Jan-Mar.
Bucklen, 0. B., and P. G. Meikle. 1968. Coal storage and loading. In:
J. W. Leonard and D. R. Mitchell, eds., Coal Preparation, Am. Inst. Min.
Met. Petrol. Eng., New York, pp. 15-1 to 15-62.
Carlton, D. M., and 0. W. Hargrove. 1976. Impediments to the utilization
of flue gas desulfurization systems. Radian Corporation, P. 0. Box 9948,
Austin TX, June.
Cooper, H. B. 1975. The ultimate disposal of ash and other solids from
electric power generation. In: Water Management by the Electric Power
Industry, Water Resour. Symp. No. 8, Center for Res. in Water Resour.,
Univ. of Texas at Austin TX.
Hecht, N. L., and D. S. Duvall. 1975. Characterization and utilization of
municipal and utility sludges and ashes. Volume III. Utility coal ash.
EPA-670/2-75-033C, NERC-EPA, May.
Holland, W. F., et al. 1975. Environmental effects of trace elements from
ponded ash and scrubber sludge. Rep. 202, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto CA.
Klein, D. H. et al. 1975. Pathways of thirty-seven trace elements through
coal-fired power plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9(10):973-979.
Lord, W. H. 1976. Disposal of sludge from flue gas desulfurization.
Pollution Engineering, pp. 40-41, June.
US Bureau of Mines. 1974. Potential solid waste generation and disposal
from lime and limestone desulfurization processes. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular #8633.
132
-------
Modeling of Impacts: Thermal Plumes; Air Quality
Benedict, Barry, A., Jerry L.Anderson, and Edgar L. Yandell, Jr. 1974.
Analytical modeling of thermal dischargesa review of the state of the
art. Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
National Technical Information Service.
Butz, Brian P., Donald R. Schregardus, Barbara-Ann Lewis, Anthony J.
Policastro, and James J. Reisa, Jr. 1974. Ohio River cooling water
study. Argonne National Laboratory, EPA-905/9-74-004, June.
Carter, H. H. 1969. A preliminary report on the characteristics of a
heated jet discharged horizontally into a transverse current. Part I:
Constant depth. Technical report no. 61. Johns Hopkins University,
Chesapeake Bay Institute, Baltimore MD, November.
Csanady, G. T. 1970. Dispersal of effluents in the Great Lakes. Water
Research 4:79-114, January.
Dunn, William E., Anthony J. Policastro, and Robert A. Paddock. 1975a.
Water resources program, surface thermal plumes: evaluation of mathematical
models for the near and complete field. National Technical Information
Service, Volume 1, May.
Dunn, William E., Anthony J. Policastro, and Robert A. Paddock. 1975b. Water
resources research program, surface thermal plumes: evaluation of
mathematical models for the near and complete field. National Technical
Information Service, Volume II, August.
Edinger, J. E., and J. C. Geyer. 1965. Heat exchange in the environment.
Edison Electric Institute, New York NY.
Edinger, J. E., and E. M. Polk, Jr. 1969. Initial mixing of thermal
discharges into a uniform current. Report no. 1. Vanderfailt University,
Nashville TN, October.
Ellis, Dr. H. M. et al., Enviroplan Inc. 1975. Predicting SO- impact
from 1000 MW power plant. Power, July.
Harleman et al. 1973. A predictive model for transient temperature
distributions in unsteady flows. Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water
Resources and Hydrodynamics. MIT Technical Report no. 175.
Harrison, Elizabeth A., ed. 1977. Ecosystem models. Volume 2: November
1975-November 1977. A bibliography with abstracts NTISearch No. PS-
77/1011. NTIS, Springfield VA.
HEDL Environmental Engineering. 1972. The COLHEAT river simulation model.
HEDL-TME 72-103, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland WA.
133
-------
Hirst, Eric. 1971. Analysis of round, turbulent, buoyant jets discharged
to flowing ambients. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL-TM-3470.
Hoopes, J. A., R. W. Zeller, and G. A. Rohlich. 1969. Heat dissipation
and induced circulations from condenser cooling water discharges into
Lake Monona. Report no. 35. University of Wisconsin, Madison WI, February.
Jirka, Gerhard H., Gerrit Abraham, and D. R. F. Harleman. 1976. An
assessment of techniques for hydrothermal prediction. Prepared for the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Technical Information Service,
March.
Kolesar, D. C., and J. C. Sonnichsen, Jr. Undated. TOPLYR-II: A two-
dimensional thermal energy transport code. Hanford Engineering Develop-
ment Laboratory, Richland WA.
Lee, Samuel S., and Subrata Sengupta, eds. 1977. Proceedings of the
conference on waste heat management utilization. Volumes I, II, III.
Miami Beach, Florida. May 9-11.
Lietzke, M. H. 1977a. A validation of the kinetic model for predicting
the composition of chlorinated water discharged from power plant cooling
systems. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December.
Lietzke, M. H. 1977b. A kinetic model for predicting the composition of
chlorinated water discharged from power plant cooling systems. Prepared
for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
April.
Manage, K., Y. Watanabe, and A. Wada. 1966. Study on recirculation of
cooling water of Tsuruga Nuclear Power Station sited on Vrayoke Bay.
Coastal Engineering in Japan: 9.
Motz, L. H., and B. A. Benedict. 1970. Heater surface jet discharged
into a flowing ambient stream. Report No. 4. Vanderbilt University,
Department of Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, Nashville TN,
August.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. 1972. Automated forecast
procedures for river quality managementItem 1: Project report.
Cincinnati OH.
Ott, Wayne R., ed. 1976. Proceedings of the EPA conference on environmental
modelings and simulation, Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, April.
Parker, F. L., Barry A. Benedict, and Chii-Ell Tsai. 1975. Evaluation of
mathematical models for temperature prediction in deep reservoirs.
Ecological Research Series, Environmental Protection Agency, June.
134
-------
Policastro, A. J., et al. 1972. Heated effluent dispersion in large
lakes: state-of-the-art of analytical modeling. Part I: Critique of
model formulations. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL, January.
Policastro, A. J., and W. E. Dunn., Thermal pollution modeling. American
Geophysical Union. Water Resources Monograph Series to be published in 1978.
Pritchard, D. W. 1969. Modeling of heated discharges. Johns Hopkins
University, Chesapeake Bay Institute, Baltimore MD, August.
Ryan, Patrick J., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1973. An analytical and
experimental study of transient cooling pond behavior. Ralph M. Parsons
Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Report No. 161, MIT,.
January.
Ryan, Patrick J., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1971. Prediction of the annual
cycle of temperature changes in a stratified lake or reservoir. MIT
Laboratory Report no. 137, Cambridge MA.
Senshu, S., and A. Wada. 1965. Thermal diffusion of cooling water into
the stratified sea basin. In: Proceedings, llth Congress of the Inter-
national Association of Hydraulic Research. Leningrad USSR, pp. 286-293.
Shirazi, M. A., et al. 1973. An evaluation of ambient turbulent effects
on a buoyant plume model. Proceedings of the 1973 Summer Computer Simulation
Conference. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Shirazi, M. A., and Lorin A. Davis. 1972. Workbook of thermal plume
prediction. Volume 1, Submerged discharge. National Environmental
Research Center, Corvallis OR. U.S. Government Printing Office, August.
Shirazi, M. A., and Lorin A. Davis. 1974. Workbook of thermal plume
prediction. Volume 2, Surface discharge. National Environmental
Research Center, Corvallis OR. U.S. Government Printing Office, May.
Stolzenback, K., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1971. An analytical and
experimental investigation of surface discharges of heated water. Technical
Report no. 135. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hydrodynamics
Laboratory, February.
Sundaram, T. R., C. C. Easterbrook, K. R. Piech, and G. Rudinger. 1969a.
An investigation of heat release patterns associated with present and
planned electric power plants on Cayuga Lake. Final Report Summary,
CAL no. VT-2616-0-1. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., November.
Sundaram, T. R., C. C. Easterbrook, K. R. Piech, and G. Rudinger. 1969b.
An investigation of the physical effects of thermal discharges into
Cayuga Lake (analytical study). CAL no. VT-2616-0-2. Cornell Aeronautical
Laboratory, Inc., November.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Interim guideline on air
quality models. Washington DC.
135
-------
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1976. Estimating aquatic dispersion of
effluents from accidental and routine reactor releases for the purpose
o£ implementing appendix 1. Office of Standards and Development, May.
Wada, A. 1968. Studies of prediction of recirculation of cooling water
in a bay. In: Proceedings, llth Conference on Coastal Engineering,
London UK.
Wnek, W. Undated. Mathematical model for the dispersion of heat into a
lake. Illinois Institute of Technology Research.
136
-------
Electric Power Transmission Lines
General
Bonneville Power Administration. 1977. Electrical and biological effects of
transmission lines: A review. BPA, US Department of the Interior, Portland,
Oregon. 64 p.
Daily, N.S . (ed.). 1978. Environmental aspects of transmission lines - A
selected, annotated bibliography. ORNL/EIS-122. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 192 p.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1975. Transmission line reference
book, 345 kV and above. Palo Alto CA.
Electrical World. 1972. Transmission goals: Maximum rating with
minimum environmental impacts, June.
US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture. 1971.
Environmental criteria for electric transmission systems. Washington DC.
Noise Effects
Coquard, A., and C. Gary. 1972. Audible noise produced by electrical
power transmission lines at very high voltage. CIGRE Paper 36-03.
IEEE Committee Report. 1972. A guide for the measurement of
audible noise from transmission lines. In: IEEE transactions: Power
apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-91, pp. 857-864, May/June.
Fletcher, John L. and R. G. Busnel eds. 1978. Effects of noise on wildlife.
Academic Press, Inc. New York, NY., 320 p.
Peterson, Arnold P. G., and Ervin E. Gross, Jr. 1967. Handbook of
noise measurements. Sixth edition. General Radio Co., West Concord MA.
Radio and Television Interference
Aggers, C. V., D. E. Foster, and C. S. Young. 1940. Instruments and
methods of measuring radio noise. In: AIEE Transactions, Vol. 59,
pp. 178-192.
Clark, C. F., and M. 0. Loftness. 1970. Some observations of foul
weather EHV television interference. In: IEEE transactions: Power
apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-90, No. 6., July/August.
Jeuette, G. W. 1972. Evaluation of television interference from high-
voltage transmission lines. In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus
and systems, Vol. PAS-91, No. 3, pp. 865-873, May/June.
Jeuette, G. W., and L. E. Zaffanella. 1970. Radio noise, audible noise,
and corona loss of EHV and UHV transmission lines under rain: Predeter-
mination based on cag tests. In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus
and systems, Vol. PAS-89, No. 6, pp. 1168-1178, July/August.
137
-------
LaForest, J. J. 1968. Seasonal variations of fair-weather radio noise.
In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-87, No. 4,
pp. 928-931, April.
Pakala., W. E., and V. L. Chartier. 1971. Radio noise measurements on
overhead power lines from 2.4 to 800 kV. In: IEEE transactions: Power
apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-90, No. 3, pp. 1155-1165, May/June.
Corona Effects
Anderson, J. G., M. Baretsky, and D. D. MacCarthy. 1966. Corona loss
characteristics of EHV transmission lines based on project EHV research.
In: IEEE transactions, Vol. PAS-85, No. 12, pp. 1196-1212, December.
Clade, J. J., C. H. Gary, and C. A. LeFevre. 1969. Calculation of corona
losses beyond the critical gradient in alternating voltage. In: 'IEEE
transactions: Power apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-88, pp. 695-703.
Clade, J. J., and C. H. Gary. 1970. Predetermination of corona losses
under rain. Experimental interpreting and checking of a method to cal-
culate corona losses. In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus and
systems, Vol. PAS-89, pp. 853-859.
IEEE Committee Report. 1972. A guide for the measurement of audible
noise from transmission lines. In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus
and systems, Vol. PAS-91, pp. 8-53-856, May/June.
Naef, 0., et al. 1951. Techniques of corona loss measurement and
analysis: 500 kV test project of the American Gas and Electric Company.
In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus and systems, Vol. 70, Pt. I,
pp. 496-506.
Electrostatic Effects
Asanova, T. P., and A. I. Rakov (USSR). 1966. The state of health of
persons working in electric field of outdoor 400 and 500 kV switchyards.
Hygiene of Labor and Professional Diseases, No. 5.
Deno, D. W. 1974. Calculating electrostatic effects of overhead trans-
mission lines. Paper No. T-47-086-5, IEEE Power Winter Meeting, New York
NY, January.
Endrenyi, J. 1967. Analysis of transmission tower potentials during
ground faults. In: IEEE transactions: Power ground apparatus and
systems, pp. 1274-1283.
Gross, E. T. B., and M. H. Hesse. 1973. Electrostatically induced
voltage above high voltage lines. Journal of the Franklin Institute
295(2), February.
IEEE. 1972. Electrostatic effects of overhead transmission lines. Pt.
I: Hazards and effects. IEEE transactions: Power aparatus and systems,
Vol. PAS-91, No. 2, pp. 422-426, March/April.
138
-------
IEEE. 1972. Electrostatic effects of overhead transmission lines. Pt.
II: Methods of calculation. -IEEE transactions: Power apparatus and
systems, Vol. PAS-91, No. 2, pp. 426-444, March/April.
IEEE. 1973. Electromagnetic effects of overhead transmission lines.
Practical problems, safeguards, and methods of calculation. Paper No.
T73, pp. 441-443.
Korobkova, V. P., Y. A. Morozov, M. D. Stolarov, and Y. A. Yakub (USSR).
1972. Influence of the electric field in 500 and 750 kV switchyards on
maintenance and means for its protection. Conference on Large High
Tension Electric Systems (CIGRE) Paper 23-06.
Kouwenhoven, W. B., 0. R. Langworthy, M. L. Singewald, and G. G.
Knickerbocker. 1967. Medical evaluation of men working in AC electric
fields. In: IEEE transactions: Power apparatus and systems, pp. 506-511.
Takago, T., and T. Muto. 1971. Influences upon bodies and animals of
electrostatic induction caused by 500 kV transmission lines. Electrical
Engineering (Japan), February.
US Department of the Navy. 1977. Seafarer elf communication system: Final
environmental impact statement for site selection and test operation.
Washington, DC.
US Office of the President. 1973. Program for control of electromagnetic
pollution of the environment: The assessment of biological hazards of
nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. Office of Telecommunication Policy.
USSR. 1971. Rules and regulations on labour protection at 400, 500, and
750 kV AC substations and overhead lines of industrial frequency. USSR
SCNTY, Orgies.
Ozone Generation
Frydman, M., A. Levy, and S. Miller. 1972. Oxidant measurements in the
vicinity of energized 765 kV lines. IEEE T-72-551-0.
Scherer, H. N., Jr., B. J. Ware, and C. H. Shih. 1972. Gaseous effluents
due to EHV transmission line corona. IEEE T-72-550-2.
Whitmore, F. C., and R. L. Durfee. 1973. Determination of coronal ozone
production by high voltage transmission lines. EPA-650/4-73-003. US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Right-of-Way Management Techniques
Bramble, W. C., and W. R. Byrnes. 1972. Development of game food and
cover on a sprayed right-of-way. Ind. Vegetation Management 4(2).'8-10.
Cody, J. B. 1975. Vegetation management on power line rights-of-way:
A state-of-the-knowledge report. Research Report No. 28. Applied
Forestry Research Institute, Syracuse NY.
139
-------
Cody, J. B., and John R. Quimby. 1975. Vegetation management on utility
rights-of-way: An annotated bibliography. Research Report No. 27.
Applied Forestry Research Institute, Syracuse NY.
Egler, F. E. 1949. Right-of-way maintenance' by plant community management.
Aton Forest, Norfolk CT, p. 19.
Francisco, D. C. 1974. Environmental considerations in planning a brush
control program on utility rights-of-way. Util. Arbor. Assn. Newsletter
5(5):2-5.
Gillespie, J. L. 1973. Meeting the aesthetic and environmental challenge
in land clearing with machines. Util. Arbor. Assn. Newsletter 2(2):3-9.
Hall, W. C., and W. A. Niering. 1959. The theory and practice of success-
ful selective control of "brush" by chemicals. In: Proceedings, Northeast
Weed Control Conference 13:254-256.
Lawrence, W. H. 1967. Effects of vegetation management on wildlife.
In: Symposium proceedings: Herbicides and vegetation management. Oregon
State University, Corvallis OR, pp. 88-93.
Leith, R. H. 1974. Control of brush by grassing of transmission right-
of-way. Proceedings, Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 27:234-235.
Niering, W. A. 1958. Principles of sound rights-of-way vegetation
management. Econ. Bot. 12(3):140-144.
Niering, W. A., and R. H. Goodwin. 1974. Creation of relatively stable
shrublands with herbicides: Arresting "succession" on rights-of-way and
pastureland. Ecology 55(4)784-795.
Randall, W. E. 1973. Multiple use potential along power transmission
rights-of-way. In: R. Goodland. ed. Power lines and the environment.
Gary Arboretum, Millbrook NY, pp. 89-113.
Rossman, W. R. 1972. Power line rights-of-way management through
selective use of herbicides. Ind. Vegetation Management 4(3):2-6.
Tillman, Robert, ed. 1976. Proceedings of the First National Symposium
on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, January 6-8, 1976.
Mississippi State University. Available from D. H. Arner, Drawer LW,
Mississippi State University MS
US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture. 1971.
Environmental criteria for electric transmission systems. Washington DC.
Wagner, J. F. 1971. Creating wildlife habitat on utility rights-of-way.
Ind. Vegetation Management 3(1):15-17.
140
-------
Biocide Use and Effects
Allen, J. R., and L. A. Carstens. 1967. Light and electron microscopic
observations in Maraca mulatta monkeys fed toxic fat. Am. Jour. Vet.
28:1513.
Altom, J. D., and J. F. Stritzke. 1973. Degradation of cidamba, picloram,
and four phenoxy herbicides in soils. Weed Science 21(6):556-560.
Bohmont, B. L. Toxicity of herbicides to livestock, fish, honeybees,
and wildlife. In: Proceedings, 20th Western Weed Conference 21:25-27.
Butler, P. A. 1965. Effects of herbicides on estuarine fauna. In:
Proceedings, Southern Weed Conference 18:576-580.
Coring, C. A. I., J. D. Griffith, F. C. O'Melia, H. H. Scott, and C. R.
Youngson. 1967. The effects of tordon on microorganisms and soil bio-
logical processes. Down to Earth 22(4):14-17.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1975. The
phenoxy herbicides. Weed Science 23(3):253-263.
Edson, E. F., and D. M. Sanderson. 1965. Toxicity of the herbicides
2-methoxy-3, 6-dichlorobenzoic (Dicamba), and 2-methoxy 3,5,6-trichloro-
benzoic acid (Tricaba). Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 3:299-304.
Hardy, J. L. 1966. Effect of tordon herbicide on aquatic food chain
organisms. Down to Earth 22(2):11-13.
Harvey, R. G. 1975. Benefits and hazards of herbicides. Ind. Vegetation
Management 7(1):8-12.
Herr, D. E., E. W. Strouble, and D. A. Ray. 1966. The movement and
persistence of picloram in soil. Weeds 14:248-250.
Lynn, G. E. 1965. A review of toxicological information on tordon
herbicides. Down to Earth 20(4):68.
Macek, K. J. 1969. Biological magnification of pesticide residues in
food chains. In: The biological impact of pesticides in the environment.
Environmental Health Service 1. Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.
Spector, W. S. ed. 1955. Handbook of toxicology. Technical Report
55-16, Vol. 1. NAS-NRS Wright Air Development Center.
Tucker, R. K., and D. G. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of toxicity of pesti-
cides to wildlife. Resource Publication No. 84. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, p. 131.
Williams, C. S. 1971. Fate of tordon herbicides containing picloram in
the ecosystem. Ind. Vegetation Management 3(1):18-20.
141
-------
Assessment of Transportation-Related Impacts
Armbruster, F. E., and B. J. Candela. 1976. Research analysis of factors
affecting transportation of coal by rail and slurry pipeline. 2 Vols.,
HI-2409 RR, Hudson Institute, Croton-on-Hudson.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1973. Electric power.
Darling, E. M., Jr. 1972. Computer modeling of transportation-generated
air pollution: A state-of-the-art survey. Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-72-20.
US Department of Transportation, Washington DC, June.
Gray,#. S., and P. F. Mason. 1975. Slurry pipelines: What the coal
man should know in the planning stages. Coal Age 80(8):58-62.
Highway Research Board. 1971. Highway noise: A design guide for
highway engineers. NCHRP 117. Washington DC.
Kopperdall, F. R. et al. undated. Water quality of some logged and un-
logged California streams. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No.
71-12, Resources Agency of California, Dept. of Fish and Game.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1970. Effects of deicing
salts on water quality and biota: Literature review and recommended re-
search. Report 91. Highway Research Board, Washington DC.
US Atomic Energy Commission. 1974. Comparitive risk-cost-benefit study
of alternative sources of electrical energy. WASH-1224, AEC.
US Department of Transportation. 1975. Environmental assessment note-
book series. Volumes 1-6. DOT P-5600.4. Washington DC.
US Energy and Resources Development Administration. 1975. Synthetic
fuels commercialization progarm. Draft Environmental Statement, ERDA-
1547, Energy and Res. Develop. Admin., Dep. of Interior.
142
-------
Raw Material Handling', Associated Impacts, and Control Technologies
Bucklen, 0. B., and P. G. Meikle. 1968. Coal storage and loading. In:
J. W. Leonard and D. R. Mitchell, eds., Coal Preparation, Am. Inst. Min.
Met. Petrol. Eng., New York, pp. 15-1 to 15-62.
Deurbrouck, A. W., and P. S. Jacobsen. 1974. Coal cleaning - sta,te of the
art. Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Oct.
Hecht, N. L., and D. S. Duvall. 1975. Characterization and utilization
of municipal sludges and ashes. Volume III. Utility coal ash.
EPA-670/2-75-033C, NERC-EPA, May.
National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Mineral resources and the environment.
Washington DC.
US Department of Interior. 1976. Final environmental impact statement,
Kaiparowits Project. Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. National primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards. 36FR22384, Nov. 1971, and 38FR25678, Sept. 1973.
Williams, R. E. 1975. Mined area reclamation. In: Waste Production and
Disposal, Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco CA.
143
-------
Noise Generation, Associated Impacts, and Control Technologies
Beranek, L. L. 1971. Noise and vibration control. McGraw Hill.
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from construction equipment
operations, building equipment, and home appliances. A report prepared
for the US EPA. Washington DC.
Capano and Bradley. 1974. Acoustical impact of cooling towers. Acousti-
cal Society of America.
Reilly, J. P. 1976. Power plant noise models for community impacts
studies. NOISEXPO Proceedings.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1974. ^loise assessment
guidelines. Report TE/NA 172.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Effects of noise on wildlife
and other animals. Washington DC
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Levels of environmental noise
requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin
of safety. Report 550/9-74-004. Washington DC.
Wells, F. J. 1972. Power plant acoustical treatment for noise control.
Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
144
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
, EPA-130/5-79-001
2.
3, RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for New
Source Fossil Fueled Steam Electric Generating
Stations
5. REPORT DATE
1 Q7Q
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
David B. Boies, D. Keith Whitenight, Raymond B.
Boeardus. and Frank Parker
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
613/A
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
WAPORA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4157, Task 003a
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/100/102
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Task Officer is John Meagher, (202)755-0790
16. ABSTRACT
The report provides guidance for evaluating the environmental impacts of
a proposed fossil fueled steam electric generating station requiring a new
source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discharge wastewater to the navigable
waters of the U.S. The guidelines are intended to assist in the identification
of potential impacts, and the information requirements for evaluating such
impacts, in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). An EIA is a document
prepared for EPA by a new source permit applicant; it is used by the Agency to
determine if the preparation of an Environmental Impact statement (EIS) is
warranted for the proposed facility.
The report includes guidance on (1) identification of potential wastewater
effluents, air emissions, and solid wastes from fossil fueled steam electric
generating stations, (2) assessment of the impacts of such residuals on the
quality of the environment, (3) state-of-the-art technology for in-process and
end-of-process control of waste streams, (4) evaluation of alternatives, and
(5) environmental regulations that apply to the industry. In addition, the
guidelines include an "overview" chapter that gives a general description of
the fossil fuel power industry, significant problems associated with it, and recent
trends in location, raw materials, processes, pollution control, & the demand for in-
dustry autput.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Thermal Power Plants
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Environmental Impact
Assessment
10A
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
153
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thapage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U.S.
OWB.HJ1-261-U7/107
145
------- |