THERMAL POLLUTION
ITS EFFECTS AND TREATMENT
FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION
NORTHWEST REGION
PORTLAND,OREGON
-------
THERMAL POLLUTION
ITS EFFECTS AND TREATMENT
Presented to the
Conference on Wastes Engineering
- University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 9, 1970
Prepared by
Robert W. Zeller, Ph.D
Working Paper
No. 72
United States Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Northwest Region
501 Pittock Block
Portland, Oregon 97205
February 1970
-------
A Horking Paper presents results of
investigations .which are to some extent
limited or incomplete. Therefore,
conclusions or recommendations--
expressed or implied—are tentative.
-------
CONTENTS
• - - Page No.
INTRODUCTION . . . .! 1
POWER NEEDS . 2
THERMAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION AS A WASTE HEAT SOURCE . . 3
THERMAL POLLUTION EFFECTS 8
WASTE HEAT TREATMENT 12
WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION -.. . 17
THERMAL POWER PLANT SITING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY 22
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1 SCHEMATIC OF BASIC RANKINE POWER CYCLE . 4
2 TEMPERATURE-ENTROPY DIAGRAMS OF RANKINE CYCLES . 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1 PREDICTED ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ..... 3
2 CALCULATED FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR VARYING LEVELS
OF TREATMENT EFFICIENCY AND WATER TEMPERATURE:
OHIO RIVER . 10
3 .AVERAGE U. S. CONSUMER COST INCREASE FOR WASTE
HEAT TREATMENT OVER ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WITH
FRESH WATER (%) 16
-------
INTRODUCTION
Thermal pollution is not a new concept here in Minnesota.
Effects of waste heat discharges to the Mississippi River in the
Twin City area were discussed by the University of Minnesota in its
first major report on the "Pollution and Recovery Characteristics
of the Mississippi River"^) published in 1958. A pioneering effort
in water temperature prediction was presented by the University in
its 1961 report'^' on the same subject.
Nationally, thermal pollution has become an increasingly pop-
ular topic for conversation in water management and pollution control
circles. Hith the approval of State-Federal water quality standards,
the criteria and implementation plans- for control of waste heat dis-
charges have been established. The intensity of public concern
over thermal pollution problems has had a noticeable effect on the
power industry. Speaking before the American'Power Conference in
1969, Mr. L. G. Mauser of Westinghouse Electric said: "...it is
obvious...that the country faces a very real and serious problem in
disposing of waste heat. It is equally obvious that, this problem
cannot be solved, in the long run, by increasing allowable temper-
ature limits for the natural bodies of water or by receiving special
deviations from established thermal regulation standards"^)
Similarly, Morgan and Bramer state that: "The (water quality)
standards set for interstate streams and coastal waters...can only
be expected to become more stringent in the future."'4) In my
opinion, most Federal and State administrators in environmental
-------
resource and regulatory agencies wholeheartedly support these view-
points.
In the following paragraphs I will present current information
and thinking on several major aspects of thermal pollution. I have
tried to select specific references, which I feel are most useful,
from the available literature for presentation in the text. Many
of these references can be made available upon request. The
National Thermal Pollution Research Program, FWPCA, Corvallis,
Oregon, is a valuable resource for special information and consult-
ative services which may be obtained by writing to Mr. Frank
Rainwater, Director.
POWER NEEDS
Industrial cooling water needs account for about 50 percent of
all water used in the United States. In 1964 diversions for cooling
water needs totaled over 50 trillion gallons;^) 80 percent of this
total was for the condensers of the electric power industry. By
the year 2000, it is expected that the electric power industry will
need 92 percent of the total industrial cooling water supplies.^)
The need for increased cooling water supplies will accompany rapidly
increasing needs for electricity and an increasing number of nuclear
power plants as a percentage of the total. In 1965 electric power
generation totaled 1.06 billion kilowatt hours (KHH) and peak
generation was 0.19 million KW; by 1990 the total is expected to reach
5.85 billion KWH, with a peak of 1.06 million KW. Table 1 shows
predicted energy and peak generation requirements through
-------
TABLE 1
PREDICTED ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Contiguous
Energy
(106KWH)
1058
1522
2187
3075
4247
5828
U.S.
Peak
(103KW)
188
277
396
554
766
1051
Total
Energy
(106KWH)
1060
1527
2194
3086
4263
5852
U.S.
Peak
(103KW)
189
278
398
556
769
1056
These numbers are meaningless, of course, unless we understand
their significance locally in terms of potential waste heat dis-
charges to receiving streams. The essential ideas for this under-
standing are presented in the following paragraphs.
THERMAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION AS A HASTE HEAT SOURCE
All major thermal electric power plants in the United States
operate on the Rankine cycle and all follow the general pattern
i
schematized in Figure l.(8_) As can be seen from Figure 1, the
primary difference between fossil-fueled and nuclear-fueled power
plants is in the heat source for steam generation. Typical,
modern fossil-fueled boilers provide steam at 3000 psi and 1000°F.
-------
Because of reactor safety requirements, the current generation of
nuclear-fueled reactors of the boiling water or pressurized v/ater
types produce steam at about 600 °F and about 1000 psi or 2000 psi,
respectively.
Electricity Out
Turbine
Boiler
(Reactor)
L
Heat In
K2J
Condenser
\
Heat Rejected
"Work In
FIGURE 1. Schematic of Basic Rankin Power Cycle.
-------
Figure 2 shows the basic Rankine cycle. Inputs and outputs are
labeled according to the functional parts of the power plant diagram
in Figure 1 as follows: .
(3) to (4) is the work input provided by the feed water pump
to the boiler;
(4).to (1) is the thermal input provided by the boiler;
(1) to (2) is the conversion of thermal energy to mechanical/
electrical energy by the turbine-generator units.
(2) to (3) is the heat rejection incurred by condensing
spent steam to water for recycling. .
0
03
h
-------
Thermal efficiency of the basic Rankine cycle is calculated
as the quotient of the work output divided by the thermal input as
follows: F ^Turbine - WPump (hrh2) - (h4-h3)
th = Qin = r—;
(.h-| -h4)
where h is the enthalpy, or heat content, of the respective points
on the Rankine cycle. The maximum efficiency of this cycle, cor-
responding to present fossil-fueled power plant design, is about
42 percent and presumes superheating the steam as shown in Figure 1
by the dashed line extension of points (1) and (2). Maximum thermal
efficiency of the present generation nuclear power plants is only
about 33 percent. An alternative relationship for calculating
thermal efficiency is to divide the thermal equivalent of electrical
energy output by the thermal input as follows:
Electricity Output 3413 BTU/KWH x 100
Etn= Thermal Input = 3413'BTU/KWH + Waste Heat (BTU/KWH)
The denominator of this efficiency equation is called the "heat rate"
of a plant and represents the average amount of heat required to
produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity. Not all of the "waste
heat" is discharged to the receiving stream, however. Some of the
waste heat in fossil-fueled plants, about 10 percent, is discharged
with the "stack" emissions; an additional 5 percent is wasted
within the plant as radiation and other losses. Inplant losses for
nuclear power plants are estimated at 5 percent.
On this basis, then, waste heat discharged with the condenser
cooling water can be calculated as follows:
-------
Fossil-fueled plant:
Heat to cooling water = (0.85 x heat rate-3413)BTU/KWH
At 40 percent efficiency
3413
Heat rate = 0.40 = 8533 BTU/KWH
Heat to cooling water = (0.85 x 8533) - 3413 = 3800 BTU/KWH
Nuclear-fueled plant:
Heat to cooling water = (0.95 x heat rate - 3413) BTU/KWH
At 33 percent efficiency
3413
Heat rate = 0.33 = 10,340 BTU/KWH
Heat to cooling water = (0.95 x 10,340) - 3413 = 6400 BTU/KWH
The difference in waste heat rejection to the cooling water be-
tween fossil-fueled and nuclear-fueled plants is obviously significant:
65 to 70 percent greater for the nuclear plants. The importance of
this difference is driven home by the prediction that'nuclear-fueled
power plants will provide two-thirds of the thermal-electric energy
requirements by the year 2000.' '
Another obvious conclusion from the above numbers is that
thermal-electric power generation is extremely inefficient, result-
ing in huge quantities of wasted energy. Improvements in fossil-
fueled power generation efficiency are limited by available steam
conditions in the Rankine cycle as described above. Modern fossil-
fueled plants are approaching the practicable limit on thermal
efficiency.
-------
8
Nuclear-fueled plants can and will be more efficient with third
and fourth generation power reactors, using gas or liquid metal for
primary coolant instead of water. Maximum efficiency of the high
temperature gas/metal power reactors is still limited, however, by
the Rankine cycle at about 42 percent.
There are several alternatives to the conventional Rankine
cycle, which are in various stages of development and use. In-
cluded among the alternatives are electric power generation by
magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and fuel cells. None are projected to
be of major importance in the foreseeable future. Gas turbines
(jet engines) are being installed in power-peaking units and do not
reject waste heat to water cooling systems. These units are rel-
atively inefficient, however,- and are not expected to replace con-
ventional thermal-electric units for base power generation.
Because there appears to be little hope in minimizing, or
even slowing down, the projected increase in waste heat rejection
from thermal power plants, it is important to consider effects of
temperature increases on the aquatic environment. In short, is
thermal pollution a serious threat.to existing and potential water
resources and uses?
THERMAL POLLUTION EFFECTS
It is important at th.is. point to di.spe.l any notion tHat general
temperature increases in the aquatic environment can ever be de-
scribed as "thermal enrichment." Not that temperature increases
under certain circumstances cannot be considered beneficial--they
-------
9
are. The danger in using a term like "thermal enrichment" lies in
the hazardous conclusion that only excessive temperature increases
are bad. While we argue over what constitutes an excessive temp-
erature increase, disaster may strike in the form of fish kills,
unwanted algal blooms, or unacceptable water supplies for specific
municipal and industrial uses. With this in mind, the following
paragraphs include examples of specific physical, chemical, and
biological responses to thermal pollution.
Gas solubilities are inversely proportional to water temper-
ature; the saturation level for dissolved oxygen (DO) is reduced
50 percent with a water temperature increase from 32 °F to 90 °F;
almost 0.1 mg/1 per 1 °F temperature rise. Dissolved nitrogen be-
haves similarly to small increases in water temperature and with
lethal effects to fish under conditions of dissolved nitrogen super-
•
saturation.
Water temperature increases have the same effect on a stream's
dissolved oxygen resources as organic loadings from sewage treat-
ment plants. The Ohio Basin Region, FWPCA, calculated this effect
on the Ohio River as shown in Table 2.' ' From Table 2 it is seen,
for example, that flow requirements to maintain 5.0 mg/1 of DO
increase about 50 percent between 80.6 °F and 86'°F. This ad-
verse response to temperature increases is explained as a lopsided
balance among accelerated decomposition of organic materials, de-
creased DO saturation levels, and increased surface reaeration rates.
-------
10
TABLE 2 .
CALCULATED FLOW "REQUIREMENTS
FOR VARYING LEVELS OF TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
AND WATER TEMPERATURE; OHIO RIVER
Treatment
Efficiency
92
95
98
* (D
** (2)
Required Flows at Given Temperatures - cfs
68
(D*
280
235
185
Minimum
ti
°F
(2)**
529
351
299
80
(D
664
324
256
DO objective
" < '
i
.6°F
(2)
1282
693
425
= 4.0
- 5.0
86
(D
919
370
292
mg/1
11
°F
(2)
1748
1063
502
91
(D
1216
585
339
.4 °F
(2)
2422
1552
606
The interaction of these phenomena has been related mathematically
by a number of researchers to show the response of receiving stream
DO levels to water temperature-flow-organic loading conditions.
In one of these studies, Dysart notes that "In a river basin which
receives significant amounts of both heat and BOD, it is possible,
for example, that increased overall, economic efficiency might be
attained by cooling thermal wastes to a greater extent than required
simply to meet the stream's temperature standards, thereby decreas-
ing treatment costs for organic wastes."
Water temperatures influence algal populations directly accord-
ing to the following temperature preferences:
-------
11
diatoms (Chrysophyta) - 59 to 77 °F
greens (Chlorophyta) - 77 to 95 °F
blue-greens (Cyanophyta) - 96 to 104 °F
The blue-greens are particularly unacceptable as a group; conse-
quently, a shift in population dominance to blue-greens is considered
adverse.
Most saprobic bacteria (responsible for decomposition of organic
materials) and parasitic bacteria are below their optimum temperature
(12}
ranges at normal water temperatures in the United States. '
Parasitic bacteria, particularly, prefer temperatures from 86 to
104 °F. Consequently, water temperature increases favoring these
undesirable .bacterial forms must be considered adverse.
Temperature effects on fish and shellfish are numerous--too
numerous to discuss in detail here—and can be categorized according
to life stage and geographical distribution of individual species.
In a presentation before the ORSANCO Engineering Committee, the
National Water Quality Laboratory, FWPCA, Duluth, stated: "...a
family of curves must be developed to represent annual temperature
regimes and to identify desirable fish species able to thrive under
each of these temperature regimes."' ' The Columbia River Thermal
Effects Study, scheduled for completion this June, has coordinated
24 research studies on anadromous fish responses to temperature
changes. This has been a cooperative program of the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and FWPCA under the
leadership of the Northwest Regional Office, FWPCA.
-------
12
In their recommendations for thermal pollution control in
Biscayne Bay, the Hoover Foundation included arguments based on
(1) avoiding disturbance of natural temperature changes resulting
in potential "biological deserts;" (2) avoiding the disruption of
delicate balances in the biotic food chain and predator-prey re-
lationships; and (3) the slow, complex, insidious nature of many
(13)
biological responses to water temperature changes.
Finally, the National Technical Advisory Committee discussed
available knowledge on water temperature requirements for specific
users in their Water Quality Criteria Report of 1968.' ^ These
requirements, many of v/hich are reflected in State-Federal Water
Quality Standards criteria, are simply not compatible with in-
discriminate discharges of cooling water from thermal-electric
power plants. It is for the reason that waste heat treatment must
be included as an integral function of most future power plants,
and as an added function to many existing plants.
WASTE HEAT TREATMENT
For thermal-electric power plants located on inland fresh
waters, there are only two practicable alternatives for waste heat
treatment at the present time—cooling ponds and co'oling towers.
As implied above, direct discharge of condenser cooling water to
receiving streams with inadequate dilution should not be considered
as an acceptable alternative. In fact, in many locations, the
cooling water cycle should be "closed" with no residual waste heat
discharged to the receiving stream. Mauser concluded in his
-------
13
presentation before the American Power Conference that by the end
of the 1970's the only once-through cooling sites available will be
on the sea coasts, serving 30 percent of the projected power needs.
Therefore, 70 percent of new baseloads at that time will require
some form of waste heat treatment. '^)
Cooling ponds can be a relatively low cost, effective, multi-
purpose mode for waste heat treatment. Generally speaking, cooling
ponds can be specifically designed impoundments for this purpose or
result from effective utilization of existing impoundments. In
either case, they can serve other functions, including recreation,
sports fishing, and flow .regulation for downstream users. In terms
of overall impact on the environment, cooling ponds are definitely
recommended.
Cooling ponds specifically designed for this function should be
channelized to maintain "flow through" circulation, thereby taking
advantage of the exponential relationship of heat dissipation to
water surface temperature. Required surface area for these "flow
through" cooling ponds can be estimated as follows:''5^
A = Q. In toTj ; acres
k
where
Q = cooling water flow; AF/day
k = heat transfer coefficient (2.0 ft/day, for example)
*TO= temperature rise across the power plant; °F
If temperature difference between pond discharge and
A plant intake; °F
-------
14
For a 100.0 MW power plant (Q = 2000 AF/day, ATQ = 30 °F and an
acceptable residual temperature (ATj) of 3 °F, the calculated sur-
face area is 2300 acres. This is close to a commonly used yard-
stick estimate based on two acres per MW, or 2000 acres total for a
1000 MW plant.
For comparison, the required surface area for a completely-
mixed pond (uniform temperatures throughout) can be calculated as
f ol 1 ows :
5.
. _
A = k ATm
where AT = difference between pond temperature and plant intake
temperature; °F
Calculated surface area for the same 1000 MW plant would.be 9000
acres; consequently, the recommendation to design for "flow
through" circulation insofar .as possible.
For most cooling ponds, the circulation patterns will be some-
where between "flow through" and "completely mixed." Theoretically,
then, the average cooling pond should be larger than 2000 acres for a
1000 MW plant. In fact, however, the design engineers may compensate
to some extent for pond circulation pattern handicaps by concentrating
power plant discharges at the water surface. The heated surface layer
takes additional advantage of the exponential temperature-heat dissi-
pation relationship. Induced stratification offers' a second advantage
of permitting cooler water withdrawals at power plant intakes located
on the pond bottom.
Where adequate land is unavailable for cooling ponds, wet-type
cooling towers are an acceptable, moderate cost alternative for
waste heat treatment. The functional parts of wet cooling towers
-------
15
used in large power plant installations include (1) inlet water
distribution system; (2) a "packing" layer to increase water-air
contact surface area; (3) inlet air louvres; (4) "drift" (carry-
over of water droplets with tower vapor) eliminator vanes;
(5) cooled water basin; and (6) air movement equipment. Mechanical
draft towers regulate air flow by means of large fans. Natural
draft towers (commonly hyperbolically shaped) induce air flow by
density differences between the air-water vapor mixture inside the
tower shell and ambient air.
Both mechanical and natural draft towers, with numerous vari- .
ations, can be designed to effectively "treat" power plant cooling
water. (8), (12), (16)
Of special interest to us at this point are the costs of waste
heat treatment, particularly in response to allegations that econom-
ical arguments-precl ude effective thermal pollution control. The
most comprehensive document available at the present time on en-
vironmental considerations of waste heat treatment is "A Survey of
Thermal Power Plant Cooling Facilities."^ ' The survey participants
concluded that properly designed and operated cooling ponds and
towers do not contribute significantly to ground fogging or icing
conditions; overall environmental effects are entirely acceptable.
Their conclusions were generally supported in a report by power
company officials entitled "Field Investigations of Environmental
Effects of Cooling Towers for Large Steam Electric Plants.")^8'
-------
16
The cost of waste heat treatment alternatives has been widely
reported on. (3), (8), (19) Tichenor summarizes the cost calcula-
tions in the most meaningful form...estimates of increased cost to
the consumer/ ' Table 3 shows that the increase in cost of
electricity to the consumer for waste heat treatment over once-
through cooling with fresh water will range from 1 to 3 percent.
Mauser concludes that: "The economic penalties associated with
alternative cooling systems will not deter the electrical generation
'X.
growth in this country."'3' From the increased costs shown in Table
3, I believe this to be a reasonable conclusion.
TABLE -3
AVERAGE U. S. CONSUMER COST INCREASE
FOR WASTE HEAT TREATMENT
OVER ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WITH FRESH WATER (%)
Cooling System
Once-through with
salt water
Cooling ponds
Wet-mechanical draft
towers
Wet-natural draft towers
Industrial
0.34
0.94
3.17
1.48
Consumer Type
Commercial
0.16
0.43
' 1.41
0.68
Residential
0.14
0.39
1.28
0.62
Of course, the idealistic approach to thermal pollution coiitrol
is through waste heat utilization as discussed below.
-------
17
WASTE.HEAT UTILIZATION
Potential uses of nuclear waste heat were presented and dis-
cussed in a report of the AUA-ANL Engineering Practice School,
Argonne National Laboratory. Existing uses included regulation
of water temperatures in fish hatcheries and warm water irrigation.
Potential uses included space heating with steam or hot water;
refrigeration; desalination; food processing; chemical processes;
metallurgical processes; agriculture; sewage treatment; and heat
engines. The overall prognosis of this study group for large scale
waste heat utilization was not very optimistic. The usual problems
included poor quality of the available waste heat; unfavorable
geographic limitations; conflicts in power plant and "user
industry" load factors; and limitatipns of individual industries
to handle such large quantities of heat and/or volumes of water.
Warm water irrigation is the subject of study and experimenta-
tion .in the Northwest. The Eugene Water and Electric Board has
initiated studies using hot water from a Weyerhaueser pulp mill
for multi-crop experimentation on six separate farms. Cold water
"control" plots serve as the basis for judging effects of heated
water over water at natural temperatures.- Results to date have been
encouraging, but inconclusive. Oregon State University scientists
are experimenting with the effect of soil heating (electrical cables
6 ft. apart at 3 ft. depth) on growth rate and quality of tomatoes,
strawberries, sv/eet corn, field corn, alfalfa, bush beans, lima
beans, and soy beans. Compared to unheated control plots, the
-------
18
heated plots yielded healthier, more uniform plants and faster.
growth rates.
Joyner discusses the advantages and potential for utilizing
waste heat for the promotion of shrimp and lobster production in
Puget Sound.' *' Again, the prognosis for large scale benefits
from this type of waste heat application is not'promising.
A comprehensive discussion of waste heat utilization can be
found in the Office of Science and Technology Report, "Considerations
Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection." ^22' . Detailed present-
ations are included on multi-purpose plant siting including power
reactors in combination with desalination plants, major industrial
processes, and agro-industrial processes.
Overall, it must be concluded that waste heat utilization will
not alleviate thermal pollution problems significantly in the fore-
seeable future. Research and development in this direction is
continuing, however, and is a commendable effort.
THERMAL POWER PLANT SITING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
At this point it is clear that the problem of pollution from
thermal-electric power plants must be faced--squarely and
effectively, ignoring, this problem or delaying positive action
is certainly inadvisable. We have several considerations to
summarize from the above sections:
1.. • The rapidly expanding need for thermal-electric power;
2. The huge quantities of waste heat rejected by fossil and
' nuclear-fueled power plants;
-------
19
3. The limited need for waste heat utilization;
4. The dramatic, albeit insidious, effects of thermal pollu-
tion on the aquatic environment;
5. The availability of economic means for waste heat treat-
ment;
6. The approved State-Federal water q'uality Standards
criteria and requirements for implementation.
Obvious conclusions to be drawn from these considerations include:
1. Thermal power plants must be located, designed, and oper-
ated to assure protection of existing and future water re-
sources and uses;
2. Indiscriminate discharge of "untreated" cooling water to
inland streams is generally incompatible with standards
criteria and should be avoided.
3. Power planners should consider environmental effects
and constraints early in their site studies to avoid un-
necessary loss of time and money spent on sites and plant
designs unacceptable to the responsible regulatory agencies.
Because of the appropriateness to this presentation, the
following quotations have been extracted from the paper by Morgan
(4}
and Bramer. '
"When several alternative sites are being evaluated...
thermal pollution considerations might be of great
importance in final selection of a site."
During pre-site selection surveys..."Present and pro-
jected availability and quality of water for gener-
ation and cooling, as well as site suitability for
reservoirs, cooling towers, etc., should be determined."
-------
20
"It is not necessary, of course, that pollution abatement
requirements be economically justified..."
"It is.apparent...that the average fisherman...is not
likely to be much impressed by increased electric
costs due to pollution abatement. The required 1.3
billion dollar investment in thermal effluent control
does not appear to be excessive if any substantial
increase would thus be realized in a seventeen billion
dollar annual business."
"Baseline ecological and engineering studies should
precede land acquisition or construction planning."
The subject of power plant siting is presented in broad per-
spective in "Considerations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site
(22) '•
Selection."v ' A specific problem discussed in.this report is the
lack of Federal licensing authority with the responsibility for assur-
ing compliance with interstate water quality standards criteria on
temperature. Pending legislation in Congress (S7 and HR 4148)
would compensate for this deficiency by requiring: "Any applicant
for a Federal license or permit...shall provide...certification
from each State or interstate water pollution control agency...
that such activity will not reduce the quality of such waters be-
low applicable water quality standards." Properly implemented,
this requirement would provide the needed vehicle for minimizing
damage to the aquatic environment from thermal pollution.
A final word of caution. Experience to date has shown that
the power companies are not taking full advantage of the available
State and Federal resources in preliminary power plant site studies.
Power companies are too often committing themselves on site selection,
-------
21
including land acquisition, before consulting with the environmental
and/or regulatory agencies on the environmental acceptability of
a site. This can and should be avoided by soliciting from the
responsible agencies a recommended list of information needed by
the agencies in their evaluation of proposed power plant sites.
The utilities would then satisfy themselves that the needed in-
formation is compiled and made available to the regulatory agencies
before committing themselves on a site selection. With this in-
formation, the responsible agencies can act promptly and fairly in
arriving at their decisions on site acceptability based upon the
criteria of established water quality standards.
-------
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) "Pollution'and Recovery Characteristics of the Mississippi
River," Vol. I, Part I; San. Engr. Report 110S; Univ.
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., Jan. 1, 1958.
(2) "Pollution 'and Recovery Characteristics of the Mississippi
River," Vol. I, Part III; San. Engr. Div., Univ. of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
(3) "Cooling Water Requirements for the Growing Thermal Genera-
tion Additions of the Electric Utility Industry,"
L. J. Hauser for the American Power Conference, Chicago,
111., April 1969.
(4) "Thermal Pollution as a Factor in Power Plant Site
Selection," Morgan, Mgr. of Science Services, Cyrus
WM. Rice &'Co., Pittsburgh, Penn. and.H. C. Bramer,
VP, Gurnham, Bramer'S Assoc., Chicago, 111.,.1969.
(5) United States Department of. Commerce, 1963 Census of
Manufacturers; United States Government Printing
Office.
(6) "Industrial Discharges," Tor Kolflat; Industrial Water
Engineering; 5:3:26-31; 1968.
(7) Federal Power Commission News Release, No. 16323; 9/24/69.
(8) "A Survey and Economic Analysis of Alternate Methods for
Cooling Condenser Discharge Water in Thermal Power
Plants-.-Task I Report: Survey of Large-Seale Heat
Rejection Equipment," J. H. Carey, et al; Dynatech
Rept. No. 849; Dynatech R/D Co., Cambridge, Mass.,
7/21/69/
(9) Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Present-
ations--ORSANCO Engineering Committee, 17th Meeting,
Cincinnati, Ohio; 9/10/69.
(10) "Water Quality Planning in the Presence of Interacting
Pollutants," B. C. Dysart III; Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina 10/69.
(11) "Problems in Disposal of Waste Heat from Steam-Electric
Plants," Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Power;
1969.
-------
23
(12) "Industrial Waste Guide on Thermal Pollution," National Thermal
Pollution Research Program, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Lab., Corvallis,
Oregon; 9/68.
(13) "Temperature Studies—Lower Biscayne Bay, Florida," Southeast
Water Lab., Federal Water Pollution Control Administration;
Athens, Ga; 10/68.
(14) "Water Quality Criteria," Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.; 4/1/68.
(15) "Cooling Pond Requirements...Simplified," personal com-
munication R. W. Zeller to H. Simison; Northwest Regional
Office; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration;
Portland, Oregon; 1/23/68.
(16) "Waste Heat from Steam-Electric Generating Plants Using Fossil
Fuels and Its Control," S. P. Mathur; Technical Assistance
and Investigations Branch, Federal.Water Pollution Control
Administration: Cincinnati, Ohio; 5/68.
(17) "A Survey of Thermal Power Plant Cooling Facilities,"
Pollution Control Council, Pacific Northwest Area; 4/69.
•
(18) "Field Investigations of Environmental Effects of Cooling
Towers for Large Steam Electric Plants," Portland General
Electric Company, Portland, Oregon; 4/1/68.
(19) "The Cost of Waste Heat Treatment and Control," B. A. Tichenor;
National Thermal Pollution Research Program, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Pacific Northwest Water
Lab., Corvallis, Oregon; 9/69.
(20) "Potential Uses of Nuclear Waste Heat to Avoid Thermal
Pollution," B. J. Benedict, et al; AUA-ANL Engineering
Practice School, Argonne National Lab., Argonne Univ.,
Assc.; 7/13/69. .
I
(21) "A Discussion on the Effects and Possible Benefits of Heated
Effluents on Marine Organisms in Puget Sound Waters,"
Timothy Joyner; Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biol.
Lab.; Seattle, Washington: 6/68.
(22) "Considerations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection,"
Office of Science & Technology, Executive Office of the
President; Wash., D. C.; 12/68.
------- |