5 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.


Description: The ability of water managers to maintain adequate supplies in the coming decades depends on future weather conditions, as climate change has the potential to reduce stream flows from their current values due to potentially less precipitation and higher temperatures, and possibly rendering them unable to meet demand. The upper Coosa River basin, located in northwest Georgia, plays an important role in supplying water for industry and domestic use in northern Georgia, and has been involved in water disputes in recent times. The seven-day ten-year low flow (7Q10 flow) is the lowest average flow for seven consecutive days that has an average recurrence interval of 10 years. The 7Q10 flow is statistically derived from the observed historical flow data, and represents the low flow (drought) condition for a basin. The upper Coosa River basin also supplies cooling water for the 935MW coal-fired Hammond plant, which draws about 65% of the 7Q10 flow of the upper Coosa River to dissipate waste heat. The water is drawn through once and returned to the river directly from the generator (i.e., no cooling tower is used). Record low flows in 2007 led to use of portable cooling towers to meet temperature limits. Disruption of the Plant Hammond operation may trigger closure of area industrial facilities (e.g. paper mill). The population in Georgia is expected to double from 9 million to 18 million residents in the next 25 years, mostly in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Therefore, there will be an even greater demand for potable water and for waste assimilation. Climate change in the form of persistent droughts (causing low flows) and high ambient temperatures create regulatory compliance challenges for Plant Hammond operating with a once-through cooling system. Therefore, the Upper Coosa River basin was selected to study the effect of potential future weather change ...
Date: October 24, 2011
Creator: Chen, K.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Experimental Model of the L-Area Outfall

Description: A once-through cooling lake has been chosen to provide for thermal mitigation of the reactor effluent cooling water. This alternative provides satisfactory cooling performance and thermal buffering, with moderate construction time, cost, and maintenance. In the event that the cooling lake fails to meet South Carolina environmental requirements during the summer months, SRP will reduce reactor power until supplemental cooling can be provided. To minimize this further expense and delay, it is desirable to realize the best performance possible from the cooling lake.
Date: July 17, 2001
Creator: Johnston, B.S.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Potential impacts of 316(B) regulatory controls on economics, electricity reliability, and the environment.

Description: Nearly half of the US utility-owned steam electric generating capacity is cooled by once-through cooling systems. These plants withdraw cooling water primarily from surface water bodies. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. At present, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet promulgated applicable implementing regulations governing intake structures; however, the Agency is required by a Consent Decree to develop such regulations. EPA has presented a draft tiered regulatory framework approach that, depending on site-specific factors, may impose various regulatory burdens on affected utilities. Potential new requirements could range from compiling and submitting existing data to demonstrate that existing conditions at each unit represent BTA to retrofitting plants with closed-cycle cooling systems (primarily cooling towers). If the final regulations require installation of cooling towers or implementation of other costly plant modifications, utilities may elect to close some generating units rather than invest the finds necessary to upgrade them to meet the Section 316(b) requirements. Potentially, some regions of the country may then have a higher proportion of closed units than others, leading to a concern over the reliability of those regions' electricity supply. If a significant number of plants convert from once-through cooling systems to cooling towers, the environment will face secondary adverse impacts, such as additional fuel usage, air emissions, and water evaporation, and utilities will need to construct additional generating capacity. This paper describes a study that Argonne National Laboratory will conduct for the US Department of Energy to explore some of the potential outcomes of EPA's Section 316(b) regulatory process and their impact on economics, electricity supply reliability, and the environment.
Date: March 19, 1999
Creator: Veil, J. A.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Energy penalty analysis of possible cooling water intake structurerequirements on existing coal-fired power plants.

Description: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that cooling water intake structures must reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Many existing power plants in the United States utilize once-through cooling systems to condense steam. Once-through systems withdraw large volumes (often hundreds of millions of gallons per day) of water from surface water bodies. As the water is withdrawn, fish and other aquatic organisms can be trapped against the screens or other parts of the intake structure (impingement) or if small enough, can pass through the intake structure and be transported through the cooling system to the condenser (entrainment). Both of these processes can injure or kill the organisms. EPA adopted 316(b) regulations for new facilities (Phase I) on December 18, 2001. Under the final rule, most new facilities could be expected to install recirculating cooling systems, primarily wet cooling towers. The EPA Administrator signed proposed 316(b) regulations for existing facilities (Phase II) on February 28, 2002. The lead option in this proposal would allow most existing facilities to achieve compliance without requiring them to convert once-through cooling systems to recirculating systems. However, one of the alternate options being proposed would require recirculating cooling in selected plants. EPA is considering various options to determine best technology available. Among the options under consideration are wet-cooling towers and dry-cooling towers. Both types of towers are considered to be part of recirculating cooling systems, in which the cooling water is continuously recycled from the condenser, where it absorbs heat by cooling and condensing steam, to the tower, where it rejects heat to the atmosphere before returning to the condenser. Some water is lost to evaporation (wet tower only) and other water is removed from the recirculating system as a blow down stream to control the building up of suspended ...
Date: November 27, 2006
Creator: Veil, J. A.; Littleton, D. J.; Gross, R. W.; Smith, D. N.; Parsons, E.L., Jr.; Shelton, W. W. et al.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Kinetic model for predicting the composition of chlorinated water discharged from power plant cooling systems

Description: The results of applying a kinetic model to the chlorination data supplied by Commonwealth Edison on the once-through cooling system at the Quad Cities Nuclear Station provide a validation of the model. The two examples given demonstrate that the model may be applied to either once-through cooling systems or to cooling systems involving cooling towers.
Date: January 1, 1977
Creator: Lietzke, M.H.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department