&EPA
        Unne'
        Environmental
         .


Water  Consumption
and Costs for
Various Steam
Electric Power Plant
Cooling Systems

Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report

-------
                  RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
 gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
 vironmental technology. Elimination of  traditional grouping was  consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has  been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort  funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems.  The goal  of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental  data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments  of, and development of, control technologies  for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide-range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or  recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through  the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.

-------
                                         EPA-600/7-78-157
                                                August 1978
      Water Consumption and Costs
for Various  Steam Electric Power Plant
                 Cooling Systems
                            by
                M.C. Hu, G.F. Pavlenco, and G.A. Englesson
                 (United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)

                      Cameron Engineers, Inc.
                     1315 South Clarkson Street
                      Denver, Colorado 80210
                      Contract No. 68-01 -4337
                    Program Element No. EHE624A
                  EPA Project Officer: Theodore G. Brna

                Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                 Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
                   Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                         Prepared for

               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Research and Development
                      Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
This state-of-the-art study reviewed and correlated available information
on the following subjects:  (a) the consumptive water use and the related
costs of various open and closed cooling systems used by moderate and large
capacity steam-electric generating stations in the United States, (b) the
availability of water for all uses in the various areas of the U.S.  and the
percentage of water available that is used or projected to be used for steam-
electric power plant cooling systems, and (c) the impact of regulatory guide-
lines on consumptive water use and its costs in the United States, especially
for areas where water shortages exist or are projected to occur by the year
2000.

The information thus collected and correlated forms a part of an overall
effort sponsored by EPA and is intended to provide the background information
for the revision of the water pollution regulations for steam-electric power
plants.
                                      ii

-------
                                  CONTENTS

AbsLracL	    11
Tables	    vi
Figures	    :-]i
Acknowledgments	     jij

     1.  introduction	      1
     2.  Conclusions	      2
     3.  Recommendations	      5
     4.  Project Methodology	      7
              Literature Survey and Selection of  Relevant  Data
                Sources	      7
              i'iiLa Acquisition	      9
                   Water Consumption  Data	      9
                   Cost Data  for  Cooling Alternatives	      9
                   Water Availability  Data	      9
                   Data on  the Impact  of Legal  Constraints on Water
                     Consumption  and Related Costs	     10
              Bajes for Data  Comparison	     10
     5.  Water Consumption  for Various  Cooling  Alternatives	     12
              Definitions of  Water Consumption  and  Uses	     12
                   Water Budget Equation	     .'.2
              Mtthodology for Evaporative  Loss  Calculations	     13
                   Models Available and  Description	     13
                        Cooling Tower  Models	     13
                        Cooling Pond Models	     14
                        Once-Through  Cooling Models	     17
                   Assumptions Used for  Calculating Water  Consumption
                     Rates	     17
                        Cooling Towers	     17
                        Cooling Ponds	     18
              Comparison of Compiled Results	     19
                   Adjustment of  Data	     19
                        Cooling Tower  Data Adjustment	     19
                        Cooling Pond Data Adjustment	     19
                        Once-Through  Cooling Data Adjustment	     20
                   Model Comparison Through Numerical  Calculations....     20
                   Comparison of  Adjusted  HEDL  Results and EH&A
                     Resul ts	     22
              Water Consumption Field  Data  for  Cooling Towers and
                Cooling Ponds	     23
              Conclusions	     24
              References	     25
                                      iii

-------
6.  Oosts of Cooling System Alternatives	    40
         Procedure for Compilation of Cost Data	    40
         Compilation of Capital Cost Data	    40
         Compilation of Total Cost Data for Cooling Systems	    41
         Impact of Developing Technology on Water Consumption
           and Cost	    42
         Conclusions	    43
         References	    45
7.  Estimated Availability of Water for all Uses in the
      Conterminous United States	    58
         Introduction	    58
         Methodology for Estimating Water Availability	    59
         Discussion	    61
         Conclusions	    62
         References	    63
8.  Legal Constraints and Their Impact on Consumptive Water
      Use	    85
         Introduction	    85
         Federal Authorities	    85
         Federal Statutes	    87
              Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,  (33 USC 401-411)...    87
              Reclamation Act of 1902, (P.L. 57-161)	    87
              Federal Water Power Act of 1920, as amended
                (P.L. 66-280)	    88
              Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958,
                (P.L. 85-624)	    88
              Wilderness Act of 1964, (P.L. 88-577)	    88
              Water Resources Planning Act of 1964,
                (P.L. 89-80)	    88
              Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended
                (P.L. 90-542)	    89
              Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968,
                (P.L. 90-537)	    89
              National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
                (P.L. 91-190)	    90
              Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
                1972, (P.L. 92-500)	    90
              Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
                of 1972, (P.L.  92-532)	    90
              Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, (P.L. 92-583).    90
              Federal Water Project Authorization Acts	    90
              Endangered Species Act of 1973,  (P.L. 93-205)	    91
              Other Federal Enactments	    91
         International Treaties	    91
              The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944	    92
              Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act,
                (P.L. 93-320)	    92
              The Treaty of 1909 with Canada	    92
              Columbia River Treaty with Canada	    92
         Interstate Compacts	    92
              The Colorado River Compact of 1922	    92
                                 iv

-------
          The Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts..     93
     Indian Water Rights	     93
     Federal Water Rights	     93
          Reservation Doctrine	     93
          Federal Power over Navigation under the Commerce
            Clause	     94
     State Water Laws and Policies	     94
          State Water Rights.....	     95
               Surface Water Rights	     95
                    Riparian Rights	     95
                    Appropriative Rights	     96
               i.-'roundwater Rights	     98
     Division of States According to Water Rights Laws
       Observed	    100
     Conclusions	    101
     References	    103
Bibliography	    107

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                 Page

  5.1      Assumptions Used for Calculating Water Consumption
             of Cooling Towers and Cooling Ponds	   27

  5.2      Comparison of Forced Evaporation Losses Calculated
             with the Harbeck and Brady Models	   28

  5.3      Consumptive Water Use for Cooling Towers	   29

  5.4      Consumptive Water Use for Cooling Ponds and Once-
             Through Cooling	   31

  5.5      Effect of Precipitation Credit on Water Consumption
             Calculated for Single Purpose Cooling Ponds	   32

  5.6      Adjusted Field Data on Water Consumption of Cooling
             Towers and Cooling Ponds	   33

  6.1      Capital Costs of Cooling System Alternatives - Fossil
             Plants ($/KW, 1978 Dollars)	   48

  6.2      Capital Costs of Cooling System Alternatives   Nuclear
             Plants ,($/KW, 1978 Dollars)	   49

  6.3      Percentage Increases in Capital Costs for Saltwater
             Cooling Systems (50,000 ppra) Relative to Freshwater
             Cooling Systems (21)	   50

  6.4      Summary of Costs for Cooling Systems for Fossil Plants	   51

  6.5      Summary of Costs for Cooling Systems for LWR Plants	   53

  6.6      Economic Factors	   55

  6.7      Comparison of Costs of Wet and Wet/Dry Cooling Systems
             for a Fossil Plant ($/KW)	   56

  6.8      Comparison of Costs of Wet and Wet/Dry Cooling Systems
             for a Nuclear Plant ($/KW)	   57

  7.1      Regions and Aggregated Subregioiis (1)	   64
                                     VI

-------
Number

  7.2      U.S. Water Resources Council Routing of Surface
             Flows for Aggregated Subregions (1)	   67

  7.3      List of Tables from the Nation's Water Resources,
             The Second National Water Assessment by the United
             States Water Resources Council, Statistical
             Appendix, Volumes A-l, A-2, and A-3	   71

  7.4      Annual Water Requirements for Offstream Uses	   73

  7.5      Annual Streamflow Depletion (Dry Year)	   78

  8.1      Compacts, Treaties and Regulations for Major Rivers
             and Lakes in the United States	  104
                                   FIGURES


Number                                                                 Page

  5.1      Estimating the Increase in Reservoir Evaporation
             Resulting from the Addition of Heat by a Power Plant..,,.   34

  5.2      Map Showing Water Resource Regions Defined by Water
             Resources Council	   35

  5.3      Cooling Towers without Makeup Pond (Blowdown Returned)	   36

  5.4      Cooling Towers with Makeup Vond (Blowdown Returned)	   37

  5.5      Multipurpose Cooling Ponds	   38

  5.6      Single Purpose Cooling Ponds	   39

  7.1      Water Resource Regions and Flow Patterns for Aggregated
             Subregions	   84
                                     VII

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was completed under  the direction of T. G. Brna, Project Officer
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), M. C. Hu, Project Manager
for the United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  (UE&C) and G. A. Englesson,
Technical Director of the Advanced Engineering Department, UE&C Inc.

Principal contributors were G. F. Pavlenco, P. M. Karousakis, N. H. Lee,
C. Murawczyk, M. D. Miller, K. C. Tong and J. C. Bentz of UE&C.

Acknowledgments are due to J. Lum of EPA for his invaluable consultation
during the course of the study and his critical review of this report.

Acknowledgments are due to G. E. Harbeck, Jr., of U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of Interior, J. C. Sonnichsen and J. F. Fletcher of the Hanford
Engineering Laboratory for providing the critical reference and data on
water consumption as well as consultation duriiig the course of this study.

Acknowledgments are due to D. Laura of the Water Resource Council.  The
water availability data presented in this report are based on the results
of a recently completed four-year effort by the Council.
                                      viii

-------
                                   SECTION 1

                                 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study, under contract from the Environmental
Protection Agency, was to collect, analyze and correlate available
information on the following subjects:  (a) the consumptive water use  and
the related costs of various open and closed cooling systems used by
moderate and large capacity steam-electric generating stations in  the
United States, (.b) the availability of water for all uses in the various
areas of the U.S. and the percentage of water available that is used or
projected to be used for steam-electric power plant cooling systems, and
(c) the impact of regulatory guidelines on consumptive water use and its
costs in the United States, especially for areas where water shortages
exist or are projected to occur by the year 2000.

The results reflect an intense nine man-month effort performed in  a three
month period  (October 1977 - January  1978) to complete a thorough
stnte-of-the-art investigation.  Due  to the limitation of time and  funding,
omission of some of the available data is possible.

The information thus collected and correlated forms a part of an overall
effort sponsored by EPA and is intended to provide backgound information
for the revision of the water pollution regulations for steam-electric
power plants.

Four tasks were performed to satisfy  the requirements of this project.
For each task, several subtasks were  carried out to survey and select
literature sources, to review and analyze  the data collected, and to
tabulate the relevant information.

-------
                                   SECTION 2

                                  CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of this study for each of the four major topics have been
presented in Sections 5 through 8.  These conclusions are summarized in
this section according to the topics.

     o    Water Consumption for Various Cooling Alternatives

          1.   There is a general agreement among the evaporation losses
               of cooling towers calculated with various models.

          2.   There is a great discrepancy between the water consumption
               rates of cooling ponds calculated by EH&A using the Harbeck
               model and those calculated by HEDL using the Brady model.

          3.   A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn as to which of the
               two (Harbeck and Brady et al.) models used to calculate
               the forced evaporation losses of cooling ponds gives more
               accurate results for lack of sufficient field data to
               verify the calculated results.

          4.   Without due consideration of the actual cooling pond water
               surface temperature, the use of the Harbeck model for
               calculating the forced evaporation losses of cooling ponds
               may result in an underestimation of these losses.  The
               assumption that the pond water surface temperature is equal
               to the average air temperature is not satisfactory for  inverse
               thermal loadings such as  1 to 2 acres/MWe.

          5.   The Brady model appears to result in more credible cooling
               pond forced evaporation losses because it considers the
               actual thermal loading of the pond in order  to estimate
               the pond surface temperature.

     o    Related Costs of Alternate Cooling Systems

          1.   It is difficult to compare the cost of alternative cooling
               systems solely on  the basis of capital cost.  The ranges
               of cost overlap for different cooling system alternatives.

-------
2.   There is no discernable trend of the capital cost of cooling
     systems by regions.

3.   As expected, the total evaluated cost of once-through
     cooling is the lowest and that of dry cooling is the
     highest; other close-cycle conventional systems lie between
     these extremes.

4.   The economic impact of the use of dry cooling to conserve
     water may be significantly reduced by the use of wet/dry
     cooling, but the economic penalty relative to wet cooling
     remains substantial.

Water Availability for Steam-Electric and Other Uses

1.   Under dry year conditions, there is not sufficient water
     in most regions of the conterminous United States to fully
     satisfy all users at their current rate of use.  This
     situation is particularly critical in the Southwest and
     will become worse in the future.

2.   Relative to the total consumption, the percentage consumption
     for steam electric generation was 1.23% in 1975 and will
     grow to 3.10% in 1985 and to 7.22% in the year 2000.

3.   All segments of society which consume water must develop
     a water conservation strategy and implement that strategy.
     Since agriculture consumes the largest quantity of water
     by comparison with other water users, substantial water
     savings can be accomplished even with small percentage
     reductions in agricultural use through better utilization
     of the water resources.  Conversely, a large percentage
     reduction in the consumption for steam electric generation
     is small by comparison.

Regulatory Guidelines and Their Impact on 'Consumptive Water Use

1.   There is no simple way to set down all the differing laws
     and accompanying rules and regulations, since they vary
     from state to state and are at the bottomline subject to
     decisions of the courts.  An attempt was made to show the
     constraints on the legal availability of water.  These
     constraints form a complex web which involves Federal
     rights, Indian rights, State rights, riparian rights,
     appropriation rights, beneficial uses, international
     treaties and others.  Disregard for or any attempt to
     abrogate these rights (or arrangements) is certain to meet
     with serious objections and will result in lengthly
     litigation.

-------
The fact that no comprehensive body of law exists,  either on
the national or state level, on the regulation and consumptive
use of water adds to the difficulties and quandary in
understanding water rights.  Present national and state
laws and regulations need codification and, in some cases,
need to be rewritten to meet societal needs.

-------
                                   SECTION 3

                                RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the results of this study, recommendations for each of the
four major topics of this study are as follows:

     o    Water Consumption for Various Cooling Alternatives

          1.    There is an urgent need to verify the calculated evaporation
               rates with additional field measurements at operating
               plants.  The additional field data should be collected
               using consistent measurement techniques and over
               representative geographic areas.

          2.    A detailed study should be undertaken to compare the models
               currently available for evaluating the evaporative losses
               of cooling ponds.  The comparison should have the ultimate
               goal of defining a definitive model with general
               applicability and semi-empirical correlations identified
               on a region-by-region basis.

     o    Related Costs of Various Alternate Cooling Systems

               EPA should establish and maintain a historical data base
               on the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of various
               cooling alternatives as estimated in power plant applications
               and ultimately constructed and operated by utilities.

     o    Water Availability for Steam-Electric and Other Uses

          1.    Conservation of water in agriculture should receive the
               highest priority in order that the water thus saved can
               be diverted to other essential users.

          2.    In water-limited areas the Federal Government should provide
               economic incentives to farmers to minimize the agricultural
               water use.

-------
3.   There is great need for EPA to establish an information
     retrieval system which is capable of accurately determining
     and continuously revising the water availability for
     steam-electric generation and other essential uses in
     various water resources regions or hydrological units.

Regulatory Guidelines and Their Impact on Consumptive Water  Use

1.   EPA should require state water plans to include water
     quantity and quality elements.  Many present laws fail  to
     recognize a relationship between water quantity and water
     quality.

2.   There is a need to establish one agency with legislated
     authority to coordinate water quality planning on a national
     level and have review responsibility for state plans.

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                             PROJECT METHODOLOGY
To satisfy the objectives of this project, four tasks were performed.  Deter-
mination of water consumption, including evaporative losses and blowdown for
various cooling alternatives, was the first task.  Compilation of costs re-
lated to various cooling alternatives, including currently developing tech-
nology to reduce water consumption, was the second task.  The third task was
to determine the water availability in the United States for all uses in
general and for steam-electric power plant cooling systems in particular.
The fourth task was to assess the impact of regulatory guidelines on consump-
tive water use and its cost in the United States.

For each of these tasks, several subtasks were carried out to survey and
select literature sources, to review and analyze the data collected on a
given subject, and to correlate the relevant information.

4.1  LITERATURE SURVEY AND SELECTION OF RELEVANT DATA SOURCES

To conduct an effective search of the literature, an effort was made to apply
several searching techniques and investigate a variety of sources.  Thus,
literature searches were performed in both the manual and computer/data base
search modes.

Mechanized or computer searches are available from several organizations that
routinely review a selected body of literature and designate by descriptive
words or phrases the significant features of each article or report.  To
utilize these systems, the key words or categories used for the several spe-
cific searches were:

     1.  Cooling towers (including specific types of cooling towers
         in relation to their water use and costs)
     2.  Cooling ponds (both man-made and natural)
     3.  Power plants (including fossil- and nuclear-fueled power plants,
         costs, water consumption, water needs and resources)
     4.  Water resources and use (including costs, from all sources
         and for various applications — agricultural, industrial,
         municipal, energy, mining)

Following is a list of the data/base code name and suppliers through which
files were accessed and searched:

-------
      1.      "RECON"          U.S. Department of Energy
                             Technical Information Center
                             Oak Ridge National Laboratory
                             Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

      2.      "DIALOG"         Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
                             Department 52-08/201
                             3251 Hanover Street
                             Palo Alto, California 94304

      3.      "ORBIT"          Systems Development Corporation
                             2500 Colorado Avenue
                             Santa Monica, California 90406

For the manual searching the following resources were accessed in-house
(UE&C) and among the local resources in the Philadelphia area:

      1.  U.S. Government Reports Announcements (USGRA) - current
         bi-weekly index to all NTIS accessions
      2.  Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications
      3.  ERA - biweekly index to the U.S. Department of Energy,
         Technical Information Center accessions (also former
         Nuclear Science Abstracts - predecessor to ERA)
      4.  Applied Science and Technology Index
      5.  Science Citation Index
      6.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indexes

To supplement the mechanized and individual searches, the sources described
above were used to identify publications that were surveyed, placing a par-
ticular emphasis on information which has evolved since 1973.  The journals
and magazines reviewed were:

      1.  Proceedings of the American Power Conference
      2.  Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
               Journal of Power
               Journal of Heat Transfer
               Journal of Fluids Engineering
      3.  American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal
     4.  Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
               Journal of the Power Division
               Journal of the Hydraulics Division
               Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management
                 Division
     5.  Environmental Science and Technology
     6.  Industrial Water Engineering
     7.  Power (magazine)
     8.  Power Engineering (magazine)

In reviewing the literature survey effort undertaken for this project and the
relative contributions of each information source, the following general com-
ments are applicable.  First, the mechanized literature surveys were useful
                                       8

-------
in the initial phase of a search as  they required minimal expenditure of time
and effort by the user of the service.  The completeness of any mechanized
search is dependent on the selection of key words that must be both precise
and descriptive and on the scope of  the data base by the organization com-
piling the computer files.  The personal searches performed by the authors
proved to be the most fruitful survey technique for this study.  Personal
contacts by phone with various authors contributed substantially to further
identification of relevant literature sources.

4.2  DATA ACQUISITION

The literature search for information on the water consumption and costs for
various steam-electric power plant cooling systems identified approximately
100 papers and reports published since 1973.  Upon collecting all available
in-house (UE&C) information, copies  of other reports and papers were obtained
from the technical libraries of the  Philadelphia area or were solicited from
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) or directly from the au-
thors.  The EPA also provided copies of several reports on the consumptive
water use for cooling ponds and cooling towers.

4.2.1  Water Consumption Data

Of all reports and papers identified for this subject, only two reports were
found to contain a comprehensive treatment of the consumptive use of cooling
systems for all of the 18 water resource regions (Figure 5.1) of the conter-
minous United States, namely References 1 and 2.

Since the results presented in the HEDL report were not directly comparable
with the EH&A values, UE&C obtained  from HEDL a copy of the original computer
output from the consumptive water use algorithm from which the data given in
the HEDL report were derived.  These computer output data were further pro-
cessed to meet the requirements of this project as shown in Section 5.

Several reports and papers were obtained directly from G. Earl Harbeck Jr.,
the author of the cooling pond consumption model used in the EH&A report.
Other scattered data from various sources on cooling tower consumption rates
were also included.

4.2.2  Cost Data for Cooling Alternatives

A total of about 40 reports and papers were reviewed in detail in order to
obtain cost data for the various cooling alternatives.  Inasmuch as possible,
information was compiled for the 18 water resource regions in the contermi-
nous United States for both fossil and nuclear power plants.  The cooling
alternative costs include both capital and total evaluated costs.  The total
evaluated cost, which is the total cost of the cooling alternative, is used
to compare various cooling systems.

4.2.3  Water Availability Data

The water availability data were extracted from the draft of a study, "The
Nation's Water Resources, The Second National Assessment by the U.S. Water

-------
Resources  Council."   The  final  report will  soon be completed by  the U.S.
Water Resources  Council  (WRC).  The  study was accomplished by the  cooperative
activities of state,  regional and Federal agencies under the overall direc-
tion of the WRC  and was a 3%-year effort designed to identify and  describe
the Nation's severe water problems.  In the study, the conterminous United
States was subdivided into  18 water  resource regions.  Each region was
further divided  into  aggregated subregions, or ASR's.  The limits  of the  re-
gions and  the total 99 ASR's  for the conterminous United States  were loosely
related to existing major river systems.

The water  consumption and availability data needed for this task and taken
from WRC's 1975  assessment  were:  (a) water consumption rates (public supply,
agricultural, industrial  and mining, and steam-electrie), (b) total stream
flows, (c) water imports  and exports, and (d) maximum flow rates.  The 1975
values as well as projections for the years 1985 and 2000 were compiled.  In
addition to the  overall values  for the 18 water resource regions,  data were
also extracted from the 1975 Assessment for the most water deficient ASR  in
each water resource region.

4.2.4  Data on the Impact of Legal Constraints on Water Consumption and
       Related Costs

The information  compiled  (laws, regulations, treaties and compacts) and
examined on a broad basis for the impact of regulatory guidelines  on water
consumption and  related costs was obtained  from documents containing the
legislation itself or from  books that treat the broad aspects of both water
and environmental laws.   Selected references listed at the end of  this sec-
tion give  the primary documents used in the compilation.

The data considered included the constitutional basis for water  laws, some of
the more important Federal  statutes, international treaties and  interstate
compacts.  The potential  impact of Indian water rights, Federal  water rights
and state water  law and policy  is also included.  Other institutional con-
siderations not  included but requiring consideration are relationships to
on-going and completed water resource development plans of Federal agencies,
state and regional agencies as well as the  individual state laws and legal
precedents for particular situations.

A table at the end of Section 8 gives on a  regional (water resource regions)
basis the major  rivers in the conterminous United States, known  compacts or
treaties on those water bodies, minimum flow at the outflow point of certain
rivers and how these  treaties or compacts apportion water among  the various
states.  For the complex  compacts and treaties, the section of the document
referring to the apportionment has a reference number.

4.3  BASES FOR DATA COMPARISON

Since the task of determining the water consumption and the related costs in-
cludes comparisons among various steam-electrie cooling alternatives and
literature sources, it was  necessary to establish a common basis for compari-
son.  The ground rules employed by Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. in their
1977 report on water  consumption(l) were considered adequate and were adopted
                                      10

-------
in this study.  These ground rules are as follows:  A 1,000 MWe fossil-fueled
steam-electric generating station will be built.  The plant is assumed to
operate at a thermal efficiency of 36 percent, yielding a heat rate of 9,480
Btu/kWh.  With a 10 percent stack heat loss, the heat rejection rate of the
plant is 5,119 Btu/kWh.  Operating at 80 percent capacity factor, the plant
would reject approximately 36 x 10^2 Btu/yr.

All water consumption data used from the literature collected were adjusted
to reflect these assumptions and were then expressed in million gallons per
day (MGD).
                                       11

-------
                                  SECTION 5

             WATER CONSUMPTION FOR VARIOUS COOLING ALTERNATIVES


5.1  DEFINITIONS OF WATER CONSUMPTION AND USES

A distinction should be made between the amount of water withdrawn from the
surface water resources for cooling purposes and the amount of water "con-
sumed" as a result of the cooling process.  For the purposes of this study,
water consumption is defined as that portion of water removed from and not
returned to the surface water resources of a given area as a consequence of
the cooling system under consideration.

In addition to the open-cycle cooling system (once-through cooling), four
closed-cycle cooling systems were analyzed in this study from the standpoint
of water consumption.  The systems considered were as follows:

     1.  Once-through cooling system
     2.  Multipurpose cooling pond or natural lake used in part for
         power plant cooling
     3.  Single purpose cooling pond used primarily for power
         plant cooling, with other uses being incidental to its
         construction
     4.  Wet mechanical-draft cooling tower
     5.  Wet mechanical-draft cooling tower with a make-up pond of
         one-year storage capacity

5.1.1  Water Budget Equation

In its most general form, the water budget of a closed-cycle cooling system
for a steam-electric generation station can be expressed with the following
equation(l):

          V=R+P+M- (G + S + B + E + I), (volume/unit time)     (5.1)

     where:

          V - change in cooling water storage.
          R = local runoff inflow.
          P = precipitation impingement onto the cooling water surface.
          M =* make-up water.
          G = net ground water movement (negative for inflow to pond).
          S = uncontrolled releases, e.g., pond seepage, overflow, etc.
          B = blowdown.
                                       12

-------
          E = total (natural plus forced) evaporation.
          I = miscellaneous inplant use.

Although several terms in Equation (5.1) are not applicable to some cooling
systems, the equation is general in its application to common types of
closed-cycle cooling systems.  Even when applicable, some terms were found to
be neglected by some investigators either for being small in magnitude or to
make the water consumption evaluation more conservative.  The assumptions
used in the EH&A(1,2) and HEDL(3) reports which were analyzed in this study
are given later in this section.

5.2  METHODOLOGY FOR EVAPORATIVE LOSS CALCULATIONS

The water consumption for various cooling system alternatives can be pre-
dicted with models simulating the behavior of cooling towers, cooling ponds,
and once-through cooling systems.  The evaporative loss part of the total
consumption, and especially its forced evaporation component, is the term
whose calculation differs greatly from system to system and, to a smaller
degree, from report to report.  In arriving at average annual consumption
rates, some differences may also appear in the published data depending upon
whether the meteorological data used were monthly averages or annual aver-
ages.

Following is a review of the models used for estimating evaporative losses
for various cooling alternatives in the two reports(l,3) mentioned in
Section 4 that provided the main body of the water consumption data analyzed
in this study.  A comparison of the basic assumptions made in these reports
is given in Table 5.1.

5.2.1  Models Available and Description

5.2.1.1  Cooling Tower Models—
An evaporative or wet cooling tower is a device which cools hot water by heat
exchange at the air-water interface.  The process is primarily based on evap-
oration (latent heat of vaporization is absorbed by evaporating water from
cooled liquid) with a small portion of sensible heat transfer.  This particu-
lar type of cooling is widely used and its design is based on a well-defined
technology.

Under most meteorological conditions, the exhaust air from the cooling tower
is saturated.  The physical processes involved in the operation of a wet
cooling tower can be easily modeled to give accurate predictions of the evap-
oration rate.

Nomographs developed by Leung and Moore(4) are widely used to determine the
evaporation rate for wet towers as a function of the heat rejected which is
based upon wet bulb temperature, relative humidity, and elevation.  These
nomographs were used to calculate the evaporative losses given in the EH&A
report(l).  Average annual meteorological data were used for each of the 16
locations considered.
                                      13

-------
The evaporation rates given in the HEDL report(3) were determined by solving
the Merkel's equation for tower performance using finite element techniques
developed by Winiarski(S).  These evaporation rates equal the air flow rates
through the tower times the change in absolute humidity of the air flow.

5.2.1.2  Cooling Pond Models—
Cooling ponds are bodies of water, man-made or natural, that are used for
dissipating waste heat from steam-electric generating stations.  Heat dissi-
pation from the pond surface is accomplished through evaporation (natural or
forced), convection, conduction, and radiation.  It is highly dependent upon
local meteorological conditions (solar radiation, dry bulb temperature, rela-
tive humidity or wet bulb temperature or dew point, wind speed, and cloud
cover).

Determination of the evaporative losses for a cooling pond is a considerably
more complex task than in the case of a wet cooling tower.  This is because
quantitative estimates of water consumption for cooling ponds involve many
parameters.

The technical literature on cooling ponds presents two methods for estimating
water consumption as follows(6,7):

1.  Energy Budget Method

It is a technique based on the first law of thermodynamics; accounts for all
incoming, outgoing and stored energy at the pond surface layer; and enables
the calculation of the energy available for evaporation.

As applied to a water body, this principle requires that the net influx of
energy be balanced by an increase of energy stored in the water.  The energy
budget or balance for a pond may be expressed in terms of energy rates as
follows(8):

          AB + AE + AH + AW = C                                       (5.2)

     where:

          AB = increase in long wave thermal radiation emitted by the
               body of water.
          AE = increase in the amount of energy used for evaporation.
          AH = increase in the amount of energy conducted from the water
               surface to the atmosphere as sensible heat.
          AW = increase in the amount of energy carried away by the
               evaporated water.
           C = the amount of energy added to the cooling lake or pond
               by the power plant.

Equation (5.2) yields:

          "C~ = AB + AE + AH + AW                                      <5-3)
                                      14

-------
     where:

                 percentage of heat added to the lake or pond that is used
                 in forced evaporation.

The amount of heat added to the lake or pond is known, and if the amount of
energy used in forced evaporation is known, the actual volume of forced evap-
oration can be easily determined by dividing by the latent heat of evapora-
tion and density of water.

2.  Mass Transfer Method

The method is based on mass transfer theory  (Law of Conservation of Matter).
Evaporation from a water surface is treated as the turbulent transport of
water in an overlying boundary layer of water vapor.  All the models using
this theory are quasi-empirical and the equations take the following form:

          E = CA f(u) (eg - ea)                                        (5.4)

     where:

           E     = evaporation  rate, MGD.
           C     = conversion factor, 10** gal/BTU-acre/ft2.
          A    = pond surface area, acres.
           f(u) = wind speed function,  u is  wind  speed in mph.
           eg   = vapor pressure of saturated air at pond water
                 surface temperature, mm Hg.
           ea   = vapor pressure in the ambient air, mm Hg.

The wind speed function is assumed to be of the  form:

           f(u) = a + bu + cu2, (BTU/ft2-day-mm Hg)                     (5.5)

     where:

          a, b and c are wind speed function coefficients determined
           experimentally for  the various models used.

The models used for  calculating  forced evaporation from  ponds or lakes by
EH&A(1) and HEDL(3) are as  follows:

1.  EH&A Report

The EH&A report(l) used the model developed by Harbeck(S) which is based on
the energy-budget concept.  In deriving the model, Harbeck also used a sim-
plified mass transfer equation to account for the evaporation and to elimi-
nate the need for collecting  field data.  According to Harbeck, this approach
would give a reasonably accurate estimate of AE/C.  The  resulting model is
represented by a nomograph and a basic assumption on water surface tempera-
ture.  The nomograph (Figure 5.1) gives *E/C as a function of water surface
temperature with wind speed as a parameter.  In the Harbeck model, the water
surface temperature is assumed equal to the air temperature above the water
                                      15

-------
surface, and the two-meter wind speed is used.  For wind speed measured at
other heights, adjustments to the two-meter height can be obtained by the
following formula:

          u = uz (6.56/z)0'3                                          (5.6)

     where:

          u  = wind speed at two meters, mph.
          uz = recorded wind speed at height z, mph.
          z  = height of anemometer above ground at the measuring
               site, feet.

Ordinarily, water surface temperature data are not readily available.  The
assumption that the air temperature is approximately equal to the water sur-
face temperature is usually acceptable according to Harbeck(8).  On an annual
basis in areas where ice cover does not occur, the average annual water sur-
face temperature is usually slightly lower than the average annual air tem-
perature because of the cooling effect of natural evaporation.  The addition
of heat by a power plant may cause the water surface temperature to more
nearly equal the air temperature, unless the plant load is large relative to
the size of the lake(8).  If large air-water temperature differences exist,
the procedure using Harbeck's nomograph becomes of questionable value because
of probable errors in the conducted energy term of the energy budget equa-
tion.

In the EH&A. report(1), the water surface temperature was taken to be equal
to the average annual dry bulb temperature.  The average annual wind speeds
were adjusted to the two-meter height.

2.  HEDL Report

The HEDL report(3) used the mass transfer method employing the model devel-
oped by Brady et al(9) in which the wind speed function used in Equation
(5.4) is as follows:

          f(u) = 70 + 0.7u2, (BTU/ft2-day-mm Hg)                       (5.7)

This equation was obtained by curve fitting of experimental data for wind
speeds from 1 to about 16 mph(9).

The pond water temperature required to calculate es was determined by itera-
tion using the equilibrium temperature concept.  The method involves the use
of a surface heat exchange coefficient which is a function of the average
wind speed, the dew point, and pond water temperature.

In the HEDL report(3),  this methodology was  applied to  two distinct hydro-
logical models of cooling ponds which assume different  water circulation
patterns.  They are referred to as the  "completely mixed" and "slug-flow"
cooling pond models.
                                      16

-------
On the basis of circulation pattern and temperature distribution, cooling
ponds can be classified as completely mixed ponds and flow-through (or slug
flow) ponds(10).  Completely mixed ponds have an almost uniform surface tem-
perature with the exception of a small region near the plant discharge, while
the slug-flow ponds have a continuous temperature decay from the plant dis-
charge to the plant intake.

5.2.1.3  Once-Through Cooling Models--
Once-through cooling systems use cooling water derived from natural water
bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans.  The water is discharged
at a point where there is limited possibility of warm water recirculation.
The evaporative losses presented in this study for once-through cooling
(Table 5.4) were taken from the HEDL report(3) and the 1974 EH&A report(2).

The HEDL report(3) used a simplified model assuming a non-stratified, one-
dimensional temperature distribution.  The temperature distribution varies
longitudinally, decaying exponentially in the downstream direction and asymp-
totically approaches the background temperature of the water body.  It was
assumed that the ambient sink is at the equilibrium temperature and that the
dissipation of thermal energy takes place over an area of 50 acres/MWe.  To
bracket the evaporative loss for once-through cooling systems, two cases were
considered.  First, no dilution of the heat effluent with sink waters occurs
and second, the heated effluent is diluted by 8070.  For each of the two
mixing patterns, two cooling ranges (10 and 30° F) were considered.

The EH&A report(2) used the Harbeck model for calculating the once-through
cooling evaporative losses.

5.2.2  Assumptions Used for Calculating Water Consumption Rates

The two reports that provided the main body of the water consumption rates
analyzed in this study were identified in Section 4 as the EH&A Document No.
7775 (September 1977)(1) and HEDL-TME 76-82 (September 1976)(3).  The assump-
tions used in these reports for calculating the consumptive water use for
cooling towers and cooling ponds have been summarized and presented compara-
tively in Table 5.1.  Although the detailed comparison of assumptions is
shown in Table 5.1, the following general comments are applicable.

5.2.2.1  Cooling Towers--
     1.  The EH&A report presents consumption rates relevant to four
         different cases which correspond to cooling towers with or
         without make-up pond, both categories being further subdivided
         with respect to the handling of blowdown water (retained in
         an impoundment or returned to the water body).  The size of
         the make-up pond was determined so that the pond storage capa-
         city matches the annual consumption of the associated cooling
         towers with an average depth of 15 ft.  The blowdown was taken
         as 2570 of the evaporation losses, which is equivalent to 5
         cycles of concentration and is consistent with the current
         practice for much of the United States.
                                      17

-------
     2.  The HEDL report presents the consumption rate only for the
         case of cooling towers without a make-up pond operating and
         with blowdown equal to 5% of evaporative losses, which is
         equivalent to 21 cycles of concentration.  This assumption
         is not consistent with current practice as indicated above.
         However, for the case of the cooling tower with blowdown
         returned, the total water consumption is not affected by the
         blowdown percentage considered.  To complete the comparison,
         UE&C calculated the consumption rates for the remaining three
         cases considered in the EH&A report using the same make-up
         pond assumptions and a 5% blowdown (see Table 5.4).

5.2.2.2  Cooling Ponds—
     1.  The EH&A. report presents water consumption rates for two types
         of cooling ponds "based on their use:  single purpose and
         multipurpose ponds.  The former refers to man-made reservoirs
         used primarily for power plant cooling, with other uses being
         incidental to its construction; and the latter refers to natural
         lakes or multipurpose cooling ponds used in part for power
         plant cooling.  A further division of the single purpose ponds
         is made for two different thermal loadings:  1 acre/MWe and
         2 acres/MWe.
     2.  The consumptive use algorithm used in the HEDL report for
         calculating cooling pond water consumption rates also con-
         sidered both single purpose and multipurpose ponds.  However,
         twelve cases were considered in total, six for each type of
         use.  These cases were obtained by varying the type of
         pond (mixed flow and slug flow), the cooling range (10°F
         and 30°F), and the thermal loading (1 and 3 acres/MWt).  The
         high and the low numbers of the set of 12 numbers generated
         for each location were given as the limits for the expected
         range of water consumption for cooling ponds.  Since the re-
         sults thus presented in the HEDL report do not explicitly give
         the consumption for single purpose and multipurpose ponds
         separately, these numbers could not be compared directly with
         the EH&A results.  To enable a direct comparison, UE&C requested
         and obtained from HEDL the computer output from their consump-
         tive use algorithm and further processed the results to obtain
         consumption ranges separately for single purpose and multi-
         purpose ponds.
     3.  The EH&A report did not take full credit for the precipita-
         tion impingement onto the pond surface area.  The fraction
         of the precipitation that would have been absorbed into the
         soil, had the man-made pond not been there, was not considered
         in the overall balance.  This approach was contrary to that
         used by HEDL.  The results for single purpose ponds adjusted
         from these two reports and presented in Table 5.4 did not
         correct this difference in precipitation credit.
     4.  The effect of runoff correction on the water consumption rates
         of single purpose ponds given in the HEDL report is shown in
         Table 5.5.  The results calculated with runoff correction
         show a larger water consumption rate than those without runoff
                                      18

-------
         correction, especially in regions where the runoff/rainfall
         ratio is high.  The comparison of these results with the EH&A's
         results calculated with runoff correction, also shown in Table
         5.5, indicates even larger discrepencies between the two re-
         ports on the water consumption of single purpose ponds.
     5.  No contribution to a single purpose pond inventory due to
         water runoff from the surrounding watershed is considered
         in either of the two reports.

5.3  COMPARISON OF COMPILED RESULTS

In order to compare water consumption  rates for various cooling alternatives,
it was necessary to make sure that all the numbers tabulated were expressed
in the same units and, more importantly, that they were based on the same
ground rules.  The set of ground rules adopted for the purpose of this study
was stated in Section 4.

5.3.1  Adjustment of Data

The assumptions adopted for the EH&A report(1) were used as the basis for the
current comparison; therefore, no adjustment was made for the EH&A  results
(1).  The HEDL data(3), however, were  adjusted to the same units and plant
efficiency, capacity factor, etc.

5.3.1.1  Cooling Tower Data Adjustment--
The HEDL data(3) for consumptive water use of cooling towers are given
only for towers without make-up pond and with blowdown retained.  In addition
to the necessary unit conversion from  cfs/1000 MWt to MGD/1000 MWe, data for
three more cases were generated.  These cases were as follows:  cooling
towers without make-up pond and blowdown returned, cooling towers with make-
up pond and blowdown returned, and finally, cooling towers with make-up pond
and blowdown retained.

The size of the make-up pond was determined from the conditions that a stor-
age capacity of one year of tower operation is provided when an average pond
depth of 15 ft is used.  The range of  water consumption for cooling towers
was defined by the lowest and highest  numbers of the set of eight parametric
cases considered.  The values listed are annual averages and were obtained by
taking the average of the 12 monthly consumption rates.

5.3.1.2  Cooling Pond Data Adjustment--
The HEDL study gives the consumptive water use of cooling ponds as a range
defined by annual average high and low values.  In determining this consump-
tion range, the study did not differentiate between single purpose and multi-
purpose ponds.  The high and low values were selected from a set of numbers
corresponding to 12 cases as follows:
                                      19

-------
  Slug Flow Model
   Single
   Purpose
     or
Multipurpose
                                   0.67 acre/MWe
 Mixed Flow Model
   Single
   Purpose
     or
Multipurpose
                                      2 acres MWe
                                   0.67 acre/MWe
10°F cooling range

30°F cooling range



10°F cooling range

30°F cooling range
                                      2 acres/MWe
Therefore, the results presented in the HEDL study for cooling pond losses
are not directly comparable with the EH&A report values which are given
separately for single purpose and multipurpose ponds.  Using the still un-
published computer output from the consumptive use algorithm provided by the
Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, UE&C generated new high-low
ranges separately for single and multipurpose ponds based on the sets of six
evaporation values calculated by HEDL for each type of cooling pond.  As a
general rule, the lower of the two new low values and the higher of the two
new high values correspond to the low and high values respectively given in
the HEDL report.  A unit conversion from cfs/1000 MWt to MGD/1000 MWe was
finally applied to the newly generated water consumption ranges.  The same
unit conversion was also applied to the cooling pond water consumption data
generated by Sonnichsen(ll) which were also included in Table 5.4.  This
reference presented the pond consumption for three different regions referred
to as arid, semiarid, and wet, depending upon the relationship between the
natural evaporation and the precipitation in the region.

5.3.1.3  Once-Through Cooling Data Adjustment—
Data on evaporative losses for once-through cooling in all of the 18 water
resource regions  (Figure 5.2) of the conterminous United States were taken
from References 2 and 3.  A unit conversion from cfs/1000 MWt to MGD/1000 MWe
was necessary for the data taken from Reference 3.

5.3.2  Model Comparison Through Numerical Calculations

An attempt was made in this study to directly compare the two models used in
the EH&A Document No. 7775 (Harbeck) and in the HEDL-TME 76-82  (Brady) for
calculating the forced evaporative losses for cooling ponds.  For the purpose
of this comparison, the annual average meteorological data used in the EH&A
report for eight different locations were employed as inputs to the Brady
model used in the HEDL report.  The calculation procedure given in Reference
9 was followed.  Hand calculations were performed for the completely mixed
pond model only, since the slug flow pond model requires an excessive number
of iterations.  The wind speed used for a given location was the recorded
                                      20

-------
average wind speed at that location.  The forced evaporation losses thus
calculated with the Brady  (HEDL) model were  tabulated side by side with the
EH&A report (Harbeck model) numbers for multipurpose ponds; that is, consump-
tion due only to forced evaporation as shown in Table 5.2.  The newly calcu-
lated numbers are considerably higher than the EH&A report numbers.  For ex-
ample, the consumption rates  for multipurpose ponds at Dallas, Texas are 8.38
MGD for 1 acre/MWe and 8.33 MGD for 2 acres/MWe compared to 5.55 MGD.  The
average wind speed at this location used in  the Brady model  is greater than
the wind speed adjusted to two-meter height  as required by the Harbeck model.
For comparison purposes, the  wind speed at two-meter height was also employed
in the Brady model, resulting in a forced evaporation of 8.08 MGD which is
less than 5% smaller than  the initial value  of 8.38 MGD.

The considerable differences  between the results obtained with the two models
may be, in part, due to the fact that the Harbeck model was developed on the
basis of very small thermal loading of cooling ponds.  For very small thermal
loading, the assumption of the pond water surface temperature being equal to
the air dry bulb temperature  may be valid.   However, Harbeck(8) states that
if the differential between the water surface temperature and the average air
temperature is greater than 5°F, the results obtained with his model would be
questionable.  The thermal loading corresponding to 1 acre/MWe considered in
the EH&A Document No. 7775 is about 10 times larger than those existing in
the Lake Colorado City and Lake Hefner tests which provided the data base for
Harbeck's formulation(12).  Thus, the use of the Harbeck model for cooling
ponds with thermal loadings of 1 to 2 acres/MWe is questionable.

The EH&A study(l) did not  give the water consumption of multipurpose ponds
(i.e., forced evaporation  losses) as a function of the thermal loading in
acres/MWe because the Harbeck nomograph does not use the thermal loading as
a parameter.  When the consumption of single purpose ponds was determined in
the EH&A study, the balance between the natural evaporation and a conserva-
tively adjusted precipitation was determined as a function of the pond sur-
face area (1000 acres or 2000 acres for a 1000 MWe plant) and then added to
the forced evaporation losses determined previously for multipurpose ponds.
It appears, therefore, that since the forced evaporation losses were deter-
mined with the Harbeck model  for ponds with  very small specific thermal
loadings, or alternatively, with surface areas much larger than 1000 or 2000
acres for a 1000 MWe plant; the single purpose pond consumptive rates in the
EH&A report are also considerably underestimated.

By comparison, the consumption rates due to  forced evaporation calculated
with the Brady model appear to be more acceptable from an engineering stand-
point, because the model does account for the representative thermal loading
of a pond.  However, as was the case for the Harbeck model, the empirical
correlations used in the Brady model also involve uncertainties in the re-
sults generated for the 18 regions of the conterminous United States because
these correlations were formulated using experimental data collected in
limited regions of the United States.  The analytic determination of the
average pond surface temperature used to evaluate the Dalton difference
introduces one more uncertainty in the results.  Partly to account for these
inherent uncertainties of  the Brady model, the HEDL study gave the cooling
pond consumption rates in a range bracketed  by high and low values resulting
                                      21

-------
from a set of parametric cases.

5.3.3  Comparison of Adjusted HEDL Results and EH&A Results

Upon adjusting all water consumption data for consistency of units and ground
rules, the results were tabulated separately for each cooling alternative
considered, indicating the original source of the data.  The tabulation was
made for two representative locations within each of the 18 water resource
regions of the conterminous United States, with the exception of one region
(New England) where three locations were considered.  Table 5.3 shows the
water consumption values for evaporative cooling towers, while Table 5.4
presents water consumption values for cooling ponds and for once-through
cooling.  Table 5.3 also gives the average annual values of the natural evap-
oration and precipitation in inches per year for the 37 locations considered.
These values were used in adjusting the HEDL data for multipurpose ponds to
single purpose ponds.  The natural evaporation values were taken from the
data base of the HEDL report.

The precipitation data were taken from the 1976 Local Climatological Data
Annual Summary(13) provided by NCAA's National Climatic Center in Asheville,
North Carolina.

Figures 5.3 through 5.6 show graphical comparisons of the water consumption
results presented in Tables 5.2 through 5.4, which contain data from other
literature sources in addition to those taken from references 1 and 3.  The
18 water resource regions are given in the abscissas of the diagrams numbered
from 1 through 18.  These numbers correspond to those associated with the
water resource regions listed in Tables 5.2 through 5.4.

The following general observations can be made based on the tabulated results
and graphical representations of consumptive water use data:

     1.  The cooling tower water consumption rates given in the
         EH&A report are consistently larger than those given in
         the HEDL report by about 5% to 15% (see Figures 5.2 and
         5.3).
     2.  The cooling pond water consumption rates given in the EH&A
         report are consistently smaller than their counterparts
         given in the HEDL report by about 30% to 50% (see Figures
         5.4 and 5.5).
     3.  The cooling tower water consumption rates given in the
         reports prepared by UE&C for ERDA(14) and EPA(15) are
         within or slightly above the range given in the HEDL report,
         but smaller than their counterparts in the EH&A report (see
         Figures 5.2 and 5.3).
     4.  The EH&A report shows that, in general, single purpose cooling
         ponds have lower water consumption rates than cooling towers.
         This report shows the same is true for multipurpose cooling
         ponds.  However, the difference in consumption rates between
         the multipurpose pond and the cooling tower is greater.
                                      22

-------
     5.  The comparison between the water consumption rates of cooling
         towers and those of cooling ponds, as given in the HEDL report,
         does not allow a generalization for the entire conterminous
         United States as to which of the two cooling alternates has
         lower water consumption.  This is because the consumption
         ranges given for these two cooling alternates overlap for al-
         most all regions considered.  In the case of the single pur-
         pose ponds, their water consumption exceeds considerably that
         of cooling towers for water regions 9 through 16, and also
         18 (California).
     6.  The HEDL report results also show that in some regions, single
         purpose cooling ponds may lead to smaller consumption rates
         than multipurpose ponds.  The single purpose pond data for
         which this situation is true were identified by an asterisk
         in Table 5.4.  These reduced water consumption rates are due
         to the fact that at the location affected  the precipitation
         exceeds the natural evaporation.  It is recalled that the
         HEDL report took full credit for the precipitation impingement
         onto the pond surface, whereas the EH&A report took only
         partial credit.
     7.  The water consumption values calculated for once-through
         cooling systems in the 1974 EH&A report(2) are consistently
         lower than the lower limit of the range given in the HEDL
         report(3)  (see Table 5.4).
     8.  The water consumption values calculated for once-through
         cooling systems in the 1974 EH&A report(2) are consistently
         higher than those given for multipurpose ponds in the 1977
         EH&A report(l).  In contrast, the results given in the HEDL
         report(3) show that the once-through cooling water consumption
         rates are consistently lower than those for multipurpose
         cooling ponds.

5.4  WATER CONSUMPTION FIELD DATA FOR COOLING TOWERS AND COOLING PONDS

In a concurrent effort sponsored by EPA and carried out by VERSAR, Inc.,
field data on water consumption rates for both cooling towers and cooling
ponds were collected from several utilities.  The results of this study were
presented in a draft report to EPA(16).  These water consumption data were
adjusted in the present study according to the ground rules stated in Section
4.3, and are shown in Table 5.6.

However, a direct comparison of the field data with the calculated results
cannot be made because of the following reasons:

     1.  Data presented in the VERSAR report are inconsistent.
     2.  Insufficient information existed with respect to:
         a.  The accuracy and method utilized in obtaining the
             field data
         b.  The type (multipurpose or single purpose) of cooling
             pond
         c.  The cooling tower blowdown assumptions
         d.  The consideration of precipitation, runoff, and
                                      23

-------
             natural evaporation in the cooling pond data
     3.  Extensive extrapolations were needed to bring the data to
         the same base with the calculated results.

In addition to the aforementioned experimental data for cooling pond water
consumption rates, the literature search conducted for the purpose of this
study revealed only one published paper.  This paper(17) discusses the
cooling pond built for the Milton R. Young steam plant of the Minnkota Power
Cooperative, Inc.  This cooling pond was constructed in an arid region of
North Dakota and, after two years of operation, it was established that the
cooling system performance closely followed the theoretical predictions using
the mass transfer method.

5.5  CONCLUSIONS

From the results of the collected technical literature and presented in this
Section on consumptive water use of various condenser cooling alternatives,
the following conclusions can be drawn.

     1.  There is a general agreement among the evaporation losses
         of cooling towers calculated with various models.
     2.  There is a great discrepancy between the water consumption
         rates of cooling ponds calculated by EH&A using the Harbeck
         model and those calculated by HEDL using the Brady model.
     3.  A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn as to which of the
         two (Harbeck and Brady et al) models used to calculate
         the forced evaporation losses of cooling ponds gives more
         accurate results, because the available field data are,in
         general, not conclusive.
     4.  Without due consideration of the actual cooling pond water
         surface temperature, the use of the. Harbeck model for cal-
         culating the forced evaporation losses of cooling ponds may
         result in an underestimation of these losses.  The assumption
         that the pond water surface temperature is equal to the
         average air temperature is not satisfactory for thermal
         loadings such as 0.5 to 1.0 acres/MWe.
     5.  The Brady model appears to result in more credible cooling
         pond forced evaporation losses because it considers the actual
         thermal loading of the pond in order to estimate the pond
         surface temperature.
     6.  Before more research is performed to refine these models
         using feedback from operating cooling ponds, the comparison
         of consumptive water use by ponds and lakes with that of
         cooling towers cannot be well defined.
                                      24

-------
                                 REFERENCES

 1.  Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.  The Use of Surface Water Impoundments
     for Cooling of Steam-Electric Power Stations.  Austin, Texas, Document
     No. 7775, 1977.

 2.  Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.  Consumptive Water Use Implications of
     the Proposed EPA Effluent Guidelines for Steam-Electric Power Genera-
     tion.  Austin, Texas, Document No. 7407, 19.74.

 3.  Peterson, D. E., and J. C. Sonnichsen.  Assessment of Requirements for
     Dry Cooling Towers.  Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory,
     Richland, Washington, HEDL-TME 76-82, 1976.

 4.  Leung, P., and R. E. Moore.  Water Consumptive Determination for Steam
     Power Plant Cooling Towers:  A Heat and Mass Balance Method.  Combus-
     tion, 42(5): 14-23, 1970.

 5.  Winiarski, L. D., B. A. Tichenor, and K. U. Byram.  A Method for Pre-
     dicting the Performance of Natural Draft Cooling Towers.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, National Thermal Pollution Research Program, 16130
     GKF 12/70, 1970.

 6.  Hughes, G. H.  Analysis of Techniques Used to Measure Evaporation from
     Salton Sea, California.  United States Geological Survey Professional
     Paper 272-H, 1967.

 7.  Harbeck, G. E., Jr.  A Practical Field Technique for Measuring Reservoir
     Evaporation Utilizing Mass-Transfer Theory.  United States Geological
     Survey Professional Paper 272-E, 1962.

 8.  Harbeck, G. E., Jr.  Estimating Forced Evaporation from Cooling Ponds.
     Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
     Civil Engineers, 90 (P03): 1-9, 1964.

 9.  Brady, D. K., W. L. Graves, Jr., and J. C. Geyer.  Surface Heat Ex-
     changer at Power Plant Cooling Lakes.  Edison Electric Institute, New
     York» EEI Publication No. 69-901, 1969.

10.  Edison Electric Institute.  Report to the Effluent Standards and Water
     Quality Information Advisory Committee, May 15, 1973.  New York, 1973.

11.  Sonnichsen, J. C., Jr.  Makeup Requirements for Cooling Ponds.  Journal
     of Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
     Society of Civil Engineers, lOl(EEl): 15-25, 1975.


                                      25

-------
12.  Harbeck, G. E., Jr., G. E. Koberg, and G. H. Hughes.  The Effect of the
     Addition of Heat from a Powerplant on the Thermal Structure and Evap-
     oration of Lake Colorado City, Texas.  United States Geological Survey
     Professional Paper 272-B, 1959.

13.  Comparative Climatic Data, 1976 Local Climatological Data Annual Sum-
     mary.  National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

14.  Hu, M. C.  Engineering and Economic Evaluation of Wet/Dry Cooling Towers
     for Water Conservation.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.,
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-ERDA-761130, 1976.  (Available from
     National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, COO-2442-
     1.)

15.  Hu, M. C. and G. A. Englesson.  Wet/Dry Cooling Systems for Fossil-
     Fueled Power Plants:  Water Conservation and Plume Abatement.  United
     Engineers & Constructors Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-EPA-
     771130, 1977.  (Available from National Technical Information Service,
     Springfield, Virginia, EPA-600/7-77-137.)

16.  Versar, Inc.  Generic Model of Cooling Systems for Decision Making in
     Power Plant Siting, Draft Final Report.  Springfield, Virginia, 1977.
     (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
     No. 68-02-2618.)

17.  Calvert, J. D., Jr., and W. L. Heilman.  Man-Made Cooling Reservoir
     Performs as Predicted.  Power Engineering, 77(10): 40-43, 1973.

18.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation Study of
     Alternate Cooling Systems.  Delmarva Power and Light Company, Dual
     770 MW HTGR Nuclear Generating Plant, 1973.

19.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation of Alternate
     Cooling Systems.  St. Rosalie Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Alliance,
     Louisiana, Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1974.
                                      26

-------
TABLE 5.1  ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR CALCULATING WATER CONSUMPTION OP COOLING TOWERS  AND  COOLING  PONDS

t
1. Forced Evaporation Model
2. Storage Volume
3. Seepage
4. Precipitation (P)
5. Natural Evaporation (EN)
6. Forced Evaporation (EF)
7. Miscellaneous Plant Die Water
8. Ambient Condition*
9. Wind Speed
10. Slowdown (B)
11. Pond Size
12. Water Surface Temperature
13. Water Consumption (C) Equation
Used
14. Cycles of Concentration/
Percent Slowdown
15. Capacity factor
16. Effect of Elevation on
Water Consumption
17. Cooling Range
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Document No. 7775, September 1977)
CoollnK oond
Harbeck(8)
(heat budget method)
No change
Neglected
Included for single purpose
pond only but adjusted down-
ward by runoff rainfall ratio
Included for single purpose
pond only; data taken from
mean annual lake evaporation
Included
Neglected
Major city annual averages
for dry bulb and wet bulb
temperature and relative
humidity In the region
Annual average wind speed
adjusted to wind speed at 2
outers above water surface
Neglected
1 acre/MWe and 2 acres/MWe
Same as average dry bulb
temperature
C - EN + EF - 1 (1-r) P
(for single purpose pond)
C • EF
(for multipurpose pond)
N/A
SOX for calculating heat re-
jected annually by i 1000 MWe
fossil fuel plant
Neglected
Not Specified
CoollnK tower
Leung & Moore (4)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Included
Neglected
Same as for cooling pond
N/A
Case 1 - Neglected
Case 2 - 251 of evaporation
N/A
N/A
C - EF + B (blowdown retained)
C • EF (blowdown returned)
5/251 of evaporation loss
Same as for cooling pond
Considered
Not Specified
(3)
HANFORD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LAB
(HEDL-TME 76-82. September 1976)
Cooling pond
(9)
Brady, Graves & Geyer
(mass transfer analysis)
No change
Neglected
Included without any
correction for runoff
Included for oanmade
(single purpose) pond only
Inc luded
Neglected
Mean of monthly average
temperatures
Annual average
57. of evaporative
requirements
1 acre/MWt and 3 acres/MWt
Determined by Iteration
using the equilibrium
temperature concept
C - EN -f EF - P
(for single purpose pond)
C - EF
(for multipurpose pond)
N/A
80% for calculating heat
rejected annually by a
1000 MWe fossil fuel plant
Neglected
Considered for the slug
flow pond model only
Cool ins tower
Merkel Equation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Included
Neglected
Same as for cooling pond
N/A
*
Same as for cooling pond
N/A
N/A
C • EF + B (blowdown retained)
C - EF (blowdoun returned)
21/5" of evaporation loss
Some as for cooling pond
Considered
Not Specified

-------
           TABLE 5.2  COMPARISON OF FORCED EVAPORATION LOSSES CALCULATED
                              WITH THE HARBECK AND BRADY MODELS
Water
resources
region
1. New England
2. Mid-AClanCic
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
10. Missouri
11. Arkansas-White-Red
12. Texas-Gulf

13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
15. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
Location
Concord, NH
Bangor, ME
Richmond, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Detroit, HI
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Louisville, KY
Knoxville, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Twin Cities, MN
St. Louis, MO
Jackson, MS
New Orleans, LA
Bismark, ND
Duluth, MN
North Platte, NE
Great Falls, MT
Tulsa, OK
Garden City, KS
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Albuquerque, Iti
El Paso, TX
Farmington, NM
Grand Junction, CO
Phoenix, AZ
Yuma, AZ
Salt Lake City, UT
Reno, NV
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Los Angles, CA
Harbeck model (1^
(EH&A data for
multipurpose
ponds)
(MGD)
3.66
4.49
5.43

4.01

4.01
4.61
5.08
4.13
4.37
4.25

5.55

4.84


4.72
4.61
4.01
Brady model (*)
(EH&A
me teorological
data used as input)
(MGD)


8.72

7.96

8.04




8.33 @ 2000 ac
8.38 @ 1000 ac

8.03


7.89
7.55
8.31
*  Calculated by UE&C using the Brady model from Reference 3.
                                        28

-------
TABLE 5.3  CONSUMPTIVE HATER USE FOR COOLING TOWERS
Water
resource
region
1. Hew England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. lover Mississippi
9. Souris-Red-Ralny
10. Missouri
11. Arkansas-Hhlta-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
IS. Lover Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
IS. California
Location
Boston, HA
Concord, NH
Bangor, HE
Richmond, VA
Philadelphia, FA
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Detroit, HI
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Louisville, KY
Knoxvllla, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Twin Cities, MM
St. Louis, HO
Jackson, MS
New Orleans, LA
Blsmark, ND
Duluth, MN
N. Platte, HE
Great Falls, HT
Tulsa, OK
Garden City, KS
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Albuquerque , NH
El Paso, TX
Farmlngton, NM
Gr. Junction, CO
Phoenix, AZ
Yuoa, AZ
S. Lake City, UT
Reno, NV
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Los Angeles, CA
Sacramento, CA
Without makeup pond (MGD)
Blovdown returned
EHSA(Z' EH6A(U HEDt(3> UB&C
(1974) (1977) Low High (14,18,19)
6.73 7.77 7.56
7.91 8.51 6.77 7.81
6.24 7.58
8.27 8.87 7.31 8.06
7.06 7.94 8.20
8.98 9.34 8.08 8.48
7.85 8.35 8.26
8.03 6.79 7.83
6.90 7.88
8.50 8.75 7.01 7.93
7.27 8.06
8.62 7.40 8.10
7.49 8.13
8.27 8.39 6.44 7.66
8.87 7.28 8.06
8.86 9.22 7.81 8.33
7.92 8.38 8.64
7.79 8.51 6.46 7.67
6.26 7.59
8.39 8.87 7.14 8.01
8.75 6.74 7.78
8.74 7.57 8.19
7.57 8.19
9.09 9.34 7.85 8.33
7.91 8.40
8.98 9.34 7.48 8.10
8.02 8.41
8.15 7.53 8.16 8.39
7.11 7.95
8.98 8.21 8.58
8.33 8.77
8.50 8.99 6.88 7.84
7.30 8.01
8.27 8.39 6.64 7.81
6.77 7.84
8.75 8.75 7.69 8.21
9.10 9.10 7.45 8.08
Bloudoun retained
EH4A(l) HEDL (3> UEiC
(1977) Low High (U,1S,!9;
7.07 8.16 7.94
10.64 7.10 8.20
6.54 7.96
11.09 7.68 8.46
7.41 8.34 8.61
11.68 8.49 8.90
8.24 8.77 8.67
7.13 8.22
7.24 8.28
10.94 7.36 8.32
7.63 8.46
7.77 8.50
7.86 8.54
10.49 6.76 8.04
11.09 7.65 8.46
11.53 8.20 8.75
8.31 8.80 9.07
10.64 6.79 8.05
6.57 7.97
11.09 7.50 8.41
10.94 7.07 8.17
7.95 8.60
7.95 8.60
11.68 8.24 8.75
8.31 8.82
11.68 7.86 8.51
8.42 8.83
7.91 8.57 8.81
7.47 8.35
8.62 9.00
8.75 9.21
11.24 7.22 8.24
7.67 8.42
10.49 6.97 8.20
7.11 8.23
10.94 8.07 8.62
11.38 7.82 8.49

-------
TABLE 5.3 (cont'd.)
Hater
resource
region
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
9. SourU-Red-Ralny
10. Missouri
11. Arkansas-Uhlte-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
IS. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
Location
Boston, MA
Concord, HH
Bangor, ME
Richmond, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Detroit. MI
Cleveland, Ori
Colunbus, OH
Louisville, KY
Knoxvllle, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Twin Cities, MM
St. Louis, MO
Jackson, MS
Hew Orleans, LA
Blsnark, ND
Ouluth, UN
H. Platte, HE
Great Falls, HT
Tulsa, OK
Garden City, KS
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Albuquerque, NM
El Paso, TX
Farming ton, NH
Gr. Junction, CO
Phoenix, AZ
Yuoa, AZ
S. Lake City, UT
Reno, NV
Seattle, HA
Portland, OR
Los Angeles, CA
Sacramento, CA
Natural
evap.
(in/yr)
29.64
32.26
30.37
38.95
35.67
69.14
56. 58
32.52
33.57
35.86
40.14
39.81
42.70
39.00
42.69
51.43
42.69
37.02
30.31
44.53
36.89
52.77
56.83
62.25
57.74
57.15
73.61
53.34
44.39
78.07
80.14
40.27
46.65
25.31
32.01
50.87
53.90
Average
preclp.
(in/yr)
42.52
36.17
40.80
42.59
39.93
49.38 '
48.34
30.96
34.99
37.01
43.11
46.18
51.92
25.94
35.89
49.19
56.77
16.16
30.18
19.90
14.99
36.90
20.58
32.30
48.19
7.77
7.77
7.77
8.41
7.05
2.67
15.17
7.20
38.79
37.61
14.05
17.22
With makeup pond (HGD)
Slowdown returned
ER&A (1> HEDL(3> UU.C
(1977) Low High (U.18,19)
6.25 7.21 7.02
8.97 6.62 7.64
5.88 7.14
9.28 7.16 7.90
6.89 7.75 8.03
10.09 8.97 9.41
8.21 8.73 8.64
6.85 7.90
6.85 7.82
9.13 6.97 7.88
7.15 7.93
7.14 7.81
7.11 7.71
8.83 6.91 8.22
9.37 7.56 8.36
9.73 7.91 8.43
7.30 7.72 7.96
9.39 7.21 8.56
6.26 7.60
10.26 8.12 9.11
9.71 7.56 8.73
8.24 8.91
9.09 9.84
10.86 9.16 9.72
8.33 8.85
12.16 9.53 10.32
10.95 11.49
9.44 10.23 10.51
8.53 9.54
11.45 11.97
11.92 12.54
9.93 7.84 8.93
8.91 9.77
8.45 6.14 7.23
6.56 7.60
10.35 9.26 9.89
11.03 8.97 9.73
Slowdown retained
EH&A U' HEDLO) UESC
(1977) Low High (14,18,191
6.56 7.57 7.37
11.21 6.95 8.02
6.17 7.50
11.60 7.52 8.29
7.24 8.14 8.44
12.61 9.42 9.88
8.62 9.17 9.07
7.19 8.29
7.19 8.21
11.41 7.31 8.27
7.51 8.32
7.50 8.20
7.46 8.10
11.04 7.25 8.63
11.71 7.93 8.78
12.17 8.30 8.86
7.67 8.11 8.36
11.74 7.57 8.99
6.58 7.98
12.82 8.52 9.56
12.14 7.94 9.16
8.65 9.36
9.55 10.33
13.58 9.61 10.20
8.75 9.29
15.20 10.01 10.84
11.50 12.06
9.91 10.74 11.04
8.96 10.02
12.02 12.56
12.51 13.17
12.42 8.23 9.38
9.36 10.25
10.57 6.45 7.59
6.89 7.98
12.95 9.73 10.38
13.80 9.42 10.21

-------
                                   TABLE 5.4  CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE  FOR COOLING  PONDS AND  ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
Water
resource
region
It New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lover Mississippi
9. Sourls-Red -Rainy
10. Missouri
11. Arkansas-White-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
IS. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
Location
Boston, MA
' Concord, NH
Bangor, ME
Richmond, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Detroit, MI
Cleveland, OH
Columbus , OH
Louisville, KY
Knoxville, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Twin Cities, MN
St. Louis, MO
Jackson, MS
Hew Orleans, LA
Blanark, KD
Duluth, MN
N. Platta, HE
Great Falls, NT
Tulsa, OK
Garden City, KS
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Albuquerque, NM
El Paso, TX
Faming ton, NM
Gr. Junction, CO
Phoenix, AZ
Yuma, AZ
S. Lake City, UT
Reno, NV
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Los Angeles, CA
Sacramento, CA
Multipurpose (natural) pond (MGD)
EH&A (1) HEDL^J Sonnichsen(11)
(77) Low High Lor High
5.73 7.21 5.99 7.78
3.66 5.84 7.34
5.35 6.88
4.49 6.58 8.45
6.24 8.00
5.53 7.76 9.42
7.07 7.83
5.83 7.46
5.92 7.47
4.01 6.13 7.93
6.46 8.24
6.61 8.61
6.70 8.62
4.01 5.42 6.90
4.61 6.48 8.19
5.08 7.18 8.93
7.31 9.07
4.13 5.25 6.69
5.13 6.52
4.37 6.05 7.66 6.51 8.12
4.25 5.43 7.00
6.82 8.44
6.48 7.89
5.55 7.14 8.65
7.42 9.04
4.84 6.26 8.07 7.39 9.31
6.94 8.58
6.25 8.06
6.00 7.82
7.41 9.37
7.32 9.10
4.72 5.55 7.35
6.07 8.12
4.61 5.85 7.79
6.07 7.99
4.01 6.96 8.90
4.61 6.69 8.45
Single purpose (manmade) pond (MGD)
EH&A (1) HEDL (3)
1 ac/MWe 2 ac/MWe Low High
1.81* 5.91*
5.10 4.38 2.84* 6.34*
2.39* 5.89*
5.73 5.11 5.47* 8.07*
3.82* 7.19*
7.57 6.50 10.28 13.28
8.62 9.54
6.35 7.62
5.22* 7.23*
5.17 4.59 5.72* 7.78*
5.73* 8.00*
4.38* 7.85*
5.24* 8.12*
5.41 4.71 7.38 9.02
6.11 5.36 8.04 8.88
6.56 5.82 7.16* 8.90*
2.30* 7.40*
6.89 5.51 8.10 11.59
5.42 6.62
8.55 6.46 9.48 13.90
7.19 5.72 8.59 12.31
8.78 10.50
10.71 17.85
9.89 7.72 10.65 16.16
9.78 12.51
12.90 8.87 11-30 18.27
13.65 24.92
11.44 18.68
9.80 14.17
14.77 26.11
14.90 27.43
7.52 6.12 8-80 11.92
11.11 17.11
4.81 4 71 1-20* 6.23*
-7.55* 3.45*
8.91 6.46 11-28 16.47
10.29 7.45 10.05 13.98
Once-through cooling (MGD)
HEDL (3) BH&A ^2)
Low High (74)
5.49 6.34
5.60 6.47 4.97
5.04 5.93
.6.17 7.21 , „,
5.86 6.86 4'97
7.62 8.55 . ,„
6.84 7.76 5l68
5.51 6.44
5.65 6.54 *'61
5.72 6.72
6.09 7.10 5>08
6.13 7.21
6.27 7.32 5'32
5.16 5.98
6.17 7.12 *•«
6.91 7.88
7.02 8.01 s-68
4.99 5.79
4.90 5.69 4-37
5.79 6.65
5.10 6.00 4.97
6.61 7.48
6.40 7.42 5.91
7.06 8.11
7.28 8.18 6.38
5.87 6.86
6.74 7.59 5.79
5.86 6.86 , .,
5.62 6.53 4'49
7.01 8.07
7.05 7.99 3-6B
5.11 6.09
5.53 6.62 4'85
5.34 6.41
5.58 6.65 *-49
6.52 7.62
6.37 7.33 5.32
* Average precipitation exceeds natural  evaporation

-------
                                  TABLE 5.5   EFFECT OF  PRECIPITATION CREDIT  ON WATER CONSUMPTION CALCULATED
                                                            FOR  SINGLE  PURPOSE COOLING  PONDS
Hater
resource
region
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. South Atlantic- Gulf
5. Ohio
7. Upper Mississippi

8. Lower Mississippi
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
10. Missouri

12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California

Location
Concord, NH
Richmond, VA
Tampa , FL
Columbus, OH
Twin Cities, MN
St. Louis, MO
Jackson, MS
Bismark, ND
North Platte, NE
Great Falls, MT
Dallas, TX
Albuquerque, MM
Salt Lake City, UT
Seattle, WA
Los Angeles, CA
Sacramento, CA
Precipi-
tation,
P
(in/yr)
36.17
42.59
49.38
37.01
25.94
35.89
49.19
16.16
19.90
14.99
32.30
7.77
15.17
38.79
14.05
17.22
Run-
off (1),
R
(in/yr)
20.00
11.50
13.50
12.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
0.75
1.00
0.30
4.50
0.15
0.20
17.00
1.00
3.50
Coef. ,
H
0.55
0.27
0.27
0.32
0.19
0.28
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.01
0.44
0.07
0.20
(in/yr)
16.28
31.09
36.05
25.17
21.01
25.84
34.43
15.35
18.91
14.69
27.78
7.61
15.02
21.72
13.07
13.78
HEDL(^) model water consumption (MGD)
with runoff
correction*
Low
7.26
8.02
11.27
8.21
7.74
8.93
9.44
8.15
9.55
8.60
10.97
11.31
8.81
4.99
11.35
10.30
High
8.08
8.91
16.24
9.11
10.11
11.11
11.34
11.76
14.21
12.37
17.16
18.31
11.95
7.49
16.54
14.74
without runoff
correction"*"
Low
2.84
5.47
10.28
5.72
7.38
8.04
7.16
8.10
9.48
8.59
10.65
11.30
8.80
1.20
11.28
10.05
High
6.34
8.07
13.28
7.78
9.02
8.88
8.90
11.59
13.90
12.31
16.16
18.27
11.92
6.23
16.47
13.98
EH&A(1) model
water consump-
tion (MGD)
1 acre
MWe
5.10
5.73
7.57
5.17
5.41
6.11
6.56
6.89
8.55
7.19
9.89
12.90
7.52
4.81
8.91
10.29
2 acres
MWe
4.38
5.11
6.50
4.59
4.71
5.36
5.82
5.51
6.46
5.72
7.72
8.87
6.12
4.71
6.46
7.45
*  C - FE + NE - (l-r)P
+  C = FE + NE - P

where:   C = pond water consumption
        FE = forced evaporation
        NE - natural evaporation

-------
               TABLE 5.6  ADJUSTED FIELD DATA ON WATER CONSUMPTION OF COOLING TOWERS AND COOLING PONDS




w
U)




Water
resource
region
1. New England
7. Upper Mississippi
Upper Mississippi
Upper Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
13. Rio Grande
Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
Location
Merrimack
County, NH
Pekin, IL
Kincaid, IL
Fort Atkinson,
WI
Stamps, AR
Forest City, AR
Dona Ana County,
NM
El Paso, TX
Huntington, UT
Steam
electric
station
Merrimack
Power ton
Kincaid
Koshkonong
Couch
Moses
Rio Grande
Newman
Huntington
Utility
Public Service of
New Hampshire
Commonwealth
Edison Co.
Commonweal th
Edison Co.
Wisconsin Electric
Power Co.
Arkansas
Power & Light Co.
Arkansas
Power & Light Co.
El Paso
Electric Co.
El Paso
Electric Co.
Utah Power
& Light Co.
Water consumption (MGD)
Cooling Pond
13.42
5.91
21.30
	
	
	
	
	
---
Cooling Tower
—
—
—
Data questionable
6.52
30.65
13.76
14.50*
11.22*
*  average for three units

-------
 c
 o
 CO
 >-i
 O


 I*
 w

 bO
 c
 at
 0)
 J-l
 o
-o
01
to
•H
J-l
s

CO
4=
4J


4J


S
   80
   70
   60
   so
   40
   30
-o
0)
CO

-------
Ui
Ul
                                                                                                   r--' \
                                                                                                   ! owl \
                                                    SOURIS-RED RAINY
                 Figure 5.2  Map Showing Water Resource  Regions  Defined by Water Resources Council

-------
 cd
 CO
18



17 -



16 -



15



14 -



13 -



12 •
 a

 00  11 H
vO
 o
 c
 o
 .-i
 .j
 o.
10 -



 9 -
 2   8
 S-l
 o
     5 '



     4 -



     3 '




     2
     0
                        Legend:   I HEDL  (3)



                                  • EH6eA  (1)



                                  XUE&C  (14  and .15)
                                                 f   I
         1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12  13  14 15   16  17   18
                               Water Resource Region
      Figure 5.3   Cooling Towers Without Makeup Pond (Slowdown Returned)
                                        36

-------
18
17
16
15
14
13 -
rt*
^ 12 •
CO
^^
cd
oo n .
D
0
"* 10 .
g
o
3 9 -
OU
§ 8 -
o
o
2 7 '
CD
6 .
5 .
4 -

3 •

2 .
1 -
0 .







•

,
. 1
X
1 1
* • 1 1 1
* 1 • * * , 1
• • • 1 II
^ 1
v ' 1 1 1
Ti n M i ?
J '
* 1 II I1 '
1


Legend: 1 HEDL (3)
• EH&A (1)

XUE&C (14 and 15)



 1   234   5   6  7   8  9   10  11  12  13  14  15   16  17  18
                      Water Resource Region
Figure 5.4  Cooling Towers With Makeup Pond  (Slowdown Returned)
                              37

-------
CD
   18 -

   17 -

   16

   15 -

   14 •

   13-

   12 •

   11 •
 to
•D
 2 10-
  A
 o  9 .
 a,
 I  8
 to
 C

 f  7J
 a)
 I  6

    5

    4

    3

    2 -

    1

    0
                                                             •  •
                     Legend:  | HEDL  (3)

                             • EH&A  (1)
                  4 ' 5 '6   7  ' 8 '  9 '  lO'll   12' 13 ' 14 ' 15 ' 16 ' 17 ' 18

                          Water Resource Region
                Figure 5.5  Multipurpose Cooling Ponds
                                   38

-------
                                         26^11


18 •
17 -
16 •
15 •
14 •
13 •
t 12 •

-------
                                  SECTION 6

                    COSTS OF COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
6.1  PROCEDURE FOR COMPILATION OF COST DATA

Cost information was compiled for the 18 water resource regions in the con-
terminous United States.  Costs of the various cooling system alternatives
can be divided into two main categories:  1) the capital cost for equipment
and installation, and 2) the total evaluated cost.  The capital costs normal-
ly include the costs of the major equipment of a cooling system (i.e., cool-
ing device, circulating water system including condenser, electric equip-
ment).  The total evaluated cost includes both the capital cost and the oper-
ating penalty cost.  While the capital costs can be easily identified, the
penalty costs are less definitive and can vary considerably, depending on the
economic factors, analysis methods and penalty items included.  However, to
compare the costs of the alternative cooling systems on a common economic
basis, these less definitive items must be considered in the overall cost.
In principle, the data from different sources can be adjusted if the basic
information or design performance and cost elements are available.  Unfortu-
nately, this was not the case for most of the cost data sources reviewed.
Therefore, for the data from all the different sources, only the capital
costs are presented.  The total evaluated cost, which is the total cost for
cooling, is extracted from references where the basic information needed for
proper adjustment is available.

6.2  COMPILATION OF CAPITAL COST DATA

Capital costs were compiled for both nuclear and fossil power plants of dif-
ferent sizes and year of commercial operation or year of cost evaluation.
These costs were then adjusted to 1978 dollars.  Costs given for prior years,
or costs estimated for years beyond 1978, were adjusted accordingly, assuming
a composite seven percent escalation index.  This index was obtained as the
average of a six percent material escalation rate and an eight percent labor
escalation.  The adjusted cost data are presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 for
fossil and nuclear plants respectively.

The costs of conventional cooling systems have been grouped into four cate-
gories in the above tables.  These are:  1) once-through cooling, 2) wet
(evaporative) cooling towers, 3) cooling ponds, and 4) dry cooling towers.
Within each category there are various design variations and operational
schemes.  These include fresh and saltwater operations for all the cooling
systems mentioned above except the dry cooling systems, mechanical and natu-
ral draft designs for towers, man-made ponds and natural cooling lakes for
                                      40

-------
ponds, and operations with  conventional and high back pressure turbines for
dry  towers.  Also  included  in  these  tables are  two wet/dry tower systems de-
signed to conserve water, i.e.,  to reduce the water  consumption of comparable
wet  tower systems.  The  wet/dry  systems will be discussed in Section 6.3.

The  capital  cost data presented  in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 indicated a wide range
for  each cooling system  category.  In addition, the  ranges of cost overlap
for  the different  cooling system categories.  Therefore, it is difficult to
compare the  costs  of alternative cooling systems solely on the basis of capi-
tal  cost because of the  differences  in basic assumptions, cost elements in-
cluded, locations, etc.

Although it  is not borne out by  the  capital data presented in these two
tables, the  following observations were made.   The systems designed for salt-
water operation are generally  more costly than  those designed for fresh water
operation because  of corrosion,  size and operational considerations as illus-
trated in Table 6.3(21).  The  mechanical draft  towers and the natural draft
towers do not differ substantially in cost, although the natural draft towers
are  usually  slightly higher in capital cost(3).  The costs of cooling ponds
can  differ widely  depending on whether the pond is man-made or natural and
whether the  site conditions and  land costs are  conducive to the construction
of a pond.   The dry systems which use high back pressure turbines usually
have much lower capital  costs  than those which  use low pressure conventional
turbines(2,16).

6.3  COMPILATION OF TOTAL COST DATA  FOR COOLING SYSTEMS

The  total cost of  a cooling system includes both the capital and penalty
costs and is called the  total  evaluated cost.   The total evaluated costs pre-
sented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 for fossil and nuclear  plants are adjusted from
the  data given in  references indicated in the tables, using the same fixed
source/fixed demand method  as  given  in these references.  The method assumes
that any reduction of plant capability below its firm power rating must be
replaced by additional generating capacity, such as  the capacity from fossil
or nuclear base load units  which are similar to the  power plant under consid-
eration.  The economic factors used  for the adjustment of costs are given in
Table 6.6.  All the data are for fresh water operation, with the exception of
the  data derived from Reference  1, which were designed for saltwater applica-
tion.

The adjustment of  the capital  cost component has already been discussed in
Section 6.2.  The  penalty cost includes five components.  These are the
charges for the loss of  generating capability relative to the firm rating of
the plant at the peak ambient  temperature, the  energy loss due to ambient
effect on cooling  systems during a given year,  the capability and energy re-
quired to run the  cooling system pumps and fans, and the charge for cooling
system maintenance.

The penalty charge for capability replacement represents the capital cost of
generating equipment elsewhere in the  utility system which is used to make up
the capability losses of the plant.   The energy costs are the costs needed to
provide energy to operate the  makeup capacity during an annual cycle.  The
                                      41

-------
maintenance cost is the cost charged to a cooling system for periodic main-
tenance and replacement of parts.  Both the energy costs and the maintenance
costs are generally capitalized to represent the costs which will accrue over
the lifetime of the plant.

In adjusting the cost data, the costs of water to makeup the water consump-
tion of cooling systems have been subtracted from the original data.  The
cost of water includes the cost for the purchase of water, the capital and
operating cost of chemical treatment, pumping cost, and blowdown disposal
cost.  Water cost is practically nil for dry cooling systems and is usually
small for plants using wet cooling systems with fresh water and located near
a water body.  This penalty cost is of special significance when making cost
comparisons of the wet tower systems and the wet/dry tower systems designed
for water conservation.  This will be discussed in more detail in the next
section.

The data presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 indicate that the total cost of
cooling, i.e., the total evaluated cost, ranges from approximately 0.5 to 4
mills/kWh for fossil plants and 1 to 6 mills/kWh for nuclear plants in 1978
dollars.  Once-through cooling has the lowest cost, and dry cooling has the
highest cost.  The data also indicate that the total evaluated costs of all
conventional systems, exclusive of the constructed pond and the dry cooling
systems, do not differ substantially from each other.  The cost data for the
constructed pond given in (3) did not include the effect of site topography
on the pond construction; consequently the capital cost may not be represen-
tative of the actual cost of constructed ponds.  As expected, the costs of
wet/dry tower systems fall between the wet and dry tower systems.

6.4  IMPACT OF DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY ON WATER CONSUMPTION AND COST

The technology being developed and applied to reduce water consumption in
commercial power plants is wet/dry cooling.  Specifically, it uses a combi-
nation of wet and dry cooling towers to reduce the water consumption of wet
cooling towers.  The water consumption referred to here is defined as the sum
of the water evaporated and the blowdown from the tower.  It corresponds to
the case of tower with blowdown retained as discussed in Section 5.

Although there is no operating experience for the wet/dry system at this
time, two wet/dry cooling systems designed to reduce the water consumption
of comparable wet tower systems by 60 percent have been purchased by the
Public Service Company of New Mexico for its San Juan Units Nos. 3 and 4.
These 450 MWe fossil plants are scheduled to be operational in 1979 and 1981,
respectively.  The wet/dry system with a 60 percent reduction in water con-
sumption is called a 40 percent system, meaning it consumes 40 percent of
water needed for a comparably-rated (heat transfer) wet tower system.

The current design of wet/dry towers for water conservation is composed of
separate wet and dry towers joined by a circulating water circuit.  The com-
ponent wet and dry towers can be both structurally and functionally sepa-
rated (similar to those investigated in References 2 and 16) or structurally
integrated but functionally separated (similar to those designed for the San
Juan units(15)).  All of these wet/dry towers are designed for use with con-
                                      42

-------
ventional low back pressure turbines.

In these wet/dry systems, the dry  tower is  the main heat rejection device,
and the wet tower is primarily used  for augmenting the dry cooling capability
at higher ambient conditions.  These cooling systems can be designed to re-
duce water consumption of a comparable wet  tower system by any desired
amount, typically 60 to 99 percent,  resulting in 40 percent to 1 percent sys-
tems.  The accompanying increases  in cost compared to wet tower systems are,
however, substantial, being higher for the  higher reduction in water con-
sumption.  This is shown in Tables 6.4 and  6.5 which contain data derived
from two major studies(2,16) and a subsequent study(l) on wet/dry tower sys-
tems designed for water conservation.  Reference 2 provided the data for nu-
clear plants and Reference 16 provided the  data for fossil plants; Reference
1 was for a specific power plant.  The detailed data, given in References 1,
2, and 16 and those presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 indicates that:

     1.  There is a step increase  in the total evaluated cost from
         the wet to the 40 percent wet/dry  tower system evaluated.
     2.  The costs increase approximately linearly between the 40
         percent and the 10 percent  wet/dry systems.
     3.  There is a sharp cost increase for wet/dry systems below
         approximately 10 percent  make-up requirements.
     4.  There is step increase in cost from the wet/dry system as
         low as 1 percent makeup  requirement to the dry cooling
         system which do not require make-up water.
     5.  The cost of water has a significant impact on the relative
         cost comparison of wet and  wet/dry cooling systems.

Items 1, 3 and 4 are also evident  from the  data presented in Tables 6.4 and
6.5.

As indicated in Section 6.3, the data in the above mentioned two tables have
excluded the cost of water which depends not only on the quantity of the
makeup required but also on the water quality and water supply conditions of
a specific power plant.  The data  for the proposed Sundesert Nuclear Project
(1) and the Kaiparowits fossil station(16)  illustrate the effect of water
cost on the comparison of wet/dry  and wet tower systems.  The data adjusted
according to the economic factors  in Table  6.6 are given in Tables 6.7 and
6.8.  As indicated earlier, the water cost  for each wet or wet/dry system
includes the cost for the purchase of water, the capital and operating cost,
chemical treatment, pumping cost and blowdown disposal cost.  These data
indicate that, with the inclusion  of the cost of water, the impact of the use
of wet/dry cooling to conserve water may be significantly reduced but remains
substantial.

6.5  CONCLUSIONS

The following are the conclusions  derived from the results compiled and pre-
sented in this section:

     1.  It is difficult to compare  the cost of alternative cooling
         systems solely on the basis of capital cost.  The ranges of
                                      43

-------
cost overlap for different cooling system alternatives.
There is no discernable trend of the capital cost of
cooling system by regions.
As expected, the total evaluated cost of once-through
cooling is the lowest and that of dry cooling is the
highest; other closed-cycle conventional systems lie
between these extremes.  The total evaluated costs of
wet tower systems and spray pond systems do not differ
substantially.
The cost impact of the use of dry cooling to conserve
water may be significantly reduced with the use of wet/dry
cooling; however, the absolute cost of wet/dry cooling is
significantly greater than that of wet cooling.
                            44

-------
                                REFERENCES
1.  Englesson, G. A., and M.  C. Hu.  Wet/Dry  Cooling Systems for Water
    Conservation.  Prepared Testimony before  the State Energy Resources
    Conservation and Development  Commission of  the State of California,
    Sundesert Nuclear Project,  1977.

2.  Hu, M. C.  Engineering and  Economic Evaluation of Wet/Dry Cooling
    Towers for Water Conservation.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.,
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-ERDA-761130, 1976.  (Available from
    National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
    COO-2442-1.)

3.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Heat  Sink Design and  Cost Study
    for Fossil and Nuclear Power  Plants.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
    UE&C-AEC-740401, 1974.  (Available from National Technical  Information
    Service, Springfield, Virginia, WASH-1360.)

4.  Surface, M. 0.  System Designs for Dry Cooling Towers.  Power Engineer-
    ing, 81(9):42-50, 1977.

5.  Radian Corporation.  Thermal  Pollution Control of Pollution Control
    Technology for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Stations, Section
    4.0.  Austin, Texas, 1975.  (Unpublished  report prepared for EPA.)

6.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Cooling Systems Addendum:  Capital
    and Total Generating Cost Studies.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-
    NRC-780331, 1978.  (Available from National Technical Information Ser-
    vice, Springfield, Virginia,  NUREG-0247,  COO-2477-11.)

7.  Gold, H., D. J. Goldstein,  and D. Young.  Effect of Water Treatment  on
    the Comparative Costs of  Evaporative and  Dry Cooled Power Plants.  Water
    Purification Associates,  Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.  (Available
    from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
    COO-2580-1.)

8.  Hoffman, D. P.  Spray Cooling for Power Plants.  Proceedings of the
    American Power Conference,  35:702-712, 1973.

9.  Sonnichsen, J. C., Jr., S.  L. Engstrom, D.  C. Kolesar, and  G. C. Bailey.
    Cooling Ponds -- A Survey of  the State of the Art.  Hanford Engineering
    Development Laboratory, Richland, Washington, HEDL-TME 72-101, 1972.
                                     45

-------
10.   Rossie,  J.  P., and E. A. Cecil.  Research on Dry-Type Cooling Tower
     for Thermal Electric Generating, Part I.  R. W. Beck and Associates,
     Denver,  Colorado, 1970.  (Available from National Technical Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-206 954.)

11.   Tormey,  M.  T., Jr., and D.  S.  Holmes.  Wet/Dry Cooling Alternatives.
     Prepared Testimony before the  State Energy Resources Conservation and
     Development Commission of the  State of California, Docket Number 76-N01-
     2,  1977.

12.   Zaloudek, F. R., R. T. Allemann, D. W. Faletti, B. M. Johnson, H. L.
     Parry, G. C. Smith, R. D. Tokarz, and R. A. Walter.  A Study of the
     Comparative Costs of Five Wet/Dry Cooling Tower Concepts.  Battelle
     Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, BNWL-2122, 1976.

13.   Glicksman,  L.  R.  Thermal Discharge from Power Plants.  American Society
     for Mechanical Engineers, 72-WA/Ener-2, 1972.

14.   Rossie,  J.  P., and W. A. Williams, Jr.  The Cost of Energy from Nuclear
     Power Plants Equipped with Dry Cooling Systems.  American Society of
     Mechanical  Engineers, 72-Pwr-4, 1972.

15.   Johnson, B. M., R. T. Allemann, D. W. Faletti, B. C. Fryer, and F. R.
     Zaloudek.  Dry Cooling of Power Generating Stations:  A Summary of the
     Economic Evaluation of Several Advanced Concepts via a Design Optimiza-
     tion Study  and a Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate.  Battelle Pacific
     Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, BNWL-2120, 1976.

16.   Hu, M. C.,  and G. A. Englesson.  Wet/Dry Cooling Systems for Fossil-
     Fueled Power Plants:  Water Conservation and Plume Abatement.  United
     Engineers & Constructors Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-EPA-
     771130,  1977.   (Available from National Technical Information Service,
     Springfield, Virginia, EPA-600/7-77-137.)

17.   Larinoff, M. W.  Look at Costs of Wet/Dry Towers.  Power, 122(4):78-81,
     102, 1978.

18.   Molina,  J.  F., Jr., and J. C.  Moseley, II.  Costs of Alternative Cooling
     Systems.  In:   Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E. F.
     Gloyna,  et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The Uni-
     versity of Texas at Austin, 1975, pp. 149-162.

19.   General Electric Company.  Future Needs for Dry or Peak Shaved Dry/Wet
     Cooling and Significance to Nuclear Power Plants.  Electric Power Re-
     search Institute, Palo Alto, California, EPRI-NP-150, 1976.

20.   United Engineers and Constructors Inc.  Preliminary Economic Evaluation
     of Alternate Cooling Systems for Aguirre Fossil Units 1 and 2.  Phila-
     delphia, Pennsylvania, 1973.  Prepared for the Puerto Rico Water Re-
     sources  Authority.
                                      46

-------
21.  Roffman, A., et al.  The State of the Art of Saltwater Cooling Towers
     for Steam Electric Generating Plants.  Westinghouse Electric Corpora-
     tion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, WASH-1244, 1973.  (Available from Na-
     tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, WASH-1244..

22.  Fryer, B. C., D. W. Faletti, Dan J. Braun, David J. Braun, and L. E.
     Wiles.  An Engineering and Cost Comparison of Three Different All-Dry
     Cooling Systems.  Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
     Washington, BNWL-2121, 1976.

23.  Kolflat, T. D.  Cooling Tower Practices.  Power Engineering, 78(1):
     32-39, 1974.

24.  Olds, F. C.  Cooling Towers.  Power Engineering, 76(12):30-37, 1972.

25.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation Study of
     Cooling Systems and Turbine Generator Blade Size.  Seabrook Nuclear
     Generating Station, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 1972.

26.  United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation of Alternate
     Cooling Systems.  St. Rosalie Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Alli-
     ance, Louisiana, Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1974.

27.  Sebald, J. F.  Economics of LWR and HTGR Nuclear Power Plants with
     Evaporative and Dry Cooling Systems Sited in the United States.  Gilbert
     Associates, Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania, GAI Report No. 1869, 1975.

28.  Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Unita 1, 2, 3, and 4, Environment Report,
     Volume 3, Docket No. 50-518.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxvillp,
     Tennessee,  1975.
29.  Jamesport Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 5,
     Docket No.  50-516.  Long Island Lighting Company, Hicksville, New York,
     1974.

30.  Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 5, Docket
     No. 50-556, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1975.

31.  Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 2,
     Docket No. 50-553.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee,
     1975.

32.  Erie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 5, Docket
     No. 50-580.  Ohio Edison, Co., Akron, Ohio, 1977.

33.  Greene County Nuclear Plant, Environment Report, Volume 3, Docket No.
     50-549.  Power Authority of the State of New York, 1975.

34.  Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 2, Environment Report, Docket No. 50-548,
     Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, Nebraska, 1976.

35.  Hanford Nuclear Project No. 1, Environment Report, Volume 2, Docket No.
     50-460,  Washington Public Power Supply System, 1974.
                                      47

-------
                                                                         TABLE 6.1

                                     CAPITAL COSTS OF COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - FOSSIL PLANTS (S/KW.  1978 DOLLARS)
Water Resource Region
1. New England
2. Middle Atlantic
3. S. Atlantic-Gulf

4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
10. Missouri Basin
11. Arkansas-White-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
15. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
Once Through
15(3)

19<20)









36 (26)





Wet Tower
22-28(3>
26-27d6)
24-26 16) 2&(3)
22-37(20>
25<7>. 21-23(8),
25(16), 19-25(6>

19(10)


23(16)



21-26(3), 22-24(16)

25(16), 25.27(35)

Cooling Pond
39(3)

63(20>

22(8), 44(5)







62<26>



69(35)

407. Wet/Dry*

43(16)
53(20)

27(8)





38-43d6)



W™



10% Wet/Dry*

56<16>








47-52d6)



49-57(16)



Dry Tower
High Back
Pressure Turbine
34-38(3)
45<16)


«(?>
39-45(5)

30<10>


47d6)



46-49(16)
73-87^'

59(35)

Low Back
Pressure Turbine

85U6>








101-103(16)



88-108(16)



References given in superscripted parentheses.
* 40% (10%) wet/dry has 40X (10%) of the water consumption of a wet system designed to reject the same quantity of heat.

-------
                                                                       TABLE 6.2

                                  CAPITAL COSTS OF COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - NUCLEAR PLANTS (S/KW. 1973 DOLLARS)
Water Resource Region
1. New England

2. Middle Atlantic

3. S. Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio

6. Tennessee

7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lover Mississippi
9. Sourls-Red-Ralny
10. Missouri Basin
11. Arkansas-Hhlte-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
IS. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
Once Through
38(25)f 21(3)>
24<9>
58(29)










27(34)

13-14<18>






Wet Tower
28-30(3\ 28-
32(9)> 31(2)
44-48*27). 54-
61(29), 46-53(33>
32(2), 31-32(3)
24-29(32)


23-27(28). 32-
34<3l>



37-4o(*>>. 21<7>
33-36 «°>
26(7), 20<18)

30(2), 27-30f3)
21(7)


45(1), 33(1D
Cooling Pond
51<3>, 4l(«)
24-28^9)




27-28(5), i4_
20(5)







26-28





79(5)
407. Wet /Dry*
55(2)

60(19)

61(2), ,6(19)












59(2)



71(1). 95(U)
107. Wet /Dry*
68(2)



75(2)












78(2)



,02(1), 125(11)
Dry Tower
High Back
Pressure Turbine
47-57(3), 62(2)

37-39<">

66(2)
79(27)
43-69<5>






65(?)

75(7)f 29.38d8)

68<2>
67(')



Low Back
Pressure Turbine
123(2)



125(2)












150(2>




References given in superscripted parentheses.
* 407. (107.) wet/dry has 407. (107.) of the water consumption of a wet  system designed  to  reject  the  same  quant tcv  oC  heat.

-------
                        TABLE 6.3  PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN CAPITAL COSTS FOR SALTWATER COOLING SYSTEMS

                                   (50,000 ppm) RELATIVE TO FRESHWATER COOLING SYSTEMS (21)

RESEARCH- COTTRELL
Natural-Draft Cooling Systems
Cooling Tower
Condenser
Other
Total Capital
WESTINGHOUSE POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS
Natural-Draft Cooling Systems
Cooling Tower
Condenser
Other
Total Capital
Mechanical-Draft Cooling Systems
Cooling Tower
Condenser
Other
Total Capital
ECODYNE
Natural-Draft Cooling Tower
Mechanical-Draft Cooling Tower
Typical Division
of Total Capital
Expenses by Com-
ponent, percent


72
20
8
100


53
27
20
100

37
34
29
100



Percent Increase
Without
Materials


4.2 - 4.4
1.5 - 3.6
5.3 - 8.5
3.7 - 4.6


5.0
3.7
3.7
4.6

5.5
4.1
0.6
3.6

1.8 - 2.9
2.2 - 3.6
Materials
Only


0
15.5 - 15.9
0
3.0 - 3.2


0
6.8
0
1.7

0
7.0
0
2.3



Total


4.2 - 4.4
17.0 - 19.5
5.3 - 8.5
6.7 - 7.8


5.0
10.5
3.7
6.3

5.5
11.1
0.6
5.9



01
o

-------
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR COOLING SYSTEMS FOR FOSSIL PLANTS
«
Cooling System
Once Through
Mechanical Wet












Natural Wet


Fan Assisted


Cooling Pond
Spray Canal
40% Wet /Dry





Water Resources Region
1
1
2

3

5
10

14



17
1
3
14
1
3
14
1
1
2
10

14


New England
New England
Middle Atlantic

South Atlantic-Gulf

Ohio
Missouri Basin

Upper Colorado



Pacific Northwest
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England
New England
Middle Atlantic
Missouri Basin

Upper Colorado


Location
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Newark, N.J.
New Hampton, N.Y.
Charlotte, N.C.
Miami, Florida
Cleveland, Ohio
Col strip, Montana
Young, North Dakota
Denver, Colorado
Kaiparowits, Utah
Rock Springs, Wyoming
San Juan, New Mexico
Seattle, Washington
Boston, Mass.
Miami, Florida
Denver, Colorado
Boston, Mass.
Miami, Florida
Denver, Colorado
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
New Hampton, N.Y.
Col strip, Montana
Young, North Dakota
Kaiparowits, Utah
Rock Springs, Wyoming
San Juan, New Mexico
Capital Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
15.16 0.42
21.57 0.59
26.20 0.72
27.13 0.74
26.20 0.72
24.19 0.66
25.21 0.69
23.40 0.64
22.87 0.63
21.16 0.58
23.60 0.65
22.42 0.61
22.88 0.63
25.25 0.69
26.96 0.74
27.57 0.76
25.11 0.69
27.77 0.76
28.15 0.77
26.47 0.73
38.50 1.05
23.99 0.66
43.23 1.18
42.64 1.17
37.66 1.03
39.48 1.08
39.15 1.07
43.60 1.19
Penalty Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
4.55 0.12
21.50 0.59
17.97 0.49
16.67 0.46
16.87 0.46
23.99 0.66
16.40 0.45
18.21 0.50
19.11 0.52
17.17 0.47
19.25 0.52
15.91 0.44
17.64 0.48
14.90 0.41
20.13 0.55
23.53 0.64
16.50 0.45
17.86 0.49
23.32 0.64
15.14 0.41
23.55 0.65
20.18 0.55
37.80 1.04
36.20 0.99
44.47 1.22
45.22 1.24
34.95 0.96
37.07 1.02
Total Evaluated
Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
19.71 0.54
43.07 1.18
44.17 1.21
43.80 1.20
43.07 1.18
48.18 1.32
41.61 1.14
41.61 1.14
41.98 1.15
38.33 1.05
42.85 1.17
38.33 1.05
40.52 1.11
40.15 1.10
47.09 1.29
51.10 1.40
41.61 1.14
45.63 1.25
51.47 1.41
41.61 1.14
62.05 1.70
44.17 1.21
81.03 2.22
78.84 2.16
82.13 2.25
84.70 2.32
74.10 2.03
80.67 2.21
Ref.
3
3
16
16
16
3
16
16
16
3
16
16
16
16
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
16
16
16
16
16
16

-------
                                                         TABLE 6.4 (cont'd)
Cooling System
10% Wet/Dry





Mechanical Dry With
High Pressure Turbine





Mechanical Dry With
Low Pressure Turbine




Natural Dry With
High Pressure Turbine
Water Resources Region
2
10

14


1
2
10

14


2
10

14


1

Middle Atlantic
Missouri Basin

Upper Colorado


New England
Middle Atlantic
Missouri Basin

Upper Colorado


Middle Atlantic
Missouri Basin

Upper Colorado


New England

Location
New Hampton, N.Y.
Colstrip, Montana
Young, North Dakota
Kaiparowits, Utah
Rock Springs, Wyoming
San Juan, New Mexico
Boston, Mass.
New Hampton, N.Y.
Colstrip, Montana
Young, North Dakota
Kaiparowits, Utah
Rock Springs, Wyoming
San Juan, New Mexico
New Hampton, N.Y.
Colstrip, Montana
Young, North Dakota
Kaiparowits, Utah
Rock Springs, Wyoming
San Juan, New Mexico
Boston, Mass.

Capital Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
56.07 1.54
51.95 1.42
47.21 1.29
49.28 1.35
52.34 1.43
56.89 1.56
34.29 0.94
45.16 1.24
47.43 1.30
47.28 1.30
49.43 1.35
45.74 1.25
47.61 1.30
84.60 2.32
101.07 2.77
102.59 2.81
107.83 2.95
87.51 2.40
101.14 2.77
37.87 1.04

Penalty Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
41.02 1.12
45.87 1.26
50.25 1.38
45.00 1.23
38.91 1.07
47.50 1.30
98.94 2.71
96.10 2.63
99.30 2.72
101.64 2.78
96.21 2.64
95.15 2.61
LOO. 95 2.77
53.01 1.45
57.71 1.58
58.01 1.59
54.23 1.49
53.02 1.45
59.83 1.64
89.52 2.45

Total Evaluated
Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
97.09 2.66
97.82 2.68
97.46 2.67
94.28 2.58
91.25 2.50
104.39 2.86
133.23 3.65
141.26 3.87
146.73 4.02
148.92 4.08
145.64 3.99
140.89 3.86
148.56 4.07
137.61 3.77
158.78 4.35
160.60 4.40
162.06 4.44
140.53 3.85
160.97 4.41
127.39 3.49

Ref.
16
16
16
16
16
16
3
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
3

U)
IsJ

-------
                     TABLE 6.5




SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR COOLING SYSTEMS FOR LWR PLANTS
1
Cooling System
Once Through
Mechanical Wet
Natural Wet
Fan Assisted
Natural Draft
Cooling Pond
Spray Pond
407. Wet/Dry
10% Wet/ Dry
Water Resources Region
1
1
3
14
18
1
3
14
1
3
14
1
1
1
3
14
18
1
3
14
18
New England
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
California
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England
New England
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
California
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
California
Location
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass,
Atlanta, Ga.
Miami, Florida
Denver, Colorado
San Juan, New Mexico
Blythe, California
Boston, Mass.
Miami, Florida
Denver, Colorado
Boston, Mass.
Miami, Florida
Denver, Colorado
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Atlanta, Ga.
San Juan, New Mexico
Blythe, California
Boston, Mass.
Atlanta, Ga.
San Juan, New Mexico
Blythe, California
Capital Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
21.03 0.58
27.53 0.75
30.99 0.85
32.05 0.88
30.55 0.84
26.99 0.74
30.39 0.83
44.70 1.22
29.83 0.82
31.38 0.86
28.65 0.78
32.36 0.89
31.91 0.87
30.38 0.83
50.72 1.39
25.45 0.70
54.90 1.50
61.22 1.68
58.94 1.61
71.32 1.95
67.72 1.86
75.25 2.06
77.66 2.13
102.41 2.81
Penalty Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
5.25 0.14
21.75 0.60
21.21 0.58
21.61 0.59
22.74 0.62
17.91 0.49
17.43 0.48
22.46 0.62
20.54 0.56
21.55 0.59
17.34 0.48
19.11 0.52
22.48 0.62
16.71 0.46
21.92 0*.60
25.65 0.70
38.54 1.06
40.25 1.10
38.52 1.06
58.26 1.60
43.61 1.19
52.87 1.45
51.55 1.41
70.24 1.92
Total Evaluated
Cost
Mills/
$/KW KWHR
26.28 0.72
49.28 1.35
52.20 1.43
53.66 1.47
53.29 1.46
44.90 1.23
47.82 1.31
67.16 1.84
50.37 1.38
52.93 1.45
45.99 1.26
51.47 1.41
54.39 1.49
47.09 1.29
72.64 1.99
51.10 1.40
93.44 2.56
101.47 2.78
97.46 2.67
129.58 3.55
111.33 3.05
128.12 3.51
129.21 3.54
172.65 4.73
Ref.
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1

-------
TABLE 6.5 front M)



Cooling System
Mechanical Dry With
High Pressure Turbine


Mechanical Dry With
Low Pressure Turbine

Natural Dry With
High Pressure Turbine



Water Resources Region
1

3
14
1
3
14
1

New England

South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England
South Atlantic-Gulf
Upper Colorado
New England




Location
Boston, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Atlanta, Ga.
San Juan, Nf-w Mexico
Boston, Maas.
Atlanta, Ga.
San Juan, New Mexico
Boston, Mass.


cap i Lai Cost
Mil ir/
$ / KW KWHR
6J.9'- 1.70
40.89 i.28
65.83 L.:>0
67.92 1.86
122.69 3.36
124.91 3.4J
149.95 4.11
57.34 1.5-7


Penalty O sc
Mills/
sVkV KWHR
107.42 2.94
1?2.84 j.37
106.09 2.41
112.39 3. OP
62. 7i 1.72
64.53 1.77
71.97 l.')7
104.36 2.86

Total Evaluated
Cost
Mills/
-•? / KW KWHR
169.36 4.64
169.73 4.65
171.92 4.71
180.31 4.94
185.42 5.08
1P9.44 5.19
221.92 6.08
1M.70 4.43




Rtf.
2
3
2
2
2
o
2
3


-------
                       TABLE 6.6 - ECONOMIC FACTORS

                                                         Nuclear      Fossil
Pricing Year                                               1978        1978

Average Plant Capacity Factor                              0.75        0.75

Annual Fixed Charge Rate                                    18%         18%

Capacity Penalty Charge Rate ($/kW)                         374         302

Fuel Cost ($/MBtu)                                        0.953        1.96

Operating and Maintenance Cost  (Mills/kWhr)               0.451        1.58

Escalation Factor for Material/Equipment and Labor           7%          7%
                                      55

-------
                                  TABLE 6.7

                   COMPARISON OF COSTS OF WET AND WET/DRY
                  COOLING SYSTEMS FOR A FOSSIL PLANT ($/KW)
               SITE:   KAIPAROWITS,  UTAH
YEAR:  1978
Cooling Tower
Annual Make-up Water Quantity
Total Capital Cost of
The Base Cooling System*
Total Penalty Cost of
The Base Cooling System*
Total Evaluated Cost of
The Base Cooling System*
Total Water Penalty Cost
Total Evaluated Cost of
The Complete Cooling System
WET/ DRY
2%
60.59
44.95
105.54
13.17
118.71
10%
49.28
45.00
94.28
16.52
110.80
40%
39.48
45.22
84.70
21.24
105.94
WET
100%
23.60
19.25
42.85
28.12
70.97
*  Base Cooling System - Cooling System Without Make-up and Slowdown Facilities.
                                     56

-------
                                 TABLE 6.8

                   COMPARISON OF COSTS OF WET AND WET/DRY
                 COOLING SYSTEMS FOR A NUCLEAR PLANT ($/KW)
               SITE:  BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA
YEAR:  1978
Cooling Tower
Annual Make-up Water Quantity
Total Capital Cost of
Ihe Base Cooling System*
Total Penalty Cost of
The Base Cooling System*
Total Evaluated Cost of
The Base Cooling System*
Total Water Penalty Cost
1
Total Evaluated Cost of
The Complete Cooling System
WET/ DRY
5%
108.03
76.54
184.57
11.88
196.45
10%
102.41
70.27
172.68
14.97
187.65
40%
71.44
58.18
129.62
30.44
160.06
WET
100%
44.71
22.32
67.03
54.14
121.17
*  Base Cooling System - Cooling System Without Make-up and Slowdown Facilities,
                                     57

-------
                                   SECTION 7

                 ESTIMATED AVAILABILITY OF WATER FOR ALL USES
                       IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES
7.1  INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this section is to present data on the estimated water
availability in the conterminous United States for all uses  in  general,
and for steam electric power plant cooling in particular.  At the present
time, the availability of environmentally acceptable sites for  electric
power generating plants,  whether fossil or nuclear,  is strongly influenced
by the availability of cooling water.   Water can no  longer be considered
an infinite, undepletable resource.  Today, chronic  water shortages  exist
in parts of ths conterminous United States.  Water supply in these areas
at certain times does not satisfy even the basic human needs, let alone
provide for expansion of industry, agriculture, or electric  power
generating facilities.  Even in areas where water is apparently available
in a physical sense, the right to its use may be constrained by laws and
regulations.  These include laws that deal with Federal and  Indian water
rights, state water laws, minimum flow regulations,  interstate  compacts,
international treaties, prior appropriation and the like.  An overview
of these laws and regulations is given in Section 8 of this  document.

Water quantity and quality are becoming dominant characteristics influencing
industrial, agricultural or domestic expansion in a particular  geographic
region.  In the arid or semi-arid areas, excessive consumption  of existing
natural water flows will increase salinity of these steams and  potentially
impact navigation on major arteries.

Steam electric power plants are affected more severely than  other components
of the national economy, because this component of the economy  is expected
to expand at a greater rate than the other highly water-dependent sectors
of the economy.  As late as the 1960's, power plants used once-through
cooling systems almost exclusively to cool and condense the  steam that
drives conventional electrical generating machinery.  However,  projections
of electrical capacity requirements have indicated that sufficient cooling
water for once-through cooling is only available on the major rivers,
lakes and coastal regions of the United States.
                                       58

-------
Currently, many of the new major generating plants and those  expected  to
be constructed during the remainder of this century will  probably  have
to use closed-cycle cooling in order to reduce potential  adverse thermal
impacts below allowable limits set by law.  However, the  more efficient
and economical cooling systems require evaporation of a small fraction
of the water used for condenser cooling.  Thus, a quantity of water  is
consumed and "lost" to the atmosphere.  The impact of allocating the
available geographical water resources is a critical environmental factor
for all potential water uses, including power plant construction.

7.2  METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING WATER AVAILABILITY

The water availability data presented in this report are  based on  the
results of a comprehensive study (1) performed by the U.S. Water Resources
Council (WRC).  The Water Resources Council was established by the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1965 to maintain, among other responsibilities,
a continuing study of the adequacy of water supply in the United States.
A four-year effort by the Council  to  identify and describe the Nation's water
resources and areas with severe water problems was recently completed  and
a final report of the study is expected to be issued by the Council early
in 1978.

This study has been accomplished by the cooperative activities of state,
regional, and federal agencies under  the overall direction of the Water
Resources Council.

In the WRC study, the conterminous United  States is divided into  18 water
resource  regions which are further subdivided into 217 subregions.  These
subregions, in turn, are combined  to  form  99 aggregated subregions or
ASR's, loosely determined by  existing major river basins.  Table  7.1 lists
the 18 water  resource regions and  99  aggregated subregions, and Figure
7.1 shows them graphically.

Figure 7.1 also shows the routing of  outflows for the conterminous United
States.   These routings are summarized on  Table 7.2 for each ASR and the
interconnected ASR's.  Figure 7.1  is  a schematic and does not show the
exact location of the outflow points.

Basic input data  for each of  the 99 ASR's  and  18 water resource regions
have been systematically organized and analyzed by WRC.  The end  result
of this assessment includes tabulated data on many areas of interest to
this section  of  the present study.  A list of  the tables compiled in the
Statistical Appendix  (1)  to  the WRC's Assessment is shown in Table 7.3.

The water availability analysis was performed  for  the  18 water  resource
regions and  the most water-deficient  ASR within each of the  18  regions.
The water availability data were tabulated for the years  1975,  1985, and
2000.  The latter two years were assumed  to have dry year flow  conditions.
                                       59

-------
Dry year water use data were based on requirements for a dry year occurring
fewer than 20 times in each 100 years but having withdrawals limited by
an 80 percent exceedance monthly water supply.   In the WRC's Assessment,
only the irrigation and steam electric uses were estimated differently
for the dry and average year.  Percentage exceedance refers to a statistical
estimate of the probability of flow.  For example, a 5 percent exceedance
annual stream flow will be exceeded in about 5  years of each 100-year
period.

From the data given in the WRC's assessment (1), water availability results
were calculated and presented in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.  Each table lists
the specific data from Reference (1) which were used in preparing Tables
7.4 and 7.5.  Also listed are the explanatory notes taken from Reference
1 which provide assistance in the interpretation of specific WRC data
used in the present analysis.

Table 7.4 organizes consumptive water users into four major categories
as follows:

     1. Public Supply, including:

           a.  Domestic
           b.  Commercial
           c.  Public land
           d.  Fish hatcheries

     2. Agriculture

     3. Industry and Mining, including:

           a.  Manufacturing
           b.  Minerals

     4. Steam Electric

Table 7.4 also gives the total water consumption as well as the percentage
of water required for steam electric generation cooling systems as a part
of the total water consumption.

Table 7.5 tabulates data on the following quantities:

     Column Number                 Variable

           1.       Total stream flow
           2.       Total water consumption (same as in Table 7.4)
           3.       Total stream flow depletion due to the actual consumptive
                    use + net evaporation + exports -  imports
           4.       Minimum flow desired from the fish and wildlife standpoint
           5.       Water available for consumption after subtracting the minimum
                    flow for fish and wildlife from the total stream flow
           6.       Total depletion of the stream flow  (percentage)
           7.       Depletion of the stream flow due to steam electric
                    generator consumption  (percentage)

                                       60

-------
The analytical expressions used for calculating these quantities are
defined in the footnotes to Table 7.5.  The input data used were taken
from Tables 17, 19 and 33A of the WRC's Assessment.

7.3  DISCUSSION

Based upon the results compiled and correlated in this section, the
following observations can be made:

     1.   With respect to the results presented in Table 7.4:

          a.   The average percentages of steam electric generation
               consumptive water use relative to the total consumption
               in the years 1975, 1985, and 2000 in the conterminous
               United States are 1.23%, 3.10%, and 7.22%, respectively.
               By contrast, the corresponding numbers for the largest
               water consumer, agriculture, are 84.60%, 81.04%, and 73.20%.
               Taking 1975 as a reference year, the water consumption for
               steam electric generation is estimated to increase by 9158
               MGD by the year 2000, whereas the water consumption in
               agriculture is estimated to increase by 8318 MGD.

          b.   Percentagewise, the largest water consumption for steam
               electric generation is projected to occur in the following
               water resouces regions:  Ohio, Tennessee, Upper Mississippi,
               Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England.

     2.   With respect to the results presented in Table 7.5:

          a.   The total stream flow for a region was calculated based
               only on surface water resources; that is, ground water was
               not considered to be available for future consumption.

          b.   The total water depletion for a given region is generally
               slightly larger than the consumption by the users of that
               region because of the net natural evaporation.  The latter
               was calculated only for lakes and reservoirs having storage
               volumes in excess of 5000 acre-feet.  For some water
               resource regions where the water additions (imports) exceed
               the water reductions (exports), the stream flow is depleted
               by an amount smaller than the combined total of the water
               consumption and natural evaporation.  The opposite is true
               for regions where the water exports exceed the water
               imports.

          c.   The minimum flow desired from the fish and wildlife
               standpoint was tabulated only to enable the calculation
               of the amount of water available for consumptive use if
               this criterion is observed.  Since the minimum flow exceeds
                                       61

-------
               the total stream flow available  for  the  dry year conditions,
               the excess water available for consumption becomes negative
               is most regions, that is,  the consumptive water available
               is less than the demand.

          d.    The general trend predicted for  the  consumptive use  shows
               that the stream flow depletion will  worsen in  the future.

     3.   The information correlated from the WRC's assessment data and
          presented in the section does not specifically relate the water
          availability for the different  hydrologic units to  the consumptive
          water requirements of various cooling systems and to the  potential
          impact of using one form of cooling system relative to another.
          To make such a correlation would require  a computerized
          information retrieval system to process a massive amount  of
          data on water availibility, water consumption for various cooling
          alternatives, cooling systems mix, and power  capacity in  all
          of the hydrologic units of the  United States. Such a task,
          however, is beyond the scope of work  of the present study.  In
          early April 1978, while revising the  draft report of this study
          in preparation for publication, UE&C  learned  about  the current
          development of such an Information Retrieval  System (IRS) by
          the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory.  This information
          was reported in an article just published in  the Proceedings
          of the American Power Conference (2). When complete, the IRS
          will apparently be capable of providing the necessary correlation
          as indicated above.  The detailed capabilities of the IRS are
          given in Reference 2 and the current  degree of completion is
          given in Reference 3.

7.4  CONCLUSIONS

From the analysis of the water availibility data compiled in  Tables 7.4
and 7.5, the following conclusions can be drawn.

     1.   Under dry year conditions, there is not  sufficient  water  in
          most regions of the conterminous United  States  to fully satisfy
          all users.  This situation is particularly critical in  the
          Southwest and will become worse in the future.

     2.   The percentage consumption for  steam electric generation  relative
          to the total consumption was 1.23% in 1975 and will grow  to
          3.10% in 1985 and to 7.22% in  the year 2000.

     3.   Since agriculture consumes the  largest quantity  of  water  by
          comparison with other water users, substantial water  savings
          can be accomplished even with  small   percentage  reductions in
          agricultural use through better utilization of  the  water
          resources.  Conversely, a large percentage reduction in the
          consumption for steam electric  generation is small  by comparison.
                                      62

-------
                             REFERENCES

1.   United States Water Resources Council.   The Nation's Water
     Resources, The Second National Assessment by the U.S. Water
     Resources Council.  Statistical Appendix.  Washington, 1978.

2.   Peterson, D.E., and J.C. Sonnichsen, Jr. Assessment of Cooling
     Water Supply in the United States.  Proceedings of the American
     Power Conference, 39:676-684,1977.

3.   Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory.  Water Use Information
     System (News Release).  Richland, Washington, 1978.
                                 63

-------
                 TABLE 7.1  REGIONS AND AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS(l)


Region         ASR
Number       Number          Region /  Aggregated Subregion

  01                       NEW ENGLAND
              0101                  Northern Maine
              0102                  Saco-Merrimack
              0103                  Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal
              0104                  Housatonic-Thames
              0105                  Connecticut River
              0106                  Richelieu

  02                       MID-ATLANTIC
              0201                  Upper Hudson
              0202                  Lower Hudson-Long Island-North New Jersey
              0203                  Delaware
              0204                  Susquehanna
              0205                  Upper and Lower Chesapeake
              0206                  Potomac

  03                       SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF
              0301                  Roanoke-Cape Fear
              0302                  Pee Dee-Edisto
              0303                  Savannah-St. Marys
              0304                  St. Johns-Suwannee
              0305                  Southern Florida
              0306                  Apalachicola
              0307                  Alabama-Choctawhatchee
              0308                  Mobile-Tombigbee
              0309                  Pascagoula-Pearl

  04                       GREAT LAKES
              0401                  Lake Superior
              0402                  Northwestern Lake Michigan
              0403                  Southwestern Lake Michigan
              0404                  Eastern Lake Michigan
              0405                  Lake Huron
              0406                  St. Clair-Western Lake  Erie
               0407                  Eastern Lake Erie
               0408                  Lake Ontario

  05                       OHIO
               0501                  Ohio Headwaters
               0502                  Upper  Ohio-Big  Sandy
               0503                  Muskingum-Scioto-Miami
               0504                  Kanawha
               0505                  Kentucky-Licking-Green-Ohio
               0506                  Wabash
               0507                  Cumberland

  06                       TENNESSEE
               0601                  Upper  Tennessee
               0602                  Lower  Tennessee
                                      64

-------
                              TABLE 7.1  (cont'd.)


Region         ASR
Number       Number          Region  /   Aggregated Subregion

  07                       UPPER MISSISSIPPI
              0701                  Mississippi Headwaters
              0702                  Black-Root-Chippewa-Wisconsin
              0703                  Rock-Mississippi-Des Moines
              0704                  Salt-Sny-Illinois
              0705                  Lower Upper Mississippi

  08                       LOWER MISSISSIPPI
              0801                  Hatchie-Mississippi-St. Francis
              0802                  Yazoo-Mississippi-Ouachita
              0803                  Mississippi Delta

  09                       SOURIS-RED-RAINY
              0901                  Souris-Red-Rainy

  10                       MISSOURI
              1001                  Missouri-Milk-Saskatchewan
              1002                  Missouri-Marias
              1003                  Missouri-Musselshell
              1004                  Yellowstone
              1005                  Western Oakotas
              1006                  Eastern Dakotas
               1007                  North and South Platte
              1008                  Niobrara-Platte-Loup
               1009                  Middle  Missouri
              1010                  Kansas
               1011                  Lover Missouri

  11                       ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED
               1101                  Upper White
               1102                  Upper Arkansas
               1103                  Arkansas-Cimarron
               1104                  Lover Arkansas
               1105                  Canadian
               1106                  Red-Washita
               1107                  Red-Sulphur

  12                       TEXAS-GULF
               1201                  Sabine-Neches
               1202                  Trinity-Galveston  Bay
               1203                  Brazos
               1204                  Colorado  (Texas)
               1205                  Nueces-Texas  Coastal

  13    *                  RIO  GRANDE
               1301                  Rio  Grande Headvaters
               1302                  Middle  Rio Grande
               1303                  Rio  Grande-Pecos
               1304                  Upper Pecos
               1305                  Lover Rio Grande
                                      65

-------
                              TABLE 7.1 (cont'd.)
Region         ASR
Number       Number          Region  /   Aggregated Subregion

  14                       UPPER COLORADO
              1401                  Green-White-Yampa
              1402                  Colorado-Gunnison
              1403                  Colorado-San Juan

  15                       LOWER COLORADO
              1501                  Little Colorado
              1502                  Lower Colorado Main Stem
              1503                  Gila

  16                       GREAT BASIN
              1601                  Bear-Great Salt Lake
              1602                  Sevier Lake
              1603                  Humboldt-Tonopah Desert
              1604                  Central Lahontan

  17                       PACIFIC NORTHWEST
              1701                  Clark Fork-Kootenai
              1702                  Upper/Middle Columbia
              1703                  Upper/Central Snake
              1704                  Lower Snake
              1705                  Coast-Lower Columbia
              1706                  Puget Sound
              1707                  Oregon Closed Basin

  18                       CALIFORNIA
              1801                  Klamath-North Coastal
              1802                  Sacramento-Lahontan
              1803                  San Joaquin-Tulare
              1804                  San Francisco Bay
              1805                  Central California Coast
              1806                  Southern California
              1807                  Lahontan-South
                                      66

-------
                                             TABLE 7.2   U.S. WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
                                       ROUTING  OF SURFACE FLOWS  FOR AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS
ON
                           REGIONS
             NEW ENGLAND REGION 01
             MID ATLANTIC REGION 02
             SOUTH ATLANTIC GULF REGION 03
             GREAT LAKES REGION 04
AGGREGATED
 SUBREGIONS
 101. 102, 103.
 104. 105. 106
201. 202. 203.
204. 205. 206
301. 302. 303.
304. 305. 306.
307. 300. 309
401. 402. 403,
404, 405. 406
407. 408
       AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS NETWORK
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
101 -•- ATLANTIC OCEAN
102-»-ATLANTIC OCEAN
103-— ATLANTIC OCEAN
104-*-ATLANTIC OCEAN
105-*-ATLANTIC OCEAN
106 -+- CANADA
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
201 -*- 202-*-ATLANTIC OCEAN
203-*- ATLANTIC OCEAN
204-*-CHESAPEAKE BAY/ATLANTIC OCEAN
205 -*• CHESAPEAKE BAY/ATLANTIC OCEAN
206-*- CHESAPEAKE BAY/ATLANTIC OCEAN
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
301 -*• ATLANTIC OCEAN
302-*- ATLANTIC OCEAN
303-*- ATLANTIC OCEAN
30-1-*- ATLANTIC OCEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO
305-»- ATLANTIC OCEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO
300—- GULF OF MEXICO
307-*-GULF OF MEXICO
308-*- GULF OF MEXICO
309-*- GULF OF MEXICO
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
401 -*- LAKE SUPERIOR
402-*-LAKE MICHIGAN
403-*-LAKE MICHIGAN
404-*- LAKE MICHIGAN
405-*-LAKE HURON
406-*-LAKE ERIE
407-*-LAKE LRIF.
408-*- LAKE ONTARIO

-------
                                                   TABLE  7.2 (cont'd.)
00
REGIONS
OHIO REGION 05
TENNESSEE REGION OG
UPPER MISSISSIPPI REGION 07
LOWER MISSISSIPPI REGION 08
SOURIS-RED-RAINY REGION 09
MISSOURI REGION 10
ARKANSAS-WHITE RED REGION 11
TEXAS GULF REGION 12
AGGREGATED
SUBREGIONS
501, 502. 503,
505. 505. 506
601. 602
701. 702. 703.
704. 705
601, 802. 803
•
901
1001. 1002. 1003,
1004, 1005, 1006.
1007. 1000. 1009.
1010. 1011
1101.1102. 1103.
1104. 1105, 1106.
1107
1201. 1202. 1203
1204, 1205
AGGREGATED SUOREGIONS NETWORK
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
soil
503|-*-502)
504J 506 }-*-505 -*- 001
507 J
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
601-*- 602-*- 505
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
70 1 -»- 702 -*• 703 -»- 704-*- 705 -*- 80 1
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
801 -»• 002 -*-003 -*- GULF OF MEXICO
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
901-*- CAN AD A
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
1002-*-1003-*-1001| 
-------
                                                          TABLE 7.2  (conL'd.)
ON
vO
                            REGIONS
             RIO GRAND REGION 13
              UPPER COLORADO REGION 14
             LOWER COLORADO REGION 15
             GREAT BASIN REGION 16
             PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION 17
             CALIFORNIA SOUTH PACIFIC REGION 18
 AGGREGATED
  SUBREGIONS
1301. 1302. 1303.
1304. 1305
1401. 1402. H03
1501. 1502. 1503
1601. 1602. 1603.
1604
1701. 1702. 1703.
1704. 1705. 1700.
1707
1801. 1802. 1803.
1804. 1805. 1806.
1807
                                                                                 AGGREGATED SUDREGIONS NETWORK
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
1301—13021    ,303-^1305
       130
-------
                                                    TABLE 7.2  (cont'd.)
•vl
o
MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS
MISSISSIPPI DRAINAGE BASIN
OHIO
REGION 05
TENNESSEE
REGION 06
UPPER MISSISSIPPI
REGION 07
LOWER MISSISSIPPI
REGION 08
MISSOURI
REGION 10
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED
REGION 11
COLORADO DRAINAGE BASIN
UPPER COLORADO
REGION 14
LOWER COLORADO
REGION 15
AGGREGATED
SUBREGIONS
501. 502. 503.
504. 505. 506.
601. 602. 701.
702. 703. 704.
70S. 601. 802.
603. 1003. 1004.
1005. 1006, 1007.
1008. 1009. 1010.
1011. 1101. 1102.
1103. 1104. 1105.
1106. 1107
1401. 1402. 1403,
1501. 1502. 1503
AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS NETWORK
»
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
501\
503 h«- 502'
6041 S—1
601-*-602J
701 -*- 702 -*• 703-*-704\
1002-1003^10011 L705
1004rioo7-ioo8hjJ°^ion)
. 1101
""^SH
	 fcnnrt GCIF
}»-802-»-803-«-OF
1106-^1107) MEX|CO
CLOSED BASINS: NONE
Zh«ral
lw*> 1501 J-M502 -*- MEXICO
1503)

-------
                                   TABLE 7.3
                                LIST OF TABLES
   FROM THE NATION'S WATER RESOUCES, THE SECOND NATIONAL WATER ASSESSMENT  BY
       THE UNITED STATES WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL,  STATISTICAL APPENDIX,
 	VOLUMES A-l. A-2. AND A-3	

Table     Title

   1      Population, Population Change and Density
   2      Employment, Employment Change, and Income Per Capita
   3A     Total Earnings, Earnings Change, Earning by Source
   3B     Earnings by Source
   4      1975 Surface Area Land Use
   5      Total Cropland, Changes in Cropland and Cropland Harvested
   7      Sheet Erosion by Source and Erosion Change
   8A     Total Flood Damages and Change by Land Use
   8B     Flood Damages by Land Use
   9A     Recreation Requirements
   9B     Recreation Requirements
   10     Wilderness Areas, Shown Miles and Streams not Meeting
          Water Quality Standards
   11A    Total Electric Power Generation, Change in Total, and Nucleus  Portion
          of Total
   11B    Electric Power Generation by Fuel Source
   11C    Electric Power Generation Plants and Generation with Once-Through
          Cooling
   12A    Heat from Power Generation Discharged to Fresh and Saline Water
   12B    Discharge of Heat, Biological Oxygen Demand, and Total Suspended
          Solids of Water
   13A    Commodity Origins
   13B    Commodity Origins
   13C    Commodity Origins
   14A    Commerical Navigation
   14B    Commercial Navigation
   14C    Commerical Navigation
   14D    Commerical Navigation
   15     Annual Water Supply Data  (1975)
   16     Monthly Water  Supply Data  (1975)
   17     Annual Freshwater Imports, Exports, and Net Evaporation
   18     Monthly Freshwater Imports,  Exports, and Net Evaporation
   19     Annual Instrearn Flow Uses
   20     Monthly Instream Flow Uses
   21     Annual Water Requirements for Offstream Uses, Average Year
   22     Monthly Water Withdrawals by Use, Average Year
   23     Monthly Water Consumption by Use
   24     Annual Water Requirements for Offstream Uses, Dry Year
   25     Monthly Water Withdrawals by Use, Dry Year
   26     Monthly Water Consumption by Use, Dry Year
   27     Annual Water Withdrawals for Energy Resources Development,
          Average Year
   28     Annual Water Consumption for Energy Resouces Development,
          Average Year


                                       71

-------
                           TABLE 7.3 (cont'd.)
29     Annual Water Withdrawals for Energy Resources Development,  Dry Year
30     Annual Water Consumption for Energy Resources Development,  Dry Year
31A    Annual Streamflow Depletion Analysis,  Average Year
3IB    Annual Water Use/Supply Analysis,  Average Year
31C    Summary of Monthly and Annual Streamflow Depletion Analyses,  Average
       Month Condition
32A    Monthly Streamflow Depletion Analysis, Average Year
32B    Monthly Water Use/Supply Analysis, Average Year
33A    Annual Streamflow Depletion Analysis,  Dry Year
33B    Annual Water Use/Supply Analysis,  Dry Year
33C    Summary of Monthly and Annual Streamflow Depletion Analyses,  Dry
       Month Condition
34A    Monthly Streamflow Depletion Analysis^ Dry Year
34B    Monthly Water Use/Supply Analysis, Dry Year
35     Average Annual Water Supply Analysis
                                   72

-------
TABLE 7.4  ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFSTREAM USESa



t,
Region/Worst Stibrcgion

1. New England
1975
Public
Supply,

MGD
(1)
213
0103 Mass-Rhode I Coastal ; 68
2. Mid-Atlantic ' 799
0202 Lower Hudson-LI-NNJ
341
i
3. South Atlantic-Gulf j 1,003
0305 Southern Florida
4. Great Lakes
232
595
0403 SW Lake Michigan ; 104
5. Ohio ! 416
0503 Muskingum-Scioto-Miami HO
6. Tennessee i 71
0602 Lower Tennessee ', 22
i
i
7. Upper Mississippi 347
0705 Low/Up Mississippi | 97
8. Lower Mississippi ' 344
0802 Yazoo-Miss-Quachita 82
9. Sonris-Ked-Rainy : 32
0901 Souris-Red-Rainy j 32
i
10. Missouri i 490
1010 Kansas
35
i
11. Arkansas -White-Red ! 374
1103 Arkansas-Cimarron
64
12. Texas Gulf i 508
1203 Brazos
85
13. Rio Grnnde , 191
1302 Middle Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
1401 Grcen-White-Yampa
15. Lower Colorado
1503 Gila
16. Great Basin
1603 Ilumboldt-Tonopah Desert
17. Pacific Northwest
1707 Oregon Closed Basin
18. California
1803 San Joaquin-Tulare
Conterminous United States
115
131
72
253
187
467
149
455
96
1,796
236
8,485
Agri-
culture,

MGD
(2)
51
18
310
53

3,690
2,411
222
19
159
26
39
20


423
17
3,471
655
73
73

16,618
4,190

8,431
2,105
10,730
5,282
4,353
1,172
2,454
1,029
4,191
3,182
3,726
1,170
13,990
695
26,218
13,245
99,149
Industry
nnd
Mining,
MGD
(3)
203
53
676
107

826
102
1,627
382
907
108
163
40


285
69
520
92
16
16

245
25

338
79
1,127
93
108
12
49
27
205
183
52
12
343
0
440
88
8,130
Steam
Elec-
tric,
MGD
(4)
21
0
103
0

153
4
175
50
324
20
42
18


129
36
54
11
1
1

68
7

89
13
99
23
18
8
43
27
63
12
8
0
16
0
34
1
1,440
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(5)
488
139
1,888
501

5,672
2,749
2,619
555
1,806
264
315
100


1,184
219
4,389
840
122
122

17,421
4,257

9,232
2,261
12,464
5,483
4,670
1,307
2,677
1,155
4,712
3,564
4,253
1,331
14,804
791
28,488
13,570
117,204
Sceam
Electric-^
Total Con-
sumption, 7<,
(6)
4.30
0
5.46
0

2.70
0.15
6.68
9.01
17.94
7.58
13.33
18.00


10.90
16.44
1.23
1.31
0.82
0.82

0.39
0.16

0.96
0.57
0.79
0.42
0.39
0.61
1.61
2.34
1.34
0.34
0,19
0
0.11
0
0.12
0.01
1.23
                            73

-------
TABLE 7.4 (cont'd.)
Region/Worst Subregion
1. Mew England
0103 Mass-Rhode I Coastal
* 2. Mid-Atlantic
0202 Lower Hudson-LI-NNJ
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
0305 Southern Florida
4. Great Lakes
0403 SW Lake Michigan
5. Ohio
0503 Muskingum-Scioto-Miami
6 . Tennessee
0602 Lower Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
0705 Low/Up Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
0802 Tfazoo-MiSE-Quachita
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
0901 Souris-Red-Rainy
10. Missouri
1010 Kansas
11. Arkansas-White-Red
1103 Arkansas-Cimarron
12. Texas Gulf
1203 Brazos
13. Rio Grande
1302 Middle Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
1401 Green-White-Yampa
15. Lover Colorado
1503 Gila
16. Great Basin
1603 Humboldt-Tonopah Desert
17. Pacific Northwest
1707 Oregon Cloned Basin
18. California
1803 San Joaquin-Tulare
Conterminous United States
1985
Public
Supply,
MGD
(1)
232
74
894
378
1,223
302
655
111
464
125
83
26
372
102
373
88
33
33
550
37
410
66
572
88
209
127
151
81
335
250
521
166
538
99
1,979
253
9,594
Agri-
culture,
MGD
(2)
54
18
402
69
4,275
2,673
290
25
194
28
48
25
573
23
3,667
744
180
180
20,670
4,357
8,903
2,637
8,761
4,013
4,413
1,239
2,966
1,135
4,130
3,114
3,588
1,304
16,941
980
27,226
14,020
107,281
Industry
and
Mining,
MGD
(3)
347
101
1,017
151
1,480
168
1,894
498
1,223
173
287
81
366
104
804
160
21
21
259
33
417
83
1,591
105
144
28
73
36
271
242
86
21
520
0
595
114
11,395
Steam
Elec-
tric,
MGD
(4)
18
0
224
0
722
13
497
133
656
41
231
123
352
29
118
35
0
0
243
26
237
12
270
107
9
7
120
62
134
37
44
16
134
0
101
26
4,110
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(5)
651
193
2,537
598
7,700
3,156
3,336
767
2,537
367
649
255
1,663
258
4,962
1,027
234
234
21,722
4,453
9,967
2,798
11,194
4,313
4,775
1,401
3,310
1,314
4,870
3,643
4,239
1,507
18,133
1,079
29,901
14,413
132,380
Steam
Electric-:-
Total Con-
sump lion ,7,
(6)
2.76
0
8.83
0
9.38
0.41
14.90
17.34
25.86
11.17
35.59
48.24
21.17
11.24
2.38
3.41
0
0
1.12
0.58
2.38
0.43
2.41
2.48
0.19
0.50
.3.63
4.72
2.75
1.02
1.04
1.06
0.74
0
0.34
0.18
3.10
         74

-------
TABLE 7.4 (cont'd.)
' T "•



i.
Region/Worst Subrcglon

1. New England
0103 Mass-Rhode I Coastal
2. Mid-Atlantic





2000
Public
Supply,

MGD
(1)
256
82
1,016
0202 Lower Hudson-LI-NNJ 428
3. South Atlantic-Gulf 1,516
0305 Southern Florida
4. Great Lakes
0403 SW Lake Michigan
414
720
116
i
5. Ohio
0503 Muskingum-Scioto-Miami
6. Tennessee
510
143
93
0602 Lower Tennessee j 29
7. Upper Mississippi [ 402
0705 Low/Up Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
0802 Yazoo-Miss-Quachita
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
0901 Souris-Red-Rainy
110
402
93
33
33
10. Missouri 647
1O10 Kansas
11. Arkansas-White-Red
38
448
1103 Arkansas-Cimarron : 66
i
12. Texas Gulf
661
1203 Brazos ; 93
i
13. Rio Grande i 224
1302 Middle Rio Grande ' 144
i
14. Upper Colorado
160
1401 Green-Khite-Yampa 87
15. Lower Colorado ; 418
1503 Gila
312
16. Great Basin j j>]^
1603 Htfffiboldt-Tonopah Desertj ZOO
17. Pacific Northwest
1707 Oregon Closed Basin
18. California
1803 San Joaquin-Tulare
Conterminous United States
630
i 101
2,230
273
10,978
Agri-
culture,

MGD
(2)
59
19
509
88
4,834
2,944
367
30

231
31
56
30
710
27
3,771
780
481
481
20,811
4,180
8,535
2,638

7,094
3,019

4,036
1,188

3,061
1,149
3,888
2,835
3,725
1,380
16,770
921
28,529
15,228
107,467
Industry
and
Mining,
MGD
(3)
583
146
1,460
218
2,882
326
2,267
689

1,918
294
541
184
582
172
1,483
315
26
26
365
58
576
122

2,547
118

174
46

146
70
383
335
140
31
907
0
780
126
17,760
Steam
Elec-
tric,
MGD
(4)
167
11
644
0
1,857
99
1,384
290

1,692
124
•417
236
1,079
66
291
121
0
0
644
50
457
11

994
201

5
4

155
60
126
49
52
15
392
0
242
87
10,598
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(5)
1,065
258
3,629
734
11,089
3,783
4,738
1,125

4,351
592
1,107
479
2,773
375
5,947
1,309
540
540
22,467
4,326
10,016
2,837

11,296
3,431

4,439
1,382

3,522
1,366
4,815
3,531
4,529
1,626
18,699
1,022
31,781
15,714
146,803
Steam
Electric-:-
Total Con-
sumption, 7,
(6)
15.68
4.26
17.75
0
16.75
2.62
29.21
25.78

38.89
20.95
37.67
49.27
38.91
17.60
4.89
9.24
0
0
2.87
1.16
4.56
0.39

8.80
5.86

0.11
0.29

4.40
4.39.
2.62
1.39
1.15
0.92
2.10
0
0.76
0.55
7.22
         75

-------
                              TABLE 7.4 (cont'd)

a. Data from The Nation's Water Resources,  The Second National Assessment
   by the U.S. Water Resources Council, Statistical Appendix,  Volume A-2.
   Table 24 - Annual Water Requirements for Offstream Uses,  Dry Year

     The tabulation includes:

          1.   Public Supply-

               domestic,
               commericial,
               public lands, and
               fish hatcheries;

          2.   Agriculture;

          3.   Industry and Mining - manufacturing and minerals;

          4.   Steam Electric.

b.   The conterminous United States is divided into 18 regions and 99
     aggregated subregions defined by hydrologic  boundaries.  The subregion
     which has the largest water depletion  within a region is  listed as
     the worst subregion.  A four digit number is used to identify the
     subregions.  The first two digits identify the region and the last
     two digits specify the specific subregion.

c.   Explanatory Notes

     1.   For domestic central water supply, it was assumed that per
          capita usage will remain about constant through the year 2000.
          This is based on an opinion that  actions taken to meet legal
          requirements and other needs for  environmental protection will
          counteract expansion of demands.   Estimates for non-central
          domestic water uses are based on  expectations for increasing
          per capita use but a declining percentage of the population
          served.   (1)

     2.   Commercial water is the water used mainly by wholesale and
          retail businesses not involved in manufacturing or mineral
          development.  A large part of this water is used for cleaning.  (1)

     3.   Water for national parks is mainly to provide water for visitors
          and developed facilities.  Water  requirements for public lands
          and national forests are for all  uses thereon.  (1)
                                       76

-------
                         TABLE 7.4 (cont'd.)

4.   Irrigation consumptive use is the crop consumptive use  minus
     effective precipitation.  It does not include water for soil
     salinity control, plant germination, frost protection,  erosion
     protection, or for cooling crops.  Incidental consumption
     associated with irrigation systems has been estimated.
     Irrigation withdrawals were estimated using efficiency  ratios
     estimated according to irrigation practices in the subregions
     and limited by available water supply.  (1)

5.   Manufacturing water use estimates are based on data obtained
     for 9300 large manufacturing plants by the Office of Business
     Research and Analysis and on OBERS Series E Projections.  The
     9300 plants use about 98 percent of the manufacturing water in
     the United States.  (1)

6.   Mineral water requirements are based on OBERS Series E  Projections
     and data from the Bureau of Mines.  The estimates of water for
     fuels production and refining do not provide for all possible
     developments of new energy sources or the possibility that
     reduced imports of fuels may increase the need for domestic
     fuel production above the levels projected in OBERS projections.   (1)

7.   Water for fuels production includes water for fuels extraction
     and refining of non-petroleum fuels.  However, total water
     requirements for coal liquefaction or gasification and oil shale
     development are not estimated.   (1)

8.   Data for steam-electric water uses are based on steam powered
     generation plants with 25 megawatts or more installed capacities.
     In general, smaller plants operate for limited periods during
     the year and use relatively small quantities of water.   The
     data for electric power generation do not include water used
     for hydroelectric generation which is primarily instream use.
     Most of the consumption for hydrolectric generation is included
     in reservoir evaporation.   (1)
                                  77

-------
TABLE 7.5  ANNUAL STREAMFLOW DEPLETION (DRY YEAR)
Region/Worst Subreglon
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
New Englard
0103 Mass -Rhode I Coastal
Mid-Atlantic
0202 Lower Hudson-LI-NNJ
South Atlantic-Gulf
0305 Southern Florida
Great Lakes
0403 SW Lake Michigan
Ohio
0503 Musklngun-Scioto-Miani
Tennessee
0602 Lower Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
0705 Low/Up Mississippi
Lover Mississippi
0802 Yazoo-Kiss-Quachita
Sour is -Red -Rainy
0901 Sour is -Red -Rainy
Missouri
1010 Kansas
Arkansas-White-Red
1103 Arkansas-Cimarron
Texas-Gulf
1203 Brazos
Rio Grande
1302 Middle Rio Grande
Upper Colorado
1401 Green-White-Yampa
Lower Colorado
1503 Gila
Great Basin
1603 Huoiboldt-Tonopah Desert
Pacific Northwest
1707 Oregon Close Basin
California
1803 San Joaquin-Tulare
Conterminous United States
1975
Total
Stream
Flow,
MGD
0.)
63,215
3,770
62,573
10,436
169,139
6,740
59,82*
1,395
142,805
9,704
36,215
35,999
88,405
89,461
277,549
246,457
3,498
3,498
46,716
3,800
38,203
451
15,249
632
4,120
1,012
11,215
4,344
6,910
-536
9,984
2,002
228,846
1,221
50,750
9,775
1,315,215
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(2)
488
139
1,888
501
5,672
2,749
2,619
555
1:806
264
315
100
1,184
219
4,389
840
122
122
17,421
4,257
9,232
2,261
12,464
5,483
4,670
1,307
2,677
1,155
4,712
3,564
4,253
1,331
14,804
791
28,488
13,570
117,204
Total
Deple-
tion,
MGD
(3)
485
-40
1,375
-957
5,338
2,674
2,570
555
1,805
264
315
99
-838
218
3,975
733
138
138
19,373
3,500
6,260
710
8,561
2,779
4,507
1,090
4,195
1,664
7,965
1,583
3,886
1,138
16,140
802
22,518
9,825
108,568
Minimum
Flow,
MGD
(4)
69,001
4,003
68,840
13,870
188,655
6,590
63,951
875
160,520
9,613
38,480
38,480
110,750
110,750
359,033
319,540
3,673
3,673
33,958
3,706
46,169
2,867
22,917
3,360
2,287
888
7,947
3,056
6,864
676
8,177
2,137
214,004
1,082
33,130
2,841
	
Available
Water,
MGD
(5)
-5,786
-233
-6,267
-3,434
-19,516
150
-4,128
520
-17,715
91
-2,265
-2,481
-22,345
-21,289
-81,484
-73,083
-175
-175
12,758
94
-7,966
-2,416
-7,668
-2,728
1,833
124
. 3,268
1,288
46
-1,212
1,807
-135
14,842
139
17,620
-903
- —
Depletion
Total
Stream
Jb'low,
%
(6)
0.77
-1.06
2.20
-9.17
3.16
39.67
4.30
39.78
1.26
2.72
0.87
0.28
-0.95
0.24
1.43
0.30
3.95
3.95
41.47
92.11
16.39
157.43
56.14
439.72
109.39
107.71
37.41
38.31
115.27
-295.34
38.92
56.84
7.05
65.68
44.37
100.51
fi.25
Ratios
Steam
Elec-
tric,
%
(7)
0.03
0
0.16
0
0.09
0.06
Q.29
3.58
0.23
0.21
0.12
0.05
0.15
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.15
0.18
0.23
2.88
0.65
3.64
0.44
0.79
0.38
0.62
0.91
-2.24
0.08
0
0.01
0
0.07
0.01
0.11
                       78

-------
TABLE 7.5 (cont'd.)

Region/Worst Subregion




1. New England
0103 Mass -Rhode I Coastal
2. Mid-Atlantic
0202 Lower Hudson-Ll-NNJ
1985
Total
Stream
Flow,
MGD
(1)
63,215
3,769
62,604
10,414
3. South Atlantic-Gulf i 169,476
0305 Southern Florida j 6,814
4. Great Lakes ! 59,850
0403 SW Lake Michigan 1,394
5. Ohio
142,475
0503 Muskingum-Scioto-Miami , 9,703
6. Tennessee 36,215
0602 Lower Tennessee 35,822
i
7. Upper Mississippi ' 83,715
0705 Low/Up Mississippi
84,340
8. Lower Mississippi 270,760
0802 Yazoo-Miss-Quachita
239,071
9. Sour is -Red -Rainy i 3,498
0901 Souris-Red-Rainy ' 3,498
1
10. Missouri 49,275
1010 Kansas
11. Arkansas-White-Red
1103 Arkansas-Cimarron
5,400
43,660
2,649
12. Texas-Gulf 20,827
1203 Brazos 4,399
13. Rio Grande i 4,779
1302 Middle Rio Grande 1,072
14. Upper Colorado
11,214
1401 Green-White-Yampa 4,344
15. Lower Colorado : 8,504
1503 Gila j 1»583
16. Great Bas-in
1603 Humboldt-Tonopah Desert
i 17. Pacific Northwest
1 1707 Oregon Close Basin
j 18. California
1803 San Joaquin-Tulare
Conterminous United States
10,576
2,288
229,475
1,235
52,947
11,025
1,323,065
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(2)
651
193
2,537
598
7,700
3,156
3,336
767
2,537
367
649
255

1,663
258
4,962
1,027
234
• 234

21,722
4,453
9,967
2,798
11,194
4,313
4,775
1,401
3,310
1,314
4,870
3,643
4,239
1,507
It, 133
1,079
29,901
14,413
132,380
Total
Depic-
tion,
MGD
(3)
652
-59
2,057
-853
7,706
3,156
3,314
765
2,539
367
646
253

-368
257
4,963
1,028
193
193

26,612
5,372
12,696
3,457
13,038
5,465
5,337
1,444
5,015
1,982
10,177
3,790
4,392
1,600
20,147
1,113
26,511
11,195
145,627
Minimum
Flow,

MGD
(4)
69,001
4,003
68,840
13,870
188,655
6,590
63,951
875
160,520
9,613
38,480
38,480

110,750
110,750
359,033
319,540
3,673
3,673

33,958
3,706
46,169
2,867
22,917
3,360
2,287
888
7,947
3,056
6,864
676
8,177
2,137
214,004
1,082
33,130
2,841
	
Available
Water,

MGD
(5)
-5,786
-234
-6,236
-3,456
-19,179
224
-4,101
519
-18,045
90
-2,265
-2,658

-27,035
-26,410
-88,273
-80,469
-175
-175

15,317
1,694
-2,509
-218
-2,090
-1,039
2,492
184
3,267
1,288
1,640
907
2,399
151
15,471
153
19,817
8,184
.—
Depletion Ratios
Total
Stream
Flow,
/,
(6)
1.03
-1.57
3.29.
-8.19
4.55
46.32
5.54
54.88
1.78
3.78
1.78
0.71

-0.44
0.30
1.83
0.43
5.52
5.52

54.01
99.48
29.08
130.50
62.60
124.23
111.68
134.70
44.72
45.63
119.67
239.42
41.53
69.93
S.78
90.12
50.07
101.54
11.01
Steam
Elec-
tric,
'/.
(7)
0.03
0
0.36
0
0.43
0.19
0.83
9.54
0.46
0.42
0.64
0.34

0.42
0.03
0.04
0.01
0
0

0.49
0.43
0.54
0.45
1.30
2.43
0.19
0.65
1.07
11 "3
.43
1.58
2.34
0.42
0.70
0.06
0
0.19
0.24
0.31
        79

-------
TABLE 7.5 (cont'd.)
Region/Worst Subregion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
New England
0103 Mass -Rhode I Coastal
Mid-Atlantic
0202 Lower Hudson-LI-NNJ
South Atlantic-Gulf
0305 Southern Florida
Great Lakes
0403 SW Lake Michigan
Ohio
0503 Muskingum-Scioto-Miasal
Tennessee
0602 Lower Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
0705 Low/Up Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
0802 Yazoo-Miss-Quachita
Sour is -Red -Rainy
0901 Souris -Red-Rainy
Mis souri
1010 Kansas
Arkansas -White-Red
1103 Arkansas -Cimarron
Texas-Gulf
1203 Brazos
Rio Grande
1302 Middle Rio Grande
Upper Colorado
1401 Green-White-Yampa
Lower Colorado
1503 Gila
Great Basin
1603 Humboldt-Tonopah Desert
Pacific Northwest
1707 Oregon Close Basin
California
1803 San Joaquln-Tulare
Conterminous United States
2000
Total
Stream
Flow,
MGD
(1)
63,216
3,769
62 , 605
10,298
169,475
6,814
59,850
1,394
142,016
9,704
36,215
35,587
82,142
81,762
265,564
233,680
3,498
3,498
49,276
5,400
43,662
2,783
19,422
4,399
4,779
1,091
11,214
4,343
8,175
| 1.583
i 10,573
| 2,288
[ 229,475
1,235
! 52,949
11,025
1,314,106
Total
Consump-
tion,
MGD
(2)
1,065
258
3,629
734
11,089
3,783
4,738
1,125
4,351
592
1,107
479
2,773
375
5,947
1,309
540
540
22,467
4,326
10,016
2,837
11,296
3,431
4,439
1,382
3,522
1,366
4,815
3,531
4,529
1,626
18,699
1,022
31,781
15,714
146,803
Total
Deple-
tion,
MGD
(3)
1,067
-61
3,149
-716
11,095
3,784
4,721
1,125
4,349
591
1,105
477
754
374
5,946
1,309
-82
-82
28,196
5,298
12,928
3,575
11,852
4,644
5,024
1,435
5,344
2,123
9,947
3,594
4,608
1,720
20,733
1,062
28,586
12,017
159,322
Minimum
Flow,
MGD
(4)
69,001
4,003
68,840
13,870
188,655
6,590
63,951
875
160,520
9,613
38,840
38,840
110,750
110,750
359,033
319,540
3,673
3,673
33,958
3,706
46,169
2,867
22,917
3,360
2,287
888
7,947
3,056
6,864
676
8,177
2,137
214,004
1,082
33,130
2,841
	
Available
Water,
MGD
(5)
-5,785
-234
-6,235
-3,572
-19,180
224
-4,101
519
-18,504
91
-2,625
-3,253
-28,608
-28,988
-93,469
-85,860
-175
-175
15,318
1,694
-2,507
-84
-3,495
1,039
2,492
203
3,267
1,287
1,311
907
2,396
151
15,471
153
19,819
8,184
	
Depletion
Total
Stream
Flow,
7.
(6)
1.69
-1.62
5.03
-6.95
6.55
55.53
7.89
80.70
3.06
6.09
3.05
1.34
0.92
0.46
2.24
0.56
-2.34
-2.34
57.22
98.11
29.61
128.46
61.02
105.57
105.13
131.53
47.65
48.88
121.68
227.04
43.58
75.17
9.03
85.99
53.99
109.00
12.12
Ratios
Steam
Elec-
tric,
%
(7)
0.26
0.29
1.03
0
1.10
1.45
2.31
20.80
1.19
1.28
1.15
0.66
1.31
O.OS
0.11
0.05
0
0
1.31
0.93
1.05
0.40
5.12
4.57
0.10
0.37
1.38
1.38
1.54
3.10
0.49
0.66
0.17
0
0.46
0.79
0.81
         80

-------
                              TABLE 7.5 (cont'd.)

Data from The Nation's Water Resources, The Second National Assesment by
the U.S. Water Resources Council, Statistical Appendix, Volumes A-2 and
A-3.

Definitions;

Total Stream Flow in Hydrologic Unit (col. 1):   (Future Stream Flow
     at Outflow Point*)  (Total Depletion, col. 3)

Total Consumption in Hydrologic Unit (col. 2):   from col. 5, Table
     7.4, this report

Total Depletion in Hydrologic Unit  (col. 3):   (Consumption Requirements)
     in Hydrologic Unit*) +  (Exports*)  - (Imports*) +  (Evaporation4")
     (Ground Water Mining*)

Minimum Flow  (col. 4):   from Table  19,  see explanatory note 3

Available Water  (col.  5):   (col.  1) -  (col. 4)

Total Stream  Flow Depletion  Ratio (col. 6):   (col.  3)  -r (col.  1)

Steam Electric Depletion:   (col.  4, Table  7.4) -r (col.  1)

+   Table  17-Annual Freshwater  Imports,  Exports,  and Net  Evaporation

*   Table  33A  - Annual  Stream Flow Depletion Analysis,  Dry  Year

Explanatory Notes
Table  17 - Annual  Freshwater
Imports, Exports,  and Net
Evaporation  (Vol.  A-2)
 Table 19  - Annual Instream
 Flow Uses (Vol.  A-2)
1. Imports and exports refer to artificial
   transfers of freshwater from one
   subregion to another.  (1)

2. Net evaporation is evaporation
   exceeding precipitation on water
   surfaces.  Reservoir evaporation
   data are for major reservoirs
   exceeding 5,000 acre-feet (1.63 billion
   gallons) storage capacity.  Farm stock
   pond evaporation data are for small
   on-farm ponds and reservoirs.  (1)

3. Instream flow approximations (IFA)
   for fish and wildlife are based on
   judgmental estimates of streamflow
   required at subregional outflow points
   to maintain habitat for aquatic and
   riparian plants and animals.  These
   data are only for the National Water
                                       81

-------
Table 33A - Annual Stream
Flow Depletion Analysis,
Dry Year (Vol. A-3)
TABLE 7-5 (cont'd.)

       Assessment.   Additional studies  are
       needed to obtain better data for
       state, region,  and subregion planning.
       (1)

    4. Total Streamflow:  This is an
       estimate of how much water would be
       flowing in the stream if consumption
       and ground water mining were stopped
       in the hydrologic unit under
       consideration. It assumes that imports,
       exports and net evaporation are not
       recoverable.

    5. Consumption Requirements in
       Hydrologic Unit:  Offstream uses
       require diversion or withdrawal of
       water from its natural body or stream.
       Many such uses result in a portion
       of this water being discharged to the
       atmosphere as vapor or steam.  When
       this discharge is caused by human
       activity, it is called consumption
       in this Assessment.  (1)

    6. Total Depletion (col. 3):  The man
       induced impacts taken equal to the
       actual consumptive use + net evaporation
       + exports - imports  (within the
       hydrologic unit).

    7. Minimum Flow (col. 4):  This is a
       minimum flow desired from the fish
       and wildlife standpoint and is based
       on judgmental estimates of Streamflow
       required at  subregional outflow points
       to maintain habitat  for aquatic and
       riparian plants and  animals.  This
       flow  is only for  the National Water
       Assessment and is not adjusted for
       dry year conditions.

    8. Available Water  (col. 5):  This is
       calculated by subtracting the Minimum
       Flow  for fish and wildlife from the
       Total Stream Flow and it gives an
       indication as to how much water is
       left  for human consumption in a given
       region.  Negative values as well as
       positive values which are less than
                                     82

-------
TABLE 7.5 (cont'd.)
       the Consumption Requirements indicate
       that, in dry years, the minimum flow
       for fish and wildlife cannot be
       maintained while also satisfying human
       consumption.
         83

-------
C»
                     Figure  7.1   Water Resource Regions  and Flow Patterns for Aggregated Subregions

-------
                                   SECTION 8

          LEGAL CONSTRAINTS AND THEIR IMPACT  ON CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE

8. 1  INTRODUCTION

To determine the availability of water for consumptive use by  power
systems, it is first necessary to examine the laws and regulations  that
govern water allocation and use.  Although water may be physically  available
in a certain area, the legal right to its use is the first determinant
as to its availiability for a particular use.  There is no clear way of
classifying all the differing laws and accompanying rules, regulations
and regulatory guidelines and court decisions as they apply  to waters of
the United States for they vary from agency to agency and from state to
state with the final arbitrator'being the courts.

Laws and regulations that govern water availability on a Federal level
are based on the need to protect our environment for future  generations
and the availability of present and future resources.  Following are the
major regulations that govern the allocation of water resources and seek
to protect the environment.

This section gives a brief overview of major features of the institutional
framework within which water for energy conversion uses will be sought
and developed.  The features described include the constitutional  basis
for water laws and some of the more important Federal statutes,
international treaties and interstate compacts.  The potential impacts
of Indian water rights, Federal water rights and state water law and
policy are also included.   Other institutional considerations not  included
but which will require consideration are relationships to on-going  and
completed water resources development plans of Federal, state, and regional
agencies.

Table 8-1 at the end of the section gives, on the basis of the 18 water
resource regions:  1) the major rivers in the conterminous United  States,
2) the known compacts or treaties on those water bodies, 3)  the minimum
flows at the outflow points of  certain rivers, and A) the parties  affected
by these treaties or compacts and the water apportionment among the various
states in some cases.  For those compacts and treaties that are too complex
to list in tabular form, reference is made to the sources where they can
be found.

8.2  FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

Federal water program and water rights are carried out under a number of
the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.  For example,
water programs may be carried out with reliance on the Federal authority
to make treaties under Article  I, Section 10, and Article II, Section 2,
or under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which concerns national
defense.  Another authority for Federal activity may be the power  to
provide for the general welfare under Article I, Section 8.
                                       85

-------
With respect to Federal water programs,  perhaps the best known
constitutional power is that contained in Article I, Section 8  conferring
authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states.
This section draws a distinction between navigable and non-navigable
waters, a distinction having importance both for purpose of property
rights in and public regulatory authority over water.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that a state may not
enter into an agreement or compact with another state  without the consent
of Congress.  For apportioning the waters of interstate streams,  the most
common device used is the interstate compact negotiated by basin states
and approved by Congress.

States unable to agree upon an apportionment, or not desiring to negotiate
an agreement, may resort to litigation before the Supreme Court.   In this
instance, it is the judicial decree that operates to control each state's
development and use of water from an interstate stream.   In some cases,
the compact creating the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)  is an
example, the court decree has been incorporated into a subsequent compact
providing a mechanism for modifying the operative effect of the terms of
the decree.

The third procedure for apportioning interstate waters among the states
is by Act of Congress.  The constitutional basis for such action may be
unclear, and this action has been used on a limited basis in one instance.
There Congress merely determined how much water each contending state
should receive through Federal facilities operated by  the Department of
the Interior (DOI).(l)

It is important to remember that the apportionment of  interstate streams,
whether by compact between the states, judicial decree, or Act  of Congress,
is merely a quantification of property rights to use the waters of the
streams.  These property rights are subject and subordinate to  the superior
Federal power to regulate navigation on such interstate streams.

The following is an alphabetical listing .of Interstate Compacts (2) and
their dates of introduction:

          Arkansas River Compact, 1948
          Arkansas River Basin Compact, 1965
          Bear River Compact, 1955
          Belle Fourche River Compact, 1943
          Canadian River Compact, 1950
          Colorado River Compact, 1922
          Connecticut River Flood Control Compact, 1951
          Costilla Creek Compact, 1963
          Delaware River Basin Compact, 1961
          Great Lakes Basin Compact, 1955
          Klamath River Basin Compact, 1957
                                      86

-------
          La Plata River Compact,  1922
          Merrimack River Flood Control  Compact,  1956
          New England Interstate Water Pollution  Control
             Compact,  1947
          New York Harbor (Tri-State) Interstate  Sanitation
             Compact,  1935
          Ohio River Valley Water  Sanitation  Compact,  1939
          Pecos River Compact,  1948
          Potomac River Basin Compact,  1939
          Red River of the North Compact,  1937
          Republican River Compact, 1942
          Rio Grande Compact, 1938
          Sabine River Compact, 1953
          Snake River Compact,  1949
          South Platte River Compact,  1923
          Susquehanna River Basin  Compact, 1970
          Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control
             Compact, 1955
          Thames River Flood Control Compact, 1957
          Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948
          Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood
             Prevention District Compact,  1967
          Yellowstone River Compact, 1950

8.3  FEDERAL STATUTES

Numerous Federal statutes have been enacted which affect  and,  in many
cases, control the development of  water resources in the  United States.
The more significant laws are considered here as  an overview to the
legislation that governs water availability.

8.3.1     Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.  (33 USC 401-411)

The Act provides that the Army Corps of Engineers must approve plans  for
construction, excavation, filling  or removal  of obstructions in navigable
waterways of the United States.  It further prohibits the deposit of
refuse in navigable waters generally and was  thus referred to commonly
as the Refuse Act of 1899.  The Act forms the base for all other
environmentally-related legislation in the U.S.

8.3.2     Reclamation Act of 1902,  (P.L. 57-161)

The Act introduced Federal financing for large dams and  irrigation projects
since these could not be fully met by  private capital. A revolving fund
was established with moneys received from the sale of public lands, and
the Secretary of the Interior was  directed to survey the  west and locate
and construct irrigation projects, opening the improved public lands  to
settlement under the homestead laws.  Where private lands were included
within the area irrigable by project works, water rights  might be sold
to the landowners for irrigation of tracts not exceeding  160 acres.
                                      87

-------
8.3.3     Federal Water Power Act of 1920,  as  amended (P.L.  66-280)

The Act created the Federal Power Commission (now Federal  Energy Regulatory
Commission) which licenses non-Federal hydroelectric power projects  located
on navigable streams or streams over which  the Congress  has  jurisdiction
because the project affects interstate commerce or on public lands or
reservations of the United States.  The Commission can impose development
and operational conditions as determined necessary to protect the public
interest.  Further, the Commission conducts studies and  investigations
of potential hydroelectric sites and makes  projections of  electric power
requirements and supply.

8.3.4     Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, (P.L.  85-624)

The provisions of this Act govern the protection and propagation of  fish
and wildlife in connection with Federal projects or Federally-permitted
activities.  The provisions of the Act apply to the control  or modification
of the waters of any stream or other body of water by an agency or
department of the United States or by any public or private  agency acting
under a Federal permit or license.  The impacts of altered runoff and
sedimentation from strip-mining may be of concern here.

8.3.5     Wilderness Act of 1964, (P.L. 88-577)

About 11 million acres of Federal lands have been designated as part of
the Wilderness Preservation System established under the Act.  Large
additional areas are under consideration for inclusion into  the System.
Incompatible land and water uses and activities are precluded in much of
the area in the absence of specific congressional authorizing action.
This includes the development of water storage reservoirs  and water
conveyance facilities.  Many of the best remaining undeveloped dam and
reservoir sites, from a physical and economic veiwpoint, are within  these
designated areas.

8.3.6     Water Resources Planning Act of 1964, (P.L. 89-80)

This Act created the Water Resources Council (3), composed of the
Secretaries of Interior; Argiculture; Army; Health, Education, and Welfare;
and Transportation; and the Chairman of the Federal Power  Commission (now
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).  Associate members  include the
Secretaries of Commerce and of Housing and  Urban Development, and the
Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.  A principle
objective of the Council is to coordinate the planning for water and
related land resources by the several Federal agencies and to encourage
the conservation, development and utilization of those resources on  a
comprehensive and coordinated basis by Federal, state and  local governments
and private enterprise,,
                                      88

-------
Under this Act, river basin commissions,  composed of representatives of
the Federal agencies and of the states involved,  are authorized  to prepare
plans for the water and related land resources of the respective areas.
A river basin commission is prohibited by the statute from considering
any water resources outside its particular area,  thus precluding it  from
planning an interbasin transfer into its  area.  Several such commissions
have been formed, namely:

                         Great Lakes Basin Commission
                         Missouri River Basin Commision
                         New England River Basins Commission
                         Ohio River Basin Commission
                         Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission
                         Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission

Presently, the Council is completing the 1975 Assessement.  This document
is designed to identify and describe the Nation's severe water and
water-related problems.  The only previous national assessment,  completed
in 1968, identified  the  then emerging problems.  The new assessment  will
identify these problems  in more geographical detail and with greater
regional emphasis.

8.3.7     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. as amended  (P.L. 90-542)

A National Wild and  Scenic Rivers System was established by this statute
with eight rivers or reaches of rivers initially designated as components
of the system  to be maintained in a free-flowing state.  Additional
rivers or river reaches  can be added to the system, and a large number
are now under  study, with a number of bills for inclusion pending  in
Congress.  There is a substantial hydroelectric power potential in these
river reaches which  at this time cannot be developed.

8.3.8     Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968,  (P.L. 90-537)

This Act authorized  construction of the Central Arizona Project and several
smaller projects.  The Project is subject to the specified prior rights
of California  and Nevada.  Planning by Federal agencies for interbasin
transfers into the Colorado River Basin from drainage outside the Basin
States is prohibited.  The Act, however, states an objective to provide
a program for  the comprehensive development of the water resources of the
Colorado River Basin and for the provision of additional water supplies
for use in the Upper as  well as in the Lower Colorado River Basin.   It
further provides that satisfaction of the Mexican Water Treaty of  1944
 for  the Colorado River will become a national obligation under any program
for augmentation of  the  water supplies of the Colorado River Basin in
amounts of 2.5 million acre-feet per year or more.  The Act also withdrew
the Federal Power Commission's hydroelectric licensing authority for the
Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam0
                                      89

-------
8.3.9     National Environmental Policy Act of  1969.  (P.L.  91-190)

Under the provisions of this statute,  the short-and long-term environmental
consequences of a proposed Federal program, project,  or other action
affecting the environment must be evaluated and set forth in an
Environmental Impact Statement.  Alternatives  to the proposed action  must
be fully considered and evaluated.

8.3.10    Federal Water Pollution Control Act  Amendments of 1972,
          (P.L. 92-500)

This comprehensive Act covers the disposal of  pollutants from any man-made
or man-induced source or cause, including those from Federal installations
to navigable waters which are defined for the  purposes  of the Act as  being
all waters.  The Act directly controls the development  and utilization
of new water for energy production and the disposal of  waste products,
including heat.  The Act provides for the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish effluent limitations on point source discharges and to
administer a system of permits for pollutant discharges.  Intakes and
point identifiable and non-point unidentifiable sources of discharges are
both regulated under different sections of the Act.  Federal permits  may
not be required in states which have received  authority from EPA to issue
and enforce permits meeting the requirements of the Act.  EPA, however,
retains the power to intercede in the permitting actions of the delegated
states.

8.3.11    Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
          (P.L. 92-532)

Ocean dumping is allowed only in accordance with permits issued by  the
Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers for
dredged materials.  Permits will be issued where it has been determined
that the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health,
welfare or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems,  or
their economic potentials.

8.3.12    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, (P.L. 92-583)

Under this Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to cooperate  with
the coastal and Great Lakes States, including  provision of Federal  financial
grants, in the development and implementation of plans  and programs for
management of the land and water resources of  the coastal zone.  The
national policy is "...to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible,
to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation*s coastal zone for
this and succeeding generations...."

8.3.13    Federal Water Project Authorization Acts

The statutes authorizing the construction of Federal water projects usually
describe the works to be built in general terms, and specify the functions,
                                      90

-------
areas and water uses to be served by the project.   The  functions and water
uses include navigation, flood control,  hydro-power generation, municipal
and industrial water supply,  irrigation, fish and wildlife enhancement,
recreation and water quality control or  low flow augmentation.  These
acts then, in effect, commit both the developed water and the reservoir
storage capacity to the specified purposes.  Any significant changes to
facilitate the production and/or use of  energy would require further
congressinal action.

The contracts executed by non-Federal interest with the United  States  for
the purchase of water and energy developed by Federal projects  are  long-term
and subject to renewal upon mutually acceptable terms.

Major Federal projects have been built on many of  the major  streams of
the western states and on several eastern streams.   Thus, a  large proportion
of the water resources and of the reservoir storage capacity of these
States have been committed by Federal statutes and  by contracts executed
in furtherance thereof.

8.3.14    Endangered Species Act of  1973,  (P.L. 93-205)

The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered  species and threatened species depend may be conserved
and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and
threatened species.

8.3.15    Other Federal Enactments

There are many other Federal laws concerning the development and use  of
water and related  land resources which are relevant to the subject of
this report,  including but not limited  to:

     1.   The several  flood control  acts

     2.   Public lands statutes

     3.   Federal  Water Project Recreation Act

     4.   Water Supply Act of 1958

8.4  INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

Most streams  flowing across or forming  the boundaries of the United States
and the  Great Lakes are subject to  international agreements with Canada
or Mexico.  The treaties of particular  significance to energy considerations
include  those listed below  (1).
                                      91

-------
8.A.I     The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944

This treaty covering the Colorado River and Rio Grande River,  as well  as
the Tiajuana River and other streams, is administered by  the  International
Boundary and Water Commission.   Under it, the United States is obligated
to deliver to Mexico at least 1.5 million acre-feet per year  of Colorado
River water.

8.4.2     Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320)

Under this recent agreement which implements Minute 242 of the 1944 Treaty,
the United States authorized the construction, operation  and  maintenance
of certain works in the Colorado River Basin to decrease  the  salinity  of
the Colorado River water flowing into Mexico.  Among other things,  Minute
242 provides that the United States shall adopt measures  to assure  that
the approximately 1,360,000 acre-feet of the Treaty water annually  delivered
to Mexico upstream of Morelos Dam have an average salinity of no more
than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm over the average salinity of the Colorado River
water arriving at Imperial Dam (4).

8.4.3     The Treaty of 1909 with Canada

The International Joint Commission functions under this treaty and  has
responsibilities regarding the international waters from  Lake of  the Woods
in Minnesota to eastern Maine.

8.4.4     Columbia River Treaty with Canada

The treaty arrangements in the Columbia River Basin, particularly as
regard the Libby Dam and upstream storage reservoirs in Canada, are
embodied in this agreement.

8.5  INTERSTATE COMPACTS

Numerous interstate compacts have been executed by the states and approved
by Congress, apportioning  the waters of interstate streams, particularly
in the West.  The waters are generally apportioned among  the states and
each state is then left to allocate its share of the water among  intrastate
users on the basis of its  own system of water rights.  Some important
examples of such compacts which must be considered in assessing the
availability of water for energy are noted in the following sections.

8.5.1     The Colorado River Compact of  1922

This compact apportioned the waters of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry
between the Upper Basin States  (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming)
and the Lower Basin States  (Arizona, California and Nevada).   The Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 apportioned the Upper Basin allocation
among the Upper Basin States.  Apportionment of the Lower Basin allocation
among the three states has been the subject of extensive litigation.
                                       92

-------
8.5.2     The Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts

These compacts are unique in that they do not apportion water.  However,
each requires that any project or development which will  make significant
use of basin waters be submitted to the commission established by  the
compact for review and approval.  This applies to projects for power
production and processing of energy resources as well as  to  other  uses.
It should be noted that the Delaware and Susquehanna Compacts are
Federal-interstate rather than merely interstate agreements. Consequently,
the United States and the basin states are parties, and all  are represented
on the commissions that have approval authority.

8.6  INDIAN WATER RIGHTS

In areas where there are Indian reservations, Indians have a special
status.  The reservations exist, are governed by and have rights by treaty
with the United States.  In general, these treaties confer upon the Indians
on the reservation enough water from the water resources  available to
permit them to follow their normal way of life.

A complex and sometimes unclear body of law has developed through  decisions
of the Supreme Court concerning the ability and restrictions to  transfer
Indian rights to non-Indians, even by sale for good value received.

In any event, the status of Indian rights as treaty rights gives  them the
protection of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
(Article VI,  Section 2).  Accordingly, state laws which normally govern
the  aquisition, vesting and transfer of water rights have little or no
applicability to Indian water rights.  These rights exist outside the
established system  for the appropriation of water.

8.7  FEDERAL  WATER  RIGHTS

While  there is no single body of water rights laws at the Federal  level,
it seems clear that the United  States has certain, although imperfectly
formed and unquantified, rights to water and control over water resources.
These  are apart from  the rights which have been acquired for specific
Federal projects pursuant to  state laws.  The principal bases for these
apparent rights include  the reservation doctrine and the concept of
navigation servitude.

8.7.1     Reservation Doctrine

Under  this doctrine,  it  is maintained that when  the United  States reserved
or removed public lands of the  United States from  entry, it also removed
from appropriation  by others  the waters originating on or flowing across
such reserved or removed lands.  These include  the national forests,
national parks, power site withdrawals, reclamation withdrawals and the
like.  Most of these  land reservations and water withdrawals were made
                                       93

-------
late in the 19th Century.  Rights of the United States under  the reservation
doctrine are subject only to those prior rights of others which had become
vested by the time of the reservation or withdrawal.

No attempt has yet been made to quantify these reserved  Federal water
rights or to determine the extent of the uses  to which they may be put.
It is generally presumed that enough water has been  reserved  to make
Federal operation of the land effective for whatever legitimate purposes
the United States may intend, either at the time that the reservation  is
made or when the eventual use is actually undertaken.

While the reservation doctrine is identified with the West, theoretically,
there is no bar to its being used in connection with Federal  land holdings
in other parts of the country.  So far, the principal reason  why this  may
not have occurred is that it has generally been true that  locally available
water was sufficient to meet all needs.

Whatever actual water rights the United States may have  under the
Reservation Doctrine, they are extremely important.   Vast acreages of
Federally owned land exist, not subject to entry and particularly in the
West, with many valuable resources as yet undeveloped.   These resources
are not limited to those essential for energy  production.   In several
areas of the West, the Great Basin for example, the  available water
resources are not adequate for full development of the other  resources
of the public domain.  Difficult policy decisions  will be necessary to
allocate the available water resources among the competing needs.

Full exercise by the United States of its reserved rights in  regions with
limited water resources would inevitably conflict with the  rights of
others acquired under state law and the beneficial uses  of water under
those rights.  The means of resolution of those conflicts have not yet
evolved.

8.7.2     Federal Power over Navigation under  the Commerce  Clause

On the navigable waters of the United States,  which  constitute by far  the
greater part of all water in the country other than  groundwater, the
Federal Government has virtually complete regulatory control, if it wishes
to exercise it.  This is due to the congressional power  over  interstate
and foreign commerce which is held to include navigation.   The Federal
regulatory authority might be used in favor of power generation  or  for
other purposes which might compete with it for an available water  supply.
To date, however, the United States has not fully exercised its  rights
under the doctrine of navigation servitude on any major  stream.

8.8  STATE WATER LAWS AND POLICIES

All of  the states have enacted and have provided the organizational
structure to implement some measure of state control over water  use0   All
states, far example, have enacted water pollution control legislation
                                      94

-------
which is generally implemented in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency.  Some of the state water quality control  laws,  California
for example, are very stringent and cover all forms and causes of  water
quality impairment for all waters of the State.   Each of the western
states has a well-developed body of statutory law and procedure  for the
acquisition and the administration of water rights.  More and more eastern
states are enacting statutes and adopting procedures governing water
rights.  Most of these water rights laws concern only surface waters.  A
few states, Utah for example, have statutes controlling ground water use.

California and a considerable number of other states have enacted
environmental protection statutes similar in intent to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  California has also created a Wild  and
Scenic Rivers System which encompasses all of the remaining  undeveloped
water resources of the North Coastal Region where about 41 percent of  the
state's water resources originate.  Oregon has allocated a significant
portion of its water resources to instream uses  such as fish and wildlife.
Other states have similar enactments.

In the western states, the highest priority for water use is generally
accorded to municipal and domestic supplies, followed by irrigation and
industrial supplies.  Some but not all state water laws provide  for the
allocation of water for instream uses.

The laws of some states, Nebraska for example, impose severe restrictions
on inter-basin transfers.  Some state water laws contain provisions for
the protection of the basins of origin.

State water laws and policies will necessarily be a major consideration
in the planning and development of new water supplies for energy production.
Any attempt to override state statutes and authority is apt  to  be  met
with vigorous opposition and litigation.

8.8.1      State Water Rights

8.8.1.1    Surface Water Rights—

There are  two doctrines of water rights which prevail in the United States:
riparian and appropriation.  The riparian doctrine has been followed  in
eastern states but is gradually giving way to statutes imposing a modified
appropriative system.  The appropriation doctrine originated in the western
states in  the early mining days and  forms the basis of western water
rights law.  A few western states, including Texas, California,  and Hawaii,
have dual  systems of water rights.

8.8.1.1.1  Riparian Rights—

The rights of an owner of riparian land exist because the parcel abuts
and remains in contact with the stream.  A riparian right is not created
by use nor lost through non-use.  Use of water under the right must be
                                       95

-------
reasonable in relation to the use by other riparian owners  and  only on  the
riparian land.  Strictly interpreted, the riparian user  could not destroy,
materially diminish, or alter the quality or quantity  of the water  flowing
to downstream riparian owners.  Riparian rights can be sold and transferred
but only for use on other lands which qualify as riparian,  and  the  purchaser
remains subject to the same reasonable use restrictions  which applied to
the seller.

8.8.1.1.2 Appropriative Rights—

Appropriative rights are now acquired by following the procedures prescribed
by state statutes.  The priority of an appropriative right  in relation
to other appropriative rights is generally the date the  application for
the right was filed with the state agency administering  water rights.
The right becomes finally vested upon full application of the water to
beneficial uses.  The right can be lost through non-use  or  abandonment.

The first person to initiate a water use has the first or prior right
over all subsequent.users of water from a given stream.   Two commonly
heard expressions are:  "first in time is first in right",  and  "beneficial
use is the basis, measure, and limit of the right." The method of  acquiring
appropriative water rights varies from state to state.  The following
general characteristics apply in various degrees to the  administration
and acquisition of water rights in western states (5).

          Administrator.  In most western states, the  administration of
          water resource responsibilities is performed by an official,
          normally called the "State Engineer."  Some  states have given
          this responsibility to a commission or board that supervises
          this administrative officer who keeps records  of  water use;
          receives applications for water rights, reviews them,  and registers
          his approval or denial; appoints river commissioners  or water
          masters to supervise water distribution according to  priority
          of right; and institutes court actions to determine and adjudicate
          water rights.

          Filing.  A water user is required by statute to express his
          intention to appropriate water for beneficial  consumptive use
          by filing an application with the proper state officer or agency.
          This does not apply in Colorado and Montana.

          Protest and Hearing.  After an application has been filed, a
          holder of a water right who feels he may be  injured if a  right
          to use water were to be granted to the new applicant may  file
          a protest.  The state administrator or agency  will then hold  a
          hearing at which interested parties may be heard.
                                      96

-------
Approval of Filing.  If the state officer or agency  determines
that there is unappropriated water in the stream or  other  source
that can be put to beneficial use by the applicant without
impairing prior existing rights,  the filing to appropriate is
approved.  If the appropriation of water is not permitted,  the
applicant may appeal to a state district court.

Perfection of Riffot.  After approval of filing, the  applicant
proceeds to perfect his water right by constructing  the necessary
storage, diversion and conveyance works and by applying the
water to beneficial use.

Certification.  After the state administrator is satisfied that
the applicant has perfected his right, a certificate or other
document is issued by the state to the appropriator  as  prima
facie evidence of the water right.

Ground Water.  If the water code of the state includes  all
waters, both surface and undergound, similar statutory  procedures
will generally apply to the appropriation and use of both.
This rule is not universal because some states still treat
surface and ground water differently.

Statutory Adjudication of Rights.  In order to provide  a
coordinated and integrated decree encompassing and  defining all
rights to the use of water from a common source, almost all
western states have enacted statutory adjudication  procedures.
These actions may be initiated in a state or Federal district
court by water users, state or Federal officials.  The  result
is a determination of the relative rights of all water  users
for a given stream or other water source.

Sales, Transfers, Changes.  Appropriation water rights  may be
sold and transferred, either with the sale of  the land  upon
which the water is used, or separately under procedures peculiar
to each state.  Changes in a water right might involve  a change
in the point of diversion of water from the stream,  in  the
manner of use, purpose of use, or place of use.  These  changes
can be made only after proper application to the state
administrator and his careful review and approval under
well-defined rules that differ from state to state.   The basic
concern with a change is that the alteration not be detrimental
to other water rights.

Water Contracts.  Rights to use water can also be acquired
through contractual arrangements between the owner  of a water
right and another party desiring to use all or part of  the water
covered by that right.  These arrangements are governed by the
contract laws.  For instance, in the western states the Federal
Bureau of Reclamation may acquire a water right directly from
                             97

-------
          the state or by assignment from a water conservancy  or  irrigation
          district that has already obtained a water right.  This right
          is usually to a supply that must be regulated by a storage
          reservoir.  The Bureau, after constructing $  reservoir,  wholesales
          water by contract to a water district or municipality.   Pursuant
          to delivery contracts executed with water users, these  entities
          retain the water.

The above discussion on appropriation of water rights is quite general.
Specific procedures vary in many ways from state to state, particularly
with regard to details.  Furthermore, in recent years the application of
water to beneficial use in the public interest, which is basic to the
appropriation concept, has been broadened in some states by legislative
guidelines that recognize the use of water for instream flows  for fish
and wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and other social  values. These
laws also are peculiar to each state.

8.8.1.2   Ground Water Rights--

The administration of ground water rights varies widely among  the states
from no regulation to complete regulation of ground water use. In any
event, many ground water basins and aquifers in the country have  been
developed to some extent, and the rights to use ground  water have become
vested through use.  There are a number of legal doctrines relating to
ground water rights, varying from the "rule of capture" which  was upheld
by the Texas Supreme Court to the "correlative doctrine" and "mutual
prescription doctrine" approved by the courts.of California  (6).

Some narrowly confined aquifers have been treated as "underground streams,"
and the law of surface streams is applied to them0  Most ground water in
aquifers, however, is so physically different from water in streams that
historically it was treated differently.  The first rule concerned
ownership; the land owner was regarded as owning the water underneath his
land and was permitted to take whatever quantity he could capture. A   ,
number of state courts then imposed requirements that the owner's use of
ground water must be reasonable and connected with use  of the  overlying
land.  Some courts have applied a rule of correlative rights similar  to
riparian doctrines of reasonable sharing.  Many have superimposed
substantial statutory regulation on the exercise of these common  law
doctrines.  A number of western states now have statutes adapting rules
of prior appropriation to ground water.

The ownership rule is in force in the following 10 states:

                        Connecticut              Ohio
                        Maine                    Rhode Island
                        Massachusetts            Texas
                        Mississippi              Vermont
                        New Jersey               Wisconsin
                                      98

-------
The reasonable use rule if followed in these 16 states:

                        Alabama                  Missouri
                        Arizona                  New Hampshire
                        Illinois                 New York
                        Indiana                  North Carolina
                        Iowa                     Pennsylvania
                        Kentucky                 Tennessee
                        Maryland                 Virginia
                        Michigan                 West Virginia

In some of the above states, the rule followed is not totally clear or
classification is based on judicial opinion.  Lousisiana has a  rule of
capture based on Civil Code.

Correlative rights are the rule in:

                                 Arkansas
                                 California
                                 Nebraska

Permit systems seem to supersede common law rules in the following:

                        Nebraska                 North Carolina
                        New Jersey               Wisconsin
                        New York

Fourteen states apply the law of prior appropriation.  Five of  these
states, listed below, use the same law applicable to surface streams.

                        Alaska                   North Dakota
                        Kansas                   Utah
                        Montana

Separate ground water codes are  found in nine  of these states:

                        Colorado                 Oklahoma
                        Idaho                    Oregon
                        Nevada                   South Dakota
                        New Mexico               Washinton
                                                 Wyoming

In addition,  ground water districts which  exercise many controls on
withdrawals exist  in:

                        California               Nebraska
                        Colorado                 New Mexico
                        Florida                  Texas
                                      99

-------
8»8  DIVISION OF STATES ACCORDING TO WATER RIGHTS LAWS OBSERVED

Many western streams are already grossly overappropriated In terms  of  the
sum of claimed amounts under vested appropriative rights, although  in
tact there may still remain some unused water,  particularly during  the
nonirrigation season.  Overappropriation will add to the difficulties  of
obtaining water rights for new uses related to  energy and in transferring
existing rights.

States maintaining pure appropriation law or "Colorado Doctrine," which
has existed from their beginnings, are:

                        Alaska                   Nevada
                        Arizona                  New Mexico
                        Colorado                 Utah
                        Idaho                    Wyoming
                        Montana

Some states recognize both riparian and appropriation rights; however,
all of these are substantially "appropriation states" in that law is the
most important today.  In these states,  riparian rights are the historical
basis of some uses but all new uses are appropriative.  However, only  in
California and to a limited extent Nebraska are there possibilities of
initiating new water uses by exercising riparian rights.  Dual rights  states
are:
                        California               Oklahoma
                        Kansas                   Oregon
                        Mississippi              South Dakota
                        Nebraska                 Texas
                        North Dakota             Washington

It would be misleading to say that the water law of the other 31 states
is common law riparianism.  Some of these states permit non-riparian uses
as well.  Nine, those listed here, control the initiation of substantially
all new uses by administrative permits:

                        Delaware                 Minnesota
                        Florida                  New Jersey
                        Iowa                     North Carolina
                        Kentucky                 Wisconsin (agriculture & mining)
                        Maryland

The remaining mainland states may have the doctrine of riparian rights
as their common law, but it has been heavily overlaid with statutes which
control dams on navigable streams,hydroelectric dams or all dams.; statutes
which authorize non-riparian use of water stored in dams; statutes  which
authorize and control the abstraction of water by cities, districts and
state agencies; and, quite recently, statutes controlling private uses
for the protection of minimum flows and environmental values.  In most
"riparian states" these statutes  rather than common law are  the important
features of modern water law.
                                      100

-------
8.9  CONCLUSIONS

From the review of the information collected on the major laws  that exist
nationwide with regard to the use and consumption of water,  the following
conclusions may be drawn:

     1.   There is no simple way to set down all the differing  laws and
          accompanying rules and regulations, since they vary from state
          to state and are at the bottomline subject to decisions of the
          courts.  An attempt was made to show the constraints  on the
          legal availability of water.  These constraints form  a complex
          web which involves Federal rights, Indian rights,  state rights,
          riparian rights, appropriation rights, beneficial  uses,
          international treaties and others.  Disregard for  or  any attempt
          to abrogate these rights (or arrangements) is certain to meet
          with serious objections and may result in lengthy litigation.

     2.   The fact that no comprehensive body of law exists, Cither on
          national or state level on  the regulation and consumptive use
          of water,  adds to the  difficulties and quandary in understanding
          water  rights.   This is  to say that present national and state
          laws and regulations need codification as well as in some cases
          to be  rewritten to meet our present societal needs.

     3.   State boundaries seldom coincide with hydrologic boundaries,
          therefore instances exist where two or more legal systems act
          to manage or allocate water from one integrated source.  These
          conflicts have  and are being resolved by interstate compacts,
          federal legislation and by Supreme Court decisions.

     4.   The diversity of state  laws can be attributed to the variety
          of hydrologic conditions in the country.  These range from areas
          of water abundance to those of complete scarcity.   Primacy of
          state systems for legal remedy and allocation would seem to
          reflect most accurately these local conditions.

     5.   There  is a trend toward increased federal involvement in order
          to attain uniform national  goals for energy and water resource
          management.  This trend may continue in order to override long
          standing and powerful local political interests.

     6.   Water  quantity  and quality  although seemingly intertwined
          physically have not been treated in combination legislatively.
          This is true both at the state and federal level, making water
          resource management all the more difficult.
                                      101

-------
7.   Most Federal water resource programs  include  subsidies which
     lower the price of water to users  below what  it actually costs
     to provide the water.   The average price of water  from Federal
     projects and programs  are approximately 20 to 30 percent of
     actual cost to provide the water.   As a result, users take more
     water than they would  if the price were higher.

8.   Due to the great diversity of the  United States water resources
     systems, it would be difficult for a  single entity to be used
     to integrate the activities of all water agencies.  Differences
     in state water laws, water uses and supply conditions have
     created regulations that seem all  but impossible to integrate.
                                 102

-------
                                  REFERENCES

1.   Arizona vs. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

2.   Witmer, T.R., ed.  Documents on the Use and Control of the Waters
     of Interstate and International Streams	Compacts, Treaties,  and
     Adjudication, Second Edition.  90th Congress, 2nd Session, House
     Document No. 319, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968.

3.   United States Water Resources Council.  Water for Energy Self
     Sufficiency.  Washington, 1974.

4.   Department of the Interior.  Final Environmental Statement, Colorado
     River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.  Bureau of Reclamation,
     Lower Colorado Region, 1975.

5.   Goslin, I.V.  Water for Energy as Related to Water Rights in Western
     States.  In:  Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F.
     Gloyna, H.H. Woodson, and H.R. Drew, eds.  Water Resources Symposium
     Number Eight, The University of Texas at Austin, 1975.  pp 79-90.

6.   Hutchins, W.A.  Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States,
     Volumes 1 & 2.  United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous
     Publication No. 1206, Washington, 1971.
                                      103

-------
                  TABLE 8-1

  COMPACTS, TREATIES AMD REGULATIONS FOR
MAJOR RIVERS AND LAKES IN THE L'NITED STATES
Region
01
Now England
02
Mid-Atlantic
03
South
Atlantic-Gulf
04
Great Lakes
05
Ohio
06
Tennessee
07
Upper Mississippi
08
Lover Mississippi
River/
River Basin
Herrimack
Connecticut
Dclavaro
Hudson
Susqtiebanna
Potomac
Toabigboe
Alabama
Apalachicola
Eastern
Lake Erie
Great Lakes
Niagara River
Ohio
Wabnsh
Cumberland
Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
Illinois
Lower Mississippi
Compact/Treaty /Regulation
Merrlmack River Flood Control Compact, 1956
Connecticut River Flood Control Compact, 1951
Delaware River Basin Conpact, 1961
Susquchanna River Basin Compact
Potomac River Compact

Great Lakes Basin Compact, 1955
Niagara River Water Diversion Treaty, 1950




Mlninun Flow Requirement 1
at the Outflow Point
(Million Cflllons/D.-.y)
1975

1131

64500




if as

1131

64500




2000

1131

64500




Apport ionncnt
>'A, NH
MA. CT, ::H, VT
DE, ::j. ::v, PA
>!D, WV, FA, VA, DC

IL, IS, >!I, MX, N\-, OH, PA, WI
Canada - United States





-------
TABLE 8-1  (cont'd.)

Region


09
Sourls-Red
Rainy
10
Missouri




11
Arkansas
White-Red
12
Texas'Gulf
13
Rio Grande




14
Upper Colorado
IS
Lover Colorado

16
Great Basin

River/
River Basin

Red River
Yellowstone River
Lake of the Woods
Rainy Lake
No/So Platte
Kansas
Belle Fourche
Republican
South Platte
St. Mary & Milk Rivers
Upper Arkansas
Red
Canadian River

Paces River
Sablne River
Middle
Rio Grande
Costilla Creek
LaPlata River
lio Grandet Colorado,
Tijuana
Upper Colorado
San Juan
Bear
Lower Colorado
Main Stem



Compact /Treaty/Regulation

led River of the North Compact, 1937
Yellowstone River Compact, 19SO
Lake of the Woods Convention, 1925
Rainy Lake Convention, 1938

Belle Fourche River Compact, 1943
Republican River Compact, 1942
South Platte Compact
Canadian Boundary Water Treaty, 1909
Arkansas River Compact (1948)
Arkansas P.lver Basin Compact, 1965
Canadian River Compact, 1950

Pecos River Compact, 1948
Sablne River Compact, 1953
Rio Grande River Compact, 1938
Costilla Creek Compact, 1963
LaPlata River Compact
Rio Grande, Colorado and Tijuana Treaty, 1944

Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948

Bear River Compact, 1955
— Colorado River Basin Compact, 1922



Minimum Flow Requirement
at the Outflow Point
(Million Gallons/Day)
1975




78
34




808




54




6700

1340



1985




78
34




808




54




6700

1340



2000




78
34




808




54




6700

1340




ApporC ionr.ent

SD, NO, MN
MT, ND, WY
Canada - United States
Canada - United States

SD (90%), WY (107.)
CO, KS. NE
CO, N't
Canada - United States
CO, KS
KS, OK
NM, TX, OK

TX, LA
CO, KM, TX
CO, NM
CO, NM
United States - Mexico

AZ, CO. NM, UT, WY

WY, UT





-------
                                                                       TABLE 8-1 (cont'd.)
Region
17
Pacific North-
west
18
California
River/
River Basin
Snake River
Columbia River
Klanath River
Compact /Treaty/Regulation
Snake River Compact, 1949
Columbia River Cooperative Development
Treaty, 1961
Rlamath River Basin Compact, 1957
Minimum Flow Requirement
at the Outflow Point
(Million Gallons/Day)
1975


1985


2000


Apportionment
ID (967.), WY (041)
Canada - United States
CA, OR
Where the apportionment of a river or lake between states or countries has
not been specifically designated or  the division  Is too complex to be
cited on this Table, the  full text of the compact or treaty can
be found In Documents on  the Use and Control of Waters of Interstate and
International Screams. 2nd Edition, Wltmer, T. R., ad, Rouse Document 319,
90th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, 1968.
Minimum Flow Requirement  Cor various rivers Indicated on the chart are taken from the
preliminary draft of The  nation's Water Resources. The Second National Assessment by the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Apportionment section shows states Involved In compact or treaty dividing the waters specified.
Where a percentage apportionment la given, It is  Indicated after the name of the State.
Rivera are Hated either due to their size and Importance or to fact that a treaty
or compact exists.

-------
                            BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Water Works Association Committee Report.   Water Use.
American Water Works Association Journal, 65(5):   285-301, 1973.

Ardill, J. Managing Great Britain's Water.  Water and Sewage Works,
120(12):  38-40, 1973.

Arizona, University of.  Feasibility Study of a Nuclear Power -
Sewage Treatment System for Conservation and Reclamation of Water
Resources.  Department of Nuclear Engineering, Tucson, Arizona.
(Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia,  PB-255 630/6GI.)

Arizona vs. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

Arndt, C.R., and R.E. Barry.  Simulation of Spray Canal Cooling for
Power Plants - Performance and Environmental Effects.  American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 76-WA/HT-28, 1976.

Arrandale, T.  Western Water:  Coming Crisis.  Editorial Research
Reports,  1(2):  21-40, 1977.

Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Research on Data and Analytical Systems for
Preparing National Water Assessments (Final Report).  Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1970.

Atomic Energy Commission.  Nuclear Power Facility Performance
Characteristics for Making Environmental Impact Assessments.
Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Washington,  D.C., Wash-1355,
1974.

Backus, C.E., and M.L. Brown.  Water Requirements for Solar Energy.
American Water Works Association Journal, 68(7):   366-369, 1976.

Baird, R.D., D.M. Myers, and S. Shah.  The Thermal Performance
Characteristics of Large Spray Cooling Ponds.  In:   Proceeding  of
the Waste Heat Management and Utilization Conference.  Department
of Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1977.
                                 107

-------
Bartlit, J.R., and M.D. Williams.  Environmental Impact Assessment
of Cooling Towers.  Materials Performance, 14(9):  39-41,  1975.

Beard, L.R.  Status of Water Resource Systems  Analysis. Journal  of
the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 99(HY4):  559-565, 1973.

Behia, M.  A Study of Cooling Initially Uniform and Thermally
Stratified Layers of Water.  School of Medicine, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.  (Available from National  Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-268 123.)

Benedict, B.A., J.L. Anderson, and E.L. Yandell.  Analytical Modeling
of Thermal Discharges-A Review of the State of the Art. Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, ANL/ES-18, 1974.

Bergstorm, R.N., and J.L. Hayes.  Predicting Hydrothermal  Behavior
of Cooling Water Services.  American Society of Civil Engineers,
Annual National Environmental Engineering Meeting, 1969.

Biese, R.J.  The Generation of Visible Plumes  by Wet Dry Cooling
Towers.  Cooling Tower Institute, Houston, Texas, TP 123A,  1974.

Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2, Environment  Report, Volume 5,
Docket No. 50-556.  Public Service Company of  Oklahoma, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 1975.

Brady, O.K.  Design of Impoundments and Lakes  for Cooling.   In:
Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F. Gloyna, et
al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The University
of Texas at Austin, 1975.

Brady, O.K., W.L. Graves, Jr., and J.C. Geyer.  Surface Heat Exchange
at Power Plant Cooling Lakes.  Edison Electric Institute,  New York,
EEI Publication No. 69-901, 1969.

Brill, E.D., Jr., G.E. Stout, R.W. Fuessle, R.M. Lyon, and K.E.
Wojnarowski.  Ohio River Basin Energy Study, Volume III-G,  Special
Study Report, Issues Related to Water Allocation in the Lower Ohio
River Basin.  Office of Energy, Minerals, and  Industry, Office of
Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977.

Brill, E.D., Jr., S.G. Velioglu, and R.W. Fuessle.  Mathematical
Models for Use in Planning Regional Water Resources and Energy
Systems.  Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, UILU-WRC-76-0116, 1976.
                                 108

-------
Brill, E.D., Jr., S.G. Velioglu, and R.W.  Fuessle.   Water  and  Energy
Systems:  A Planning Model.  Journal of the Water Resources Planning
and Management Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 103 (WR1):  17-32, 1977.

Buie, E.G.  Future Water Policies.  Journal of Soil and  Water
Conservation, 28(5):  211-213,  1973.

Burger, R.  Cooling Tower Drift Elimination.  Chemical Engineering
Progress, 71(7):  73-76, 1975.

Calvert, J.D., Jr., and W.L. Heilman.  Man-Made Cooling  Reservoir
Performs as Predicted.  Power Engineering, 77(10):   40-43,  1973.

Carson, J.E.  Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling System.
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1976.

Chen, K.H., and G.J. Trejek.  Thermal Performance Models and Drift
Loss Predictions for a Spray Cooling System.  Journal of Heat  Transfer,
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,  Series
C, 99:  274-280, 1977.

Chow, V.T., ed.  Water for the Human Environment, Volume I.
International Water Resources Association, Champaign, Illinois,  1973.

Combs, Z., B.E. Huber, and B.C. Talmi.  Cooling Systems, Towers,
Ponds, and Once-Through Cooling.  Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, ORNL-BIS-74-66, 1974.

Cootner, P.H.Q and G.O.G. Lof.  Water Demand for Steam Electric
Generating - An Economic Projection Model.  Resources for  the  Future,
Inc., Washington, D.C., 1965.

Coppeline, G.A., and J.R. Townsend.   Cooling Water Systems; Maintaining
Optimum Efficiency.  Power Engineering, 80(9):  60-63,  1976.

Croley, T.E., II, V.C. Patel, and M.S. Cheng.   Dry-Wet Tower
Evaporation and Fog Psychrometrics.   Journal of the Power Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,  102(P01):
21-33, 1976.

Croley, T.E., II, V.C. Patel, and M.S. Cheng.   Economics of Dry-Wet
Cooling Towers.  Journal of the Power Division, Proceeding of  the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 102 (P02):  147-163,  1976.

Croley, T.E., II, V.C. Patel, and M.S. Cheng.   Thermodynamic Models
of Dry-Wet Cooling Towers.  Journal of Power Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 102(P01):  1-19, 1976.
                                 109

-------
Currier, E.L., J.B. Knox, and T.V. Crawford.   Cooling Pond Steam
Fog.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,  24(9):
860-864, 1974.

Davis, C.  The Cooling Tower as a Factor in Riparian Law.   In:
Cooling Towers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,  1972.

Davis, G.H.Q and L.A. Wood.  Water Demands for Expanding Energy
Development.  U.S. Geological Survey, Arlington,  Virginia, 1974.

Department of the Interior.  Final Environmental  Statement,  Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I. Bureau of  Reclamation,
Lower Colorado Region, 1975.

Dinsmore, A.F.  Inland Florida Cooling Systems.  In:   Proceedings
of the Waste Heat Management and Utilization Conference.   Department
of Mechanical Engineering,  University of Miami, Miami, Flordia,  1977.

Drake, R.L.  Climate and Weather:  Natural and Anthropogenetic
Perturbations.  In:  Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report  for
1975 to the USERDA Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research,
Part 3, C.L. Simpson, ed. 1976.

Drew, H.R.  Water Use as a Factor in Meeting Electric Power Needs.
In:  Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F. Gloyna,
et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The  University
of Texas at Austin, 1975.  pp.75-78.

Dreyfus, D.A., and B.S. Cooper.  Water and Self-Sufficency.   Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C., 1974.

Duke Power Company.  Heat Transfer and Evaporation from Open Water
Bodies.  Duke Power Company Technical Report, Duke PWR/76-02, 1976.

Dvorn, R., and R. Wilcox.  Treated Sewage for Power Plant  Makeup.
Power Engineering, 76(11):  40-41, 1972.

Dynatech, Corp.  Survey of Alternate Methods for  Cooling Condenser
Discharge Water, Large-Scale Heat Rejection Equipment.  Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Contract FWQA-14-12-477, 1969.

Edinger, J.E.  Shape Factors for Cooling Lakes.  Journal of the  Power
Division, Proceedings of The American Society of  Civil Engineers:
97(P04):  861-867, 1971.

Edinger, J.E., and J.C. Geyer.  Heat Exchange in  the Environment.
Edison Electric Institute, New York, EEI Publication No. 65-902,  3rd
Printing, 1971.
                                 110

-------
Edison Electric Institute.  Report to the Effluent  Standards  and
Water Quality Information Advisory Committee:   1.   Design  of  Intake
Structures for Steam Electric Stations - New Installations;   2.  A
Summary of Cooling Technology;  3.  A Summary  of Processes Involved
and the Chemical Discharges Associated with the Industry.  New York,
1973.

Effects and Methods of Control of Thermal Discharges:   Report to the
Congress by the Environmental Protection Agnecy in  Accordance with
Section 104 (T) of the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments
of 1972, PT. 1.  Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C., 1973.

Elgawhary, A.W.  Spray Cooling System Design.   Chemical Engineering
Progress, 71(7):  83-87, 1975.

Englesson, G.A., and M.C. Hu.  Wet/Dry Cooling Systems  for Water
Conservation.  Prepared Testimony before the State  Energy  Resources
Conservation and Development Commission of the State of California,
Sundesert Nuclear Project, 1977.

English, B.C., and D. Dvoskin.  National and Regional Water  Production
Functions Reflecting Weather Conditions.  The  Center for Agricultural
and Rural Development, Iowa State University,  Ames, Iowa,  1977.

Engman, E.T.  Regional Impacts from Water Consumption and  Heat
Disposal in River Basins and Estuaries.  In:  Civil and Environmental
Engineering Aspects of Energy Complexes, A.S.  Goodman,  ed.  American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1976.

Erie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report,  Volume 5,
Docket No. 50-580.  Ohio Edison Co., Akron, Ohio,  1977.

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.  Consumptive  Water Use Implications
of the Proposed EPA Effluent Guidelines for Steam-Electric Power
Generation.  Austin, Texas, Document No. 7407, 1974.

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.  The Use of Surface Water Impoundments
for Cooling of Steam-Electric Power Stations.   Austin,  Texas, Document
No. 7775, 1977.

Fan, L.T., and D.F. Aldis.  Optional Synthesis of  a Power  Plant
Cooling System.  Nuclear Technology, 32(3):  222-238, 1977.

Ficke, J.F., D.B. Adams, and T.W. Danielson.  Evaporation  from Seven
Reservoirs in the Dover Water Supply Systems,  Central Colorado.
United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Lakewood,
Colorado, 1977.
                                 Ill

-------
Fischer, P., J.W. Suitor, and R.B. Ritter.  Fouling Measurement
Techniques.  Chemical Engineering Progress, 71(7):   66-72,  1975.

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 2, Environment Report,  Docket No.
50-548.  Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, Nebraska, 1976.

Fox, I.K.  Integrating All Aspects of Regional Water Systems.  Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 99(HY4):  599-603, 1973.

Frediani, H.A., Jr., and N. Smith.  Mathematical Model for  Spray
Cooling Systems.  Journal of Engineering for Power, Transactions of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series A,  99:   279-283,
1977.

Fruh, E.G., P.S. Schmidt, B. Maguire, Jr., and C. Hubbs.  Baseline
Environmental Evaluations at Power Plant Sites.  American Water Works
Association Journal, 68(7):  375-384, 1976.

Fryer, B.C., D.W. Faletti, Dan J. Braun, David J. Braun,  and L.E.
Wiles.  An Engineering and Cost Comparison of Three Different All-Dry
Cooling Systems.  Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,  Richland,
Washington, BNWL-2121, 1976.

Gakner, A., and R.M. J lines on.  Environmental and Economic Cost
Considerations in Electric Power Supply.  In:  Water-1973,  G.F.
Bennett, ed.  American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium
Series, 70(136):  675-681, 1974.

Galde, D.O.  Cooling Towers, A Bibliography, March 1976 - May 1977.
Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977.  (Available from National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,  TID-3360-S1.)

Gardner, B.R., and H.J. Lowe.  The Research and Development Background
to the Environmental Problems of Natural Draught Cooling Towers.
Atmospheric Environment, 8(4):  313-320, 1974.

General Electric Company.  Future Needs for Dry or Peak Shaved Dry/Wet
Cooling and Significance to Nuclear Power Plants.  Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, EPRI-NP-150, 1976.

Gibbs, P.Q.  Availability of Water for Coal Conversion.  Journal of
the Water Resources Planning and Management Division,  Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 102(WR2):   219-225, 1976.

Giefer, G.J.  Sources of Information in Water Resources,  An Annotated
Guide to Printed Materials.  Water Information Center, Inc., Port
Washington, N.Y., 1976.
                                 112

-------
Giusti, E., and G.L. Meyer.  Water Consumption by Nuclear  Power
Plants and Some Hydrological Implications.   United States  Geological
Survey Circular 745, 1977.

Glicksman, L.R.  Thermal Discharge from Power Plants.   American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,  72-WA/Ener-2,  1972.

Gloyna, E.F., and D.L. Ford, Water Management for Selected Non-Electric
Utility Industries.  In:  Water Management  by the Electric Power
Industry, E.F. Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water  Resources  Symposium Number
Eight, the University of Texas at Austin,  1975. pp.  50-64.

Gloyna, E.F., H.H. Woodson, and H.R. Drew,  eds.  Water Management
by the Electric Power Industry.  Proceedings of the Water  Resources
Symposium Number Eight, Center for Research in Water Resources,  The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1975.

Gold, H., D.J. Goldstein, R.F. Probstem, J.S. Shen,  and D. Yung.
Water Requirements for Steam Electric Power Generation and Synthetic
Fuel Plants in the Western United States.   Science and Public Policy
Program, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1977.

Gold, H., D.J. Goldstein, and D. Yung.  Effect of Water Treatment
on the Comparative Costs of Evaporative and Dry Cooled Power Plants.
Water Purification Associates, Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  1976.
(Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia, COO-2580-1.)

Goldman, C.R.  Environmental Impact and Water Development.  American
Water Works Association Journal, 64(9):  545-549, 1972.

Gordian Associates, Inc.  Cooling Tower Energy Studies-Conservation
Techniques Applicable to Existing Installations Plus Comparative
Economic and Energy Requirements of Mechanical and Natural Draft
Towers.  New York, 1977.

Goslin, I.V.  Water for Energy as Related to Water Rights  in Western
States.  In:  Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F.
Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1975.  pp 79-90.

Greene County Nuclear Plant, Environment Report, Volume 3, Docket
No. 50-549.  Power Authority of the State of New York, 1975.

Gulachenski, E.M., E.W. Courville, F.J. Levitsky, D.J. Gillespie,
J.F. Vance, G. Karady, and Y. Beausejour.   Salt Water Spray Canal
Contamination of Overhead Transmission Lines.  IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, 96:  485-495,  1977.
                                 113

-------
Guy, L.L., Jr.  Engineer Warns of Water Shortages.   Water &  Sewage
Works, 123(11):  80-84, 1976.

Guyer, E.G., and M.W. Golay.  A Model for Salt  Drift Deposition  from
Spray Ponds.  International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,  Austria,
IAEA-SM-187137, 1975.

Guyer, E.G., and M.W. Golay.  Evaluation of Combined Thermal Storage
Pond/Dry Cooling Tower Waste Heat Disposal System.   American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 77-HT-57, 1977.

Haggerty, D., and M. LeFeure.  Growing Role of  Natural Draft Cooling
Tower in U.S. Plants.  Power Engineering, 80(6):  60-63,  1976.

Hagan, R.M.  Energy Requirements of Environmentally Influenced
Decisions, Involvement of Water Requirements and Use.   School of
Agriculture, University of California, Davis, California,  1975.

Hagan, R.M., and E.B. Roberts.  Energy Requirements in Water Supply,
Use and Conservation.  Water & Sewage Works, 123(11):   64-67, 1976.

Haith, D.A.  Integrated Systems for Power Plant Cooling and  Waste
Water Management.  In:  Energy, Agriculture, and Waste Management,
W.J. Jewell, ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1975.

Hall, W.A.  Systems Analysis in Irrigation and  Drainage.   Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the  American Society  of
Civil Engineers, 99(HY4):  567-571, 1973.

Hamilton, T.H.  Estimating Cooling Tower Evaporation Rates.   Power
Engineering, 81(3):  52-55, 1977.

Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory.  Water  Use Information
System (News Release).  Richland, Washington, 1978.

Hanford Nuclear Project No. 1, Environment Report,  Volume 2, Docket
No. 50-460.  Washington Public Power Supply System, 1974.

Hanlock, R.K.  Thermal Performance Experiments  on Ultimate Heat  Sink,
Spray Ponds, and Cooling Ponds.  Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1976.

Hansen, D.C.  Water Available for Energy - Upper Colorado River
Basin.  Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
102(WR2):  341-348, 1976.
                                  114

-------
Hansen, R.G., C.R. Knoll, and B.W. Mar.   Municipal Water Systems  -
A Solution for Thermal Power Plant Cooling?  American Water Works
Association Journal, 65(3):  174-181, 1973.

Harbeck, G.E., Jr.  A Practical Field Technique for Measuring Reservoir
Evaporation Utilizing Mass-Transfer Theory.  United States  Geological
Survey Professional Paper 272-E, 1962.

Harbeck, G.E., Jr.  Estimating Forced Evaporation from Cooling Ponds.
Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American  Society
of Civil Engineers, 90(P03):  1-9. 1964.

Harbeck, G.E., Jr.  The Use of Reservoirs and Lakes for the Dissipation
of Heat.  United States Geological Survey Circular 282, 1953.
Harbeck, G.E., Jr., G.E. Koberg, and G.H. Hughes.   The Effect of the
Addition of Heat from a Powerplant on the Thermal  Structure and
Evaporation of Lake Colorado City, Texas.  United  States Geological
Survey Professional Paper 272-B, 1959.

Hardison, C.H.  Potential United States Water-Supply Development.
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 98(IR3):   479-492, 1972.

Harte, J., and M. El-Gasseir.  Energy and Water.  Science, 199:
623-634, 1978.

Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units 1, 2, 3, and  4, Environment Report,
Volume 3, Docket No. 50-518.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville,
Tennessee, 1975.

Hauser, L.G., and K.A. Oleson.  Comparison of  Evaporative Losses in
Various Condenser Cooling Water Systems.  Proceedings of the American
Power Conference, 32:519-527, 1970.

Heeren, H., and L. Holly.  Air Cooling for Condensation and Exhaust
Heat Rejection in Large Generating Stations.  Proceedings of the
American Power Conference, 32:  579-594, 1970.

Heitz, L.F., Jr.  The Potential for Nuclear and Geothermal Power
Plant Siting in Idaho as Related to Water Resources.  Water Resources
Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1975.

Hicks, B.B.  The Prediction of Fog Over Cooling Ponds.  Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association, 27(2):   140-142, 1977.
                                 115

-------
Hicks, B.B., M.L. Wesely, and C.M. Sheih.   A Study of Heat Transfer
Processes Above a Cooling Pond.  Water Resources Research, 13(6):
901-908, 1977.

Hoffman, D.P.  Spray Cooling for Power Plants.   Proceedings of the
American Power Conference, 35:  702-712, 1973.

Hewlett, L.D.  Large Scale Evaporative Cooling  - The Window Theory.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers,  New York, 76-JPGC-Pwr-1,
1976.

Hu, M.C.  Engineering and Economic Evaluation of Wet/Dry Cooling
Towers for Water Conservation.  United Engineers and Constructors
Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, UE&C-ERDA-761130, 1976.  (Available
from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
COO-2442-1.)

Hu, M.C., and G.A. Englesson.  Wet/Dry Cooling  Systems for
Fossil-Fueled Power Plants:  Water Conservation and Plume Abatement.
United Engineers and Constructors Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
UE&C-EPA-771130, 1977.  (Available from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, EPA-600/7-77-137.)

Hughes, G.H.  Analysis of Techniques Used  to Measure Evaporation
from Salton Sea, California.  United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 272-H, 1967.

Hughes, G.H.  Perspective on Use of Fresh  Water for Cooling Systems
of Thermoelectric Power Plants in Florida.  Water Resources
Investigations (Final Report).  Water Resources Division, Geological
Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, 1975.  (Available from National Technical
Information Services, Springfield, Virginia, PB-250 937/OGA.)

Huston, R.J.  An Overview of Water Requirements for Electric Power
Generation.  In:  Water Management by the  Electric Power Industry,
E.F. Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight,
The University of Texas at Austin, 1975.  pp. 39-49.

Hutchins, W.A.  Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States,
Volumes 1 & 2.  United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1206, Washington, 1971.

Inoue, K., E.J. Henley, G.H. Otto, and R.G. Thompson.  Water Use
Policies and Power Plant Economics.  Proceedings of the American
Power Conference, 36:  767-771, 1974.

Israel, G.W. , T.J. Overcamp, and W.J. Pringle.   Method to Measure
Drift Deposition from Saline Natural Draft Cooling Towers.  Atmospheric
Environment, 11(2):  123-130, 1977.
                                 116

-------
James, E.W., W.F. Maguire, and W.L. Harpel.  Using Wastewater as
Cooling-System Makeup Water.  Chemical Engineering, 83(18):  95-100,
1976.

Jamesport Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 5,
Docket No. 50-516.  Long Island Lighting Company, Hicksville, New
York, 1974.

Janzon, H.J., and G.W. Underwood.  Design Application and Operating
Experience with Cooling Towers on the AEP System.  American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 72-PWR-3, 1972.

Jewell, W.J., ed.  Energy, Agriculture, and Waste Management.  Ann
Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.

Jirka, G.H., G. Abraham, and D.R.F. Harleman.  An Assessment of
Techniques for Hydrothermal Prediction.  Civil Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1976.  (Available from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, PB-250 509, NUREG-0044.)

Johnson, B.M., R.T. Allemann, D.W. Faletti, B.C. Fryer, and F.R.
Zaloudek.  Dry Cooling of Power Generating Stations:  A Summary of
the Economic Evaluation of Several Advanced Concepts via a Design
Optimization Study and a Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington,
BNWL-2120, 1976.

Kelly, G.M.  Cooling Tower Design and Evaluation Parameters.  American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 75-PWR-9, 1975.

Kelley, R.B.  Large-Scale Spray Cooling.  Industrial Water Engineering,
8(7): 18-20, 1971.

Klanian, P.S., and E.G. Noyes.  Economics of Wet/Dry Cooling Towers
for Utility Power Plants.  Combustion, 45(4):  31-34, 1973.

Koberg, G.E.  Methods to Compute Long-Wave Radiation From the
Atmosphere and Reflected Solar Radiation From a Water Surface.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 272-F, 1964.

Kolflat, T.D.  Cooling Tower Practices.  Power Engineering, 78(1):
32-39,, 1974.

Kramer, M.L., D.E. Seymour, M.E. Smith, R.W. Reeves, and T.T.
Frankenberg.  Snowfall Observations from Natural-Draft Cooling Tower
Plumes.  Science, 193:  1239-1241, 1976.
                                 117

-------
Langhaar, J.W.  Cooling Pond May Answer Your Water Problem.  Chemical
Engineering, 10(8):  194-200, 1953.

Larinoff, M.W.  Look at Costs of Wet/Dry Towers.  Power, 122(4):
78-81, 102, 1978.

Larinoff, M.W., and L.L. Forster.  Dry and Wet-Peaking Tower Cooling
Systems for Power Plant Application.  Journal of Engineering for
Power, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Series A, 98:  335-348, 1976.

Laura, D.  Water Resources Decision Evaluation Model.  Ph. D.
Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
1974.

Leppanen, O.E., and G.E. Harbeck, Jr.  A Test of the Energy-Balance
Method of Measuring Evapotranspiration.  International Association
of Scientific Hydrology, 53:  428-437, 1960.

Leung, P.  Evaporative and Dry-Type Cooling Towers and Their
Application to Utility Systems.  In:  Water Management by the Electric
Power Industry, E.F. Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium
Number Eight, The University of Texas at Austin, 1975.

Leung, P., and R.E. Moore.  Water Consumptive Determination for Steam
Power Plant Cooling Towers:  A Heat and Mass Balance Method.
Combustion, 42(5):  14-23, 1970.

Leung, P., and R.E. Moore.  Water Consumption Study for Navajo Plant.
Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, 97(P04):  749-766, 1971.

Lindstrom, F.T., and L. Boersma.  Heat Budget of Cooling Basins.
Journal of Environment Quality, 2:  197-203, 1973.

Littleton Research & Engineering Corporation.  An Engineering-Economic
Study of Cooling Pond Performance.  Littleton, Massachusetts, 1970.
(Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia, PB-206 817.)

Loziuk, L.A., J.C. Anderson, and T. Belytschko.  Transient Hydrothermal
Analysis of Small Lakes.  Journal of the Power Division, Proceeding
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 99(P02):  349-364, 1973.

MacFarlane, J.A., G. Maples, and D.F. Dyer.  Application of Phased
Cooling to a Once-Through Cooling System.  Journal of Engineering
for Power, Transactions of the American Society of Mechnical Engineers,
Series A, 98:  365-368, 1976.
                                 118

-------
Malina, J.F., Jr., and J.C. Moseley, II.  Costs of Alternative Cooling
Systems.  In:  Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F.
Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1975.  pp. 149-162.

Mangelson, K.A.  Hydraulics of Waste Stabilization Ponds and Its
Influence on Treatment Efficiency.  Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah, 1971.

Marks, D.H., and R.A. Borenstein.  An Optimal Siting Model for Thermal
Plants with Temperature Constraints.  Edison Electric Institute, New
York, EEI Publication No. 70-902, 1970.

Marwitz, J.D., et al.  Possibilities of Climate Modification by Large
Power Plants.  In:  Fort Union Coal Field Symposium, Vol. 5, W.F.
Clark, ed.  Billings, Montana, 1975.

McCune, D.C., D.H. Silberman, R.H. Manol, L.H. Weinstein, P.C.
Freudenthal, and P.A. Giardina.  Studies on the Effects of Saline
Aerosols of Cooling Tower Origin on Plants.  Air Pollution Control
Association Journal, 27:  319-324, 1977.

McKinnez, B.C.  Heat Dissipation Technology.  Tennessee Valley
Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 1975.

Megregian, S., and J.I. Bregman.  Water Reuse in the Electric Power
Industry.  In:  Water-1973, G.F. Bennett, ed. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 70(136):  682-685, 1974.

Mehrotra, S.C.  Optimization of Evaporation Pond Cost.  Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 102(EE1):  165-173, 1976.

Molina, J.F., Jr., and J.C. Moseley, II.  Costs of Alternative Cooling
Systems.  In:  Water Management by the Electric Power Industry, E.F.
Gloyna, et al., eds.  Water Resources Symposium Number Eight, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1975, pp. 149-162.

Monkmeyer, P.L., J.A. Hoopes, J.C. Ho, and G.R. Clark.  Selective
Withdrawal and Heated Water Discharge; Influence of Water Quality
on Lake and Reservoir Part I - Selective Withdrawl.  University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.  (Available from National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-268 237)

Moore, F.K., and C.C. Ndubizu.  Analysis of Large Dry Cooling Towers
with Power-Law Heat Exchanger Performance.  Journal of Heat Transfer,
Transaction of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series
C, 98:  345-352, 1976.
                                119

-------
Moore, J., and J.R. Runkles.  Evaporation from Brine Solutions Under
Controlled Laboratory Conditions.  Texas Water Development Board,
Austin, Texas, Report 77, 1968.

Moretti, P.M. and O.K. McLaughlin.  Hydraulic Modeling of Mixing in
Stratified Lakes.  Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(HY4):  367-379, 1977.

Moses, R.J.  Where is the Water Coming From?  A Look at Cooling Tower
Water Requirements in the West.  In:  Cooling Towers.  American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1972.  pp. 42-46.

Moy, H.C., and K.J. Sanghani.  Experimental Evaluation of Water
Surface Heat Exchange.  American Society of Mechnical Engineers, New
York, 77-HT-41, 1977.

Murray, C.R.  Water Use, Consumption and Outlook in the U.S. in 1970.
American Water Works Association Journal, 65(5):  302-308, 1973.

National Thermal Pollution Research Program.  Reviewing Environmental
Impact Statements - Thermal Power Plant Cooling Water Systems
Preliminary Draft.  Pacific Northwest Environmental Research
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 1973.

National Water Commission Reports.  Civil Engineering-ASCE, 43(5):
70-73, 1973.

Neil, J.S., and J.H. Gibbons.  Sizing a Cooling Pond for a Power
Plant.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
75-WA/HT-63, 1975.

Nelson, G.R.  Evaluating Power Plant Cooling Tower Slowdown Reduction
Methods.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
74-WA/HT-59, 1974.

Nicholas, G.W., and D.M. Sopocy.  Evaluation of Cooling Tower
Environmental Effects.  Combustion, 46(5):  34-41, 1974.

Oberkaupf, W.L., and L.T. Crow.  Numerical Study of the Velocity and
Temperature Fields in a Flow-Through Reservoir.  Journal of Heat
Transfer, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Series C, 98:  353-359, 1976.

O'Brien, E., C.N. Freeman, and J.H. Dixon.  Water and Power in the
Northeast.  Journal of the Power Division, Proceeding of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 102(P02):  195-208, 1976.
                                 120

-------
Olds, F.C.  Cooling Towers.  Power Engineering, 76(12):  30-37, 1972.

Olds, F.C.  Water Resources and Waste Heat.  Power Engineering,
77(6):  26-33, 1973.

Oleson, K.A., F.J. Valansky, R.C. Twombly, Jr., and R.J. Budenholzer.
Economics Favor Mechanical-Draft Towers.  Electrical World, 184(2):
40-43, 1975.

Orlob, G.T., and B.B. Dendy.  Systems Approach to Water Quality
Management.  Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 99(HY4):  573-587, 1973.

Paily, P.P., T.Y. Su, A.R. Giaguinta, and J.F. Kennedy.  Cooling
Water Resources of Upper Mississippi' River for Power Generation.
In:  Proceedings of the Waste Heat Management and Utilization
Conference.  Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida, 1977.

Peterson, D.E., and J.C. Sonnichsen, Jr. Assessment of Cooling Water
Supply in the United States.  Proceedings of the American Power
Conference, 39:676-684, 1977.

Peterson, D.E., and J.C. Sonnichsen, Jr. Assessment of Requirements
for Dry Cooling Towers.  Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory,
Richland, Washington, HEDL-TME 76-82, 1976.

Peterson, D.E., J.C. Sonnichsen, Jr., S.L. Engstrom, and P.M. Schrotke.
Thermal Capacity of Our Nation's Waterways.  Journal of the Power
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
99(P01):  193-204, 1973.

Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Environment Report, Volume 2,
Docket No. 50-533.  Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee,
1975.

Pinsak, A.P.  Energy Budget.  Limnology Division, United States
Department of Commerce, Detroit, Michigan, 1975.

Piper, A.M.  Has the United States Enough Water?  United States
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1797, 1965.

Pochop, L.O.  Estimating Evaporation in the Platte River Basin of
Wyoming.  Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming, 1975.

Policastro, A.J.  Thermal Discharges into Lakes and Cooling Ponds.
Center for Environmental Studies, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois, 1973.
                                121

-------
Porter, R.W., and S.K. Chaturvedi.  Atmospheric Spray-Canal Cooling
Systems for Large Electric Power Plants.  In:  Proceedings of the
Waste Heat Management and Utilization Conference, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1977.

Porter, R.W., and K.H. Chen.  Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Canals.
Journal of Heat Transfer, Transactions of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Series C, 96:  286-291, 1974.

Porter, R.W., U.M. Yang, and A. Yanik.  Thermal Performance of Spray
Cooling Systems.  Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 38:
1458-1472, 1976.

Radian Corporation.  Thermal Pollution Control of Pollution Control
Technology for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Stations, Section
4.0. Austin, Texas, 1975.  (Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency)

Rand Corporation.  Dry/Spray Tower - Cooling Tower for Semi Arid
Locations.  Santa Monica, California, Report R-1086 RF CSA, 1973.

Rao, H.S., and D.W. Bree, Jr.  Extended Period Simulation of Water
Systems - Part A.  Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(HY2):  97-108, 1977.

Rao, H.S., L.C. Markel, and D.W. Bree, Jr.  Extended Period Simulation
of Water Systems - Part B.  Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(HY3):
281-294, 1977.

Reid, G.W.  An Exploratory Study of Possible Energy Savings as a
Result of Water Conservation Practices, Completion Report.  Bureau
of Water Resources Research, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma,
1976.

Rittenhouse, R.C.  The Revolution in Water Management.  Power
Engineering, 79(8):  28-35, 1975.

Roffman, A., and R.E. Grimble.  Predictions of Drift Deposition from
Salt Water Cooling Towers.  Cooling Tower Institute, Houston, Texas,
TP 109A, 1973.                                 -    ,

Roffman, A., et al.  The State of the Art of Saltwater Cooling Towers
for Steam Electric Generating Plants.  Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, WASH-1244, 1973.  (Available
from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
WASH-1244.)
                                 122

-------
Roffman, A., and H. Roffman.  Effects of Salt Water Cooling Tower
Drift on Water Bodies and Soil.  Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,
2(4):  457-471, 1973.

Roffman, H.K., and A. Roffman.  Water that Cools But Does Not Pollute.
Chemical Engineering, 83(13):  167-174, 1976.

Rosain, R.M.  Understanding the EPA's Effluent Guidelines and
Standards.  Power Engineering, 79(4):  55-58, 1975.

Rossie, J.P., and E.A. Cecil.  Research on Dry-Type Cooling Tower
for Thermal Electric Generating, Part 1.  R.W. Beck and Associates,
Denver, Colorado, 1970.  (Available from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-206 954.)

Rossie, J.P., E.A. Cecil, P.R. Cunningham, and C.J. Steiert.  Electric
Power Generation with Dry-Type Cooling Systems.  Proceedings of the
American Power Conference,  33:  524-534, 1971.

Rossie, J.P., and W.A. Williams, Jr.  The Cost of Energy from Nuclear
Power Plants Equipped with Dry Cooling Systems.  American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 72-Pwr-4, 1972.

Rubin, A.M., and P.S. Klanian.  Visible Plume Abatement with the
Wet/Dry Cooling Tower.  Power Engineering, 79(3):  54-57, 1975.

Ryan, P.J.  Cooling Ponds.   Chapter 12, MIT Summer Session Short
Course.  R.M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.

Ryan, P.J., and D.M. Myers.  Spray Cooling:  A Review of Thermal
Performance Models.  Proceedings of the American Power Conference,
38:  1473 - 1481, 1976.

Schrecker, G.O., and C.D. Henderson.  Salt Water Condenser Cooling:
Measurements of Salt Water Drift from a Mechanical-Draft Wet Cooling
Tower and Spray Modules, and Operating Experience with Cooling Tower
Materials.  Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 38:
740-755, 1976.

Schrock, V.E., G.J. Trezek, and L.R. Keilman.  Performance of a Spray
Pond for Nuclear Plant Ultimate Heat Sink.  American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 75-WA/HT-41, 1975.

Sebald, J.F.  Economics of LWR and HTGR Nuclear Power Plants with
Evaporative and Dry Cooling Systems Sited in the United States.
Gilbert Associates, Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania, GAI Report No. 1869,
1975.
                                 123

-------
Sebald, J.F.  Survey of Evaporative and Nonevaporative Cooling
Systems.  In:  Water-1973, G.F. Bennett, ed.  American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 70(136):  437-455, 1974.

Serper, A.  Selected Aspects of Waste Heat Management, A
State-of-the-Art Study.  Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.,
Palo Alto, California, EPRI Report No. FP-164, 1976.  (Available
from National Technical Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia,
PB-255 697.)

Shapner, F.M.  Chalk Point Cooling Tower Drift Study.  Environmental
System Corp., Knoxville, Tennessee, 1975.

Shell, G.L., and R.C. Wendt.  Spray Cooling:  An Alternative to
Cooling Towers.  Pollution Engineering, 9(7):  32-40, 1977.

Sherman, J.S., and J.F. Malina, Jr.  Establishment of Operational
Guidelines for Texas Coastal Zone Management.  Final Report on Water
Needs and Residual Management.  Center for Research in Water Resources,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1974.

Shirazi, M.A., B.A. Tichenor, and L.D. Winiarski.  EPA's Cooling
Tower Plume Research.  Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(P01):  1-13, 1977.

Sonnichsen, J.C., Jr.  Makeup Requirements for Cooling Ponds.  Journal
of Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 101(EE1):  15-25, 1975.

Sonnichsen, J.C., Jr., S.L. Engstrom, D.C. Kolesar, and G.C. Bailey.
CQooling Ponds - A Survey of the State of the Art.  Hanford Engineering
Development Laboratory, Richland, Washington, HEDL-TME 72-101, 1972.

Soo, S.L.  System Considerations in Spray Cooling and Evaporation.
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 38:  1482-1486, 1976.

Spray Canal is Problem at Quad Cities.  Electric World, 186(2):  25,
1976.

Stamm, G.G., and K.O. Kauffman.  Water Supply for Energy Complexes
in Water-Short Regions.  In:  Civil and Environmental Engineering
Aspects of Energy Complexes, A.S. Goodman, ed.  American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, 1976.

Steele, B.L.  Selection of Plant Cooling Source(s).  American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 75-IPWR-6, 1975.
                                 124

-------
Stewart, J.M.,  ed.  Proceedings of North Carolina Conference on Water
Conservation.  Water Resources Research Institute,  North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1975.   (Available from
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB-268
900)

Story, G., and I. MacFarland.  Sealing Defective  Heat Exchanger
Tubes.  Chemical Engineering Progress, 71(7):  94-96, 1975.

Stratton, C.L., and G.F. Lee.  Cooling Towers and Water Quality.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 47(7):   1901-1912,  1975.

Surface, M.O.  System Designs for Dry Cooling Towers.  Power
Engineering, 81(9):  42-50, 1977.

Sussman, S.  Facts on Water Use in Cooling Towers.   Hydrocarbon
Processing, 54(7):  147-153, 1975.

Tatinclaux, J.C., S.C. Jain, and W.W. Sayre.  Hydraulic Modeling of
Shallow Cooling Ponds.  Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, lOl(POl):  43-53, 1975.

Thackston, E.L.  Effect of Geographical Variation on Performance of
Recirculating Cooling Ponds.  Pacific Northwest Environmental Research
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 1974.

Thackston, E.L., and F.L. Parker.  Effect of Geographical Location
on Cooling Pond Requirements and Performance.  Environmental Protection
Agency Water Pollution Research Series, 16130 FDQ 03/71, 1971.

Thompson, R.G., and H.P. Young.  Forecasting Water Use for Policy
Making:  A Review.  Water Resources Research, 9(4):  792-799, 1973.

Thon, J.G.  Systems Approach to Power Planning.  Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 99(HY4):  589-597, 1973.

Tichenor, B.A., and A.G. Christiansen.  Cooling Pond Temperature
Versus Size and Water Loss.  Journal of the Power Division,  Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 97(P03):   589-596,  1971.

Tomshaw, J.  The Importance of Consensus Standards to the Utility
Industry.  ASTM Standardization News, 4(1):  33  ,  1976.

Tonney, M.T., Jr., and D.S. Holmes.  Wet/Dry Cooling Alternatives.
Prepared Testimony before the State Energy Resources  Conservation
and Development Commission of the State of California, Docket Number
76-NOI-2, 1977.
                                 125

-------
United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Cooling Systems Addendum:
Capital and Total Generating Cost Studies.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
1978.  (Available from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, NUREG-0247, COO-2477-11.)

United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation of Alternate
Cooling Systems.  St. Rosalie Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
Alliance, Louisiana, Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1974.

United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation Study of
Alternate Cooling Systems.  Delmarva Power and Light Company, Dual
770 MW HTGR Nuclear Generating Plant, 1973.

United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Economic Evaluation Study of
Cooling Systems and Turbine Generator Blade Size.  Seabrook Nuclear
Generating Station, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 1972.

United Engineers & Constructors Inc.  Heat Sink Design and Cost Study
for Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
UE&C-AEC-740401, 1974.  (Available from National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, WASH-1360.)

United Engineers and Constructors Inc.  Preliminary Economic Evaluation
of Alternate Cooling Systems for Aguirre Fossil Units 1 and 2.
Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority, 1973.

United States Department of Interior.  Water for Energy in the
Northern Great Plains Area with Emphasis on the Yellowstone River
Basin.  Engineering and Research Center, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, Colorado, 1975.

United States Department of Interior.  Water for Energy in the Upper
Colorado River Basin.  Engineering & Research Center, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, Colorado,  1974.

United States Water Resources Council.  The Nation's Water Resources,
The Second National Assessment by the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Statistical Appendix.  Washington, 1978.

United States Water Resources Council.  Water for Energy Self-
Sufficiency.  Washington,  1974.

Uzzell, J.C., Jr., and M.N. Ozsizk.  Far Field Circulation Velocity
in Shallow Lakes.  Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(HY4):  395-407, 1977.

Versar, Inc.  Generic Model of Cooling Systems for Decision Making
in Power Plant Siting, Draft Final Report.  Springfield, Virginia,
1977.  (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-02-2618.)
                                 126

-------
Visbisky, R.F., C.H. Bitting, and G.F.  Bierman.   Plume Effects of
Natural-Draft Hyperbolic Cooling Towers - An Interim Report.
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 32:  512-518,  1970.

Vogel, J.L., and F.A. Huff.  Fog Effects Resulting from Power Plant
Cooling Lakes.  Journal of Applied Meterorology, 14:  868-872, 1975.

von Allman, F.  Spray System for Cooling Towers.  Power, 120(6):
38-39, 1976.

Water Supply Outlook:  Enough But at a Price.  Chemical and Engineering
News, 51(19):  16-18, 1973.

Weinstein, H., R.W. Porter, S. Chaturvedi, R.A.  Kulik, and J.E.
Paganessis.  Dispersion of Heat and Humidity from Atmospheric Spray
- Cooling System.  In:  Proceeding of the Waste Heat Management and
Utilization Conference.  Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1977.

Western States Water Council.  Western States Water Requirements for
Energy Development to 1990.  Salt Lake City, Utah, 1974.

Whipple, W., Jr.  Water Supply and Energy Production in the Northeast.
The Military Engineer, 67(437):  139-142, 1975.

Williams, T.T.  Water Conflicts in Western Coal Development.   Journal
of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 102(WR2):  327-339, 1976.

Winiarski, L.D., and W.F. Frick.  Field Investigations of Mechanical
Draft Cooling Tower Plumes.  Available from National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-267 945/4GA,  1977.

Winiarski, L.D., B.A. Tichenor, and K.V. Byram.   A Method for
Predicting the Performance of Natural Draft Cooling Towers.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Thermal Pollution Research
Program, 16130 GKF 12/70, 1970.

Wistrom, G.K., and J.C. Ovard.  Cooling Tower Drift:  Its Measurement,
Control and Environmental Effects.  Cooling Tower Institute,  Houston,
Texas, TP 107A, 1973.

Witmer, T.R., ed.  Documents on the Use and Control of the Waters
of Interstate and International Streams	Compacts, Treaties, and
Adjudication, Second Edition.  90th Congress, 2nd Session, House
Document No. 319, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968.
                                 127

-------
Yamauchi, H., and W.Y. Huang.  Alternative Models for Estimating the
Time Series Components of Water Consumption Data.  Water Resources
Bulletin, 13(3):  599-610, 1977.

Yeh, G.T., A.P. Verma, and F.H. Lai.  Unsteady Temperature Prediction
for Cooling Ponds.  Water Resources Research, 9(6):  1555-1563, 1973.

Young, H.P., and R.G. Thompson.  Forecasting Water Use for Electric
Power Generation.  Water Resources Research, 9(4):  800-807, 1973.

Zaloudek, F.R., R.T. Allemann, D.W. Faletti, B.M. Johnson, H.L.
Parry, G.C. Smith, R.D. Tokarz, and R.A. Walter.  A Study of the
Comparative Costs of Five Wet/Dry Cooling Tower Concepts.  Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, BNWL - 2122,
1976.
                                 128

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-800/7-78-157
    2.
                               3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                Water Consumption and Costs for
 Various Steam Electric Power Plant Cooling Systems
                               5. REPORT DATE
                                August 1978
                                                      6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
 M. C.  Hu, G.F.  Pavlenco, and G.A. Englesson
    (United Engineers and Constructors , Inc.)
                                                      8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
'9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Cameron Engineers. Inc.
 1315 South Clarkson Street
 Denver, Colorado  80210
                               10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                               EHE624A
                               11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                               68-01-4337
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                               13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                               Final; 10/77-1/78
                               14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                 EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESJJSRL-RTP project officer is Theodore G.  Brna, Mail Drop 61.919/
 541-2683.
16. ABSTRACT
           The report gives results of a state-of-the-art study, addressing consump-
 tive water use and related costs of various steam electric power plant cooling sys-
 tems, the availability of water for all uses by area, and the impact of legal con-
 straints on water use in the U.S.  Evaporative losses for cooling systems
 were obtained from various sources, mostly  post-1973 literature. Water availability
 data for all uses, especially power plants , were obtained primarily from a recent
 study by the U.S. Water Resources Council.  Legal entities were reviewed to assess
 their impact on water use and consumption. Evaporative losses of cooling towers
 calculated with models were in general agreement. Forced evaporation losses for
 cooling ponds, based on the Brady and Harbeck models, differed by as much as  50%:
 the latter gave lower values.  For moderate-to-large plants  with inverse thermal
 loadings of 1 to 2 acres/MWe, Brady model results are more representative than  the
 Harbeck values, since the latter are based on high inverse thermal loading. No
 discernible trend was found for capital costs  of cooling systems by region; over-
 lapping costs for various systems  were evident in many regions. Varied constraints
 on water use  and availability  are not amenable to a simple operational classification.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                           c.  COSATI Held/Group
 Pollution
 Electric Power Plants
 Cooling Systems
 Cooling Towers
 Water Consumption
 Expenses
 Legislation	___
Evaporation
Mathematical
 Models
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Cooling Ponds
Water Availability
Legal Restraints
Brady Model
Hardbeck Model
13 B
12 B
ISA
07A/13I
02C
05C,14A
05D
07D
12A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Unlimited
                   19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                   Unclassified
                        21. NO. OF PAGES
                             137
                   20. SECURITY CLASS (This page/
                   Unclassified
                                            22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                 129

-------