Topics discussed are: aquatic effects of thermal electric power stations; legal aspects of water pollution; EPA provisions for levels of thermal discharges to assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in a body of water; cost benefit analysis of steam electric power effluents; cooling systems and siting of power plants; simulation modeling of population dynamics; and sociological aspects of water pollution. (HLW

Coutant, Charles C.

UNT Digital Library

c' ' ><IMPACT OF POWER PLANTS ON AQUATIC SYSTEMS:*A SOCIAL PEiRSPECTIVE1)'1-Charles C. Coutant, Ph.D.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, Tennessee 37830This workshop was organized to assist the Electric Power Research Institutein its planning for research in the aquatic effects of thermal electric powerstations. Formulation of a research plan must take into account both thetechnical level of understanding of such effects, and the social frameworkin which such information is needed. I shall attempt to briefly characterizethe current social perspective and to draw some conclusions from it that mayinfluence our planning for aquatic research.There is one social issue which is foremost in the minds of these who mustbuild or regulate power plant cooling systems. This issue is implementationof Public Law 92-500, the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Thislaw is the latest water pollution control legislation at the federal level,and as such it preempts the previous directions of thermal effluent control.Those who have followed the implementation of this law recognize that it isveiy complex, and that the interpretation and application of it is hotly dis-puted by members of Congress and their staffs who fashioned it. The disputehas been particularly acute with respect to the steam electric power industry.A Rational Commission on Water Quality was formed to study the effects of thelav and to recommend any changes deemed necessary to make it workable.¥ery simplistically, the law requires that steam electric plants use the"best practicable control technology currently available" (BPT) by July 1, 1977,and "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT) by July 1, 1983—as defined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Research sponsored by the I). S. Energy Research and Development Administrationunder contract with Union Carbide Corporation.By aeeaptanca of thi« article. th» rpublithar or raclpiant acknowledges ntha U.S. Govarnmant'l right to , ., .., , , , „ , , V {?retain • non»xclu»i«», royalty'"* l " " ' " l l i ; u i ; - ' ' i t v J,'-f';S LJv,- / ''"NT hi r.v- is-f-nIICWIM (n and to any copyright • " • ' " u JWU^.i^JThere is a 1985 goal of complete elimination of "the discharge of pollutantsinto the navigable waters." An interim goal for 1983 was established that"wherever attainable ... water quality which provides for the protectionand propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreationin and on the water ..." shall be achieved. The EPA guidelines for thisindustry in effect characterize what is in place today as compliance withthe 1977 guideline. The "best available technology" has been determined tobe closed cycle cooling, in particular, the mechanical draft cooling tower.There are several unique features for handling steam electric power plantsunder PL 92-500 which are of direct concern to this workshop. Under Section316(a) the owner or operator of such a point source may secure a less stricteffluent limitation for "the thermal component of any discharge" if he candemonstrate that a lower level "will assure the protection and propagationof a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife inand on that body of water." EPA has been preparing a document describinghow it will apply this provision to determine exemptions, but the documentis still in draft form. An additional requirement is imposed in Section316{b) that "cooling water intake structures reflect the best technologyavailable for minimizing adverse environmental impact." Once "any pointsource of a discharge having a thermal component" meets applicable conditions,it "shall not be subject to any more stringent effluent limitation withrespect to the thermal component of its discharge during a ten year period ..."whereas other permits issued under the Act are authorized for periods up tofive years [Section 316(c)]. There is currently a legal question over whetherthis phrasa exempts plants which receive 316(a) exemptions from meeting anystate water quality standards. Actually, all three of these Section 316modifications to the general effluent limitations requirements are availablenot only to steam electric power plants but also to any point source dis-charger with a "thermal component" to its discharge.Chesaicals complicate implementation of the law. Certain chemical additivesintended to reduce biological growths such as algae or control scale in theplants are toxic and raise questions as to the applicability of other PublicLaw 92-500 provisions relating to toxic substances. The status of theseprovisions is even less certain than are the thermal effluent limitationsbecause of the difficulty of determining what will be used as a measure oftoxicity. Even with closed cooling systems there must ultimately be a"blowdown" with a discharge of some kind to handled. The requirement thatthe cooling systems be "off stream" also raises the relative consumptionof water. Where dissolved salts already present problems, as in the ColoradoRiver basin, reductions in quantity can also lead to higher salt concen-trations that impair uses, particularly for irrigation.According to the Utilities Water Act Group, the costs of EPA's effluentlimitations for steam electric power are the highest for any industrialcategory, and represent one-half of the estimated total industrial cost ofcomplying with PL 92-500. The National Commission on Water Quality is cur-rently examining this cost question in relationship to the benefits presumedto accrue. If the costs really do vastly outweigh benefits, then havingsome exemption procedures seems logical.The crucial questions now facing the electric power industry in regard tocooling systems and siting of power plants revolve around application ofSection 316(a) and 316(b). What are reasonable technical criteria for"protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish,fish and wildlife?" In many respects the technical questions are similar tothose asked earlier with respect to ambient Water Quality Standards which*ere mandated under the 1965 Water Pollution Control Act Ammendments. TheNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 also mandated careful assessment;of effects on a technical basis. The decision-making process in each of thesecases is completely different, however, leaving much ambiguity over whatreally should he national policy in this ar&a.For the practitioners of aquatic ecology, the current social picture revolvingairaund PL 92-500 projects some awesome consequences. An apparent intent ofCongress -in passing PL 92-500, that the need for extensive and costly researchand; analysis of the effects of water pollution would be obviated by simplymandating that discharges cease, has not been upheld. In the case of thermaleffluents, it was probably assumed that Section 316(a) would allow a fewexceptions from thermal effluent limitations, but that the overall objectivewould: sttTT be attained. Quite to the contrary, there could be a vastlyaccelerating demand for aquatic research and analysis should most utilitieschoose to select the low-cost, once-through cooling and to defend it asemfranrnentally acceptable through the 316(a) route. Meeting this demand inthe next 5 years will be hampered by a lack of qualified ecologists, biolo-gists • taxonomists and other supporting manpower. This lack could seriouslydelay effective, high-quality, and timely conduct of the detailed studiesneeded to comply with the Section 316(a) variance procedure. Manpower inthe field of aquatic ecology is already spread thin by similar study require-ments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (formerly AEC) and various statecgencies.The need for "generic" technical data, i.e. scientific findings having broadapplication to many power plant sites, appears to be acute. Wherever infor-mation can be developed on typical responses of particular species of organisms,or of particular kinds of ecosystems, the results will be invaluable for thesavings in both money and time. Present guidelines for applying for exemptionsfrom thermal discharge limitations include selection of Representative,Important Species. Concentrated efforts to determine thermal and other re-quirements of such species would seem to be extremely timely.Emphasis of the law on "balanced, indigenous population^)" would seem topress for assessment of aquatic effects on the population, community orecosystem levels. We may wish to quibble over definition of indigenous, buttkm orientation of concern is clearly above the level of individual organisms.Three years ago (1)1 illustrated a progression of ecological thinking re-garding assessment of power plant impacts (Figure 1). While we have becomefairly adept at identifying sources of potential biological damage, and havegathered a large amount of data on direct biological damage to ŝ fjll samplesof organisms (e.g. lethal temperatures), we have only begun to project thosebiological damages to the higher levels of ecosystem organization. Thosemeagre beginnings aren't going to be enough to satisfy PL 92-500 Section 316(a),SOURCE"OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL DAMAGEPROBABILITY OF INVOLVEMENTIPROBABILITY OF DIRECT BIOLOGiCAL DAMAGE1PROBABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE1II[PROBABILITY OF SOCIAL IMPACT]FIGURE 1. PROGRESSION OF ECOLOGICAL THINKING IN RELATION TO ASSESSINGTHE IMPACT OF POWER PLANTSit the Regional Administrators of EPA take the broadly ecological view thatauthors of PL 92 500 insist upon.the law also presumes that aquatic impacts of power plants are predictable.Our field is assumed to have a high level of data s^Wthesis which will letws predict the impacts of power plants that are still on the drawing board.I wish this were the case. We must spend a great deal more effort in thetve* of simulation modeling of population dynamics so that the informationthat we do have can be viewed and used in a predictive context, and so thatMe obtain a clearer idea of the >!»st critical information which we lack.I want to point out the work of Saila and his colleagues working with winterflounderv and Van Winkle and his colleagues working with striped bass asexcellent, examples of work that should be emulated.Social forces are clearly pressing aquatic ecologists faster than they havebeen moving previously — faster in terms of amount of effort expended, andfaster in terms of broadening the conceptual base for quantitative analysis.How we M ecoTogists or as members of functionally related disciplinesrespond in our research and development outlines is crucial. Leaping to thechallenge may be the proper response in some cases, but pragmatic assessmentof what questions we can reasonably be expected to answer (especially in ashort tfme) may also be required.BIBLIOGRAPHY11- C6otint; c: c: "Evaluating the Ecological Impact of Steam ElectricSitttons on Aquatic Systems," Proceedings of the Symposium on theNfcittftnalEnvironmental Policy Act: At the Interface of Law andE&Vifonmental Science. Amer. Asso;. for the.Advancement of Science,WtMftgton'.-D.-C. (December 1972).

Impact of power plants on aquatic systems: a social perspective

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc865033/m2/1/high_res_d/4068564.pdf

Impact of power plants on aquatic systems: a social perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library