Skip to main content

Why the Electric Sector Needs Flexibility to Comply With 316(b), Not Just Cooling Towers

The following post was submitted by William Skaff, NEI's Director of Policy Development.

The Sierra Club and Riverkeeper report, Treading Water, claims that the 316(b) rule governing cooling water intake structures of existing facilities should impose a national standard that requires the installation of cooling towers everywhere, preventing state environmental agencies from determining the best technology available at their sites for minimizing environmental impact.

As the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports, “[C]ooling tower technologies consume at least twice as much water as once-through cooling technologies” [emphasis added]. 1 That is, cooling towers consume twice as much of aquatic life habitat as once through cooling systems. Given that climate change modeling indicates freshwater constraints, why would we want a nation of cooling towers? How can doubling water consumption possibly protect fish in a water-constrained future?

All cooling systems, including cooling towers, have advantages and disadvantages. Thus, the best approach is site-specific—adopting the cooling system that best preserves a given local ecology. There is a total of 3,153 species of fish in the fresh and salt waters of the United States. 2 Every water body has a different mix and population of these species, and each species differs in susceptibility to impingement and entrainment, to potential impingement and entrainment mortality, and in behavioral responses to various technologies developed to prevent these occurrences. Thus, the most effective deployment of cooling system impingement and entrainment mitigation technologies will be according to site-specific analysis.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Most facilities potentially regulated under the proposed Existing Facilities rule have intake technologies already in place.” 3 In fact, EPA did not select closed-cycle cooling as the “technology basis” for impingement mitigation for existing units because “modified traveling screens with a fish return system and closed-cycle cooling are comparable in impingement mortality performance.” 4 Moreover, once-through cooling systems are not outdated: the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency recommends that new nuclear plants be built on coastal sites with once-through cooling precisely because of their environmental attributes in view of climate change. 5 In fact, site-specific research conducted at power plant sites across the country submitted to state authorities as a requirement of their NPDES permit indicates that once-through cooling systems have no adverse environmental impact to aquatic life at the population level.

In conclusion, the more environmentally responsible approach to the 316(b) rule at existing facilities is to provide flexibility in choice of fish protection technology according to the ecology of the specific site, considering environmental, social, and economic factors. And who would know these sites the best but the state environmental agency?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Jordan Macknick, et al.), A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies, NREL/TP-6A20-50900, March 2011, p. 6.
2 FishBase at www.fishbase.org (accessed June 27, 2011).
3 Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, EPA-821-R-11-001, March 28, 2011, p. 4-14.
4 76 Fed. Reg. at 22,205.
5 United Kingdom, Environment Agency, Cooling Water Options for the New Generation of Nuclear Power Stations in the UK, June 2010, pp, 181, 185.

Comments

Paul said…
It looks to me like a chess move: force all thermal power plants to use cooling towers, then claim that thermal power plants with cooling towers are using (evaporating) too much water that could be used for potable water, irrigation, or habitat.
Dan Williamson said…
Just another thinly-veiled gambit to drive up the cost of nuclear. And if the dirt-burners take a little collateral damage, so be it.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …