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cooling are comparable in impingement mortality performance.” 4 Moreover, once-through cooling systems are not outdated: the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency recommends that new nuclear plants be built on coastal sites with once-through cooling precisely because of their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

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…