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.

-------