-------
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
-------