# Impact of Drought on U.S. Steam Electric Power Plant Cooling Water

Intakes and Related Water Resource Management Issues

April 2009

DOE/NETL-2009/1364

## Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

Government. Neither the United States Governme nt nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or im plied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use woul d not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commer cial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or othe rwise does not necessarily consti tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by th e United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

## Impact of Drought on U.S. Steam Electric Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes and Related Water Resource Management Issues

DOE/NETL-2009/1364

April 2009

NETL Contact: Barbara Carney

National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.govThis page intentionally left blankiii 

# Table of Contents

IMPACT OF DROUGHT ON U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT

COOLING WATER INTAKES AND

RELATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Chapter 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................... ... 1

Extent of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 1 Meeting Cooling Water Demands in a Water-Constrained Environment ......................... 2 Purpose and Structure of the Report .................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2 – Database of Power Plan ts and Cooling Water Intakes......................................... 5

Data Sources ................................................................................................................... ... 5 Data Analysis and Filtering ............................................................................................... 6 Database Description ......................................................................................................... 7 Database Assumptions....................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 3 – Database Evaluation............................................................................................. 11

Evaluation of Intake Distance from Shore......................................................................... 11 Evaluation of Intake Depth from Surface .......................................................................... 15 Case Examples for Multiple Plan ts on the Same Water Body........................................... 19

Chapter 4 – Legal Issues and Agreemen ts Affecting Water Availability................................ 23

Overview............................................................................................................................ 23 Water Commissions and Compacts ................................................................................... 24

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.................................................... 26 Susquehanna River Basin Commission ....................................................................... 27

Delaware River Basin Commission............................................................................. 30 Tennessee Valley Authority......................................................................................... 31 Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission....................................................... 33 Great Lakes Basin Compact......................................................................................... 34

Columbia River Go rge Commission............................................................................ 35

Colorado River Authorities.......................................................................................... 37 Western Water Rights Overview ........................................................................................ 39 Federal and State Programs ................................................................................................ 40 Federal Programs ......................................................................................................... 40 State Programs ............................................................................................................. 40

Chapter 5 – Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................... 47

Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes....................................................... 47iv Distance for Power Plant Intakes....................................................................................... 47 Depth of Power Plant Intakes ............................................................................................ 48 Commissions, Compacts, and Fe deral/State Programs ..................................................... 49

References and Organi zations Contacted ................................................................................ 51

Appendix A – Database of Power Plants and Co oling Water Intakes (Selected Fields)......... A-1

Appendix B – Database of Power Plants Fi ltered Out (Selected Fields)................................ B-1

List of Figures

1 Recent National Report from the U.S. Drought Monitor .................................................. 1

2 Distribution of Power Plants Include d in Project Database Nationwide ........................... 7

3 Page 11 from the 2005 EIA-767 Form .............................................................................. 9

4 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Di stance from Shore for All Power Plants.......... 12

5 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Coal-Fired

Power Plants................................................................................................................... .... 13

6 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Natural GasFired Power Plants ............................................................................................................. 13

7 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants

Located on Rivers and Creeks ........................................................................................... 14

8 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs ...................................................................................... 14

9 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for All Power Plants ........... 17

10 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Coal-Fired

and Oil-Fired Power Plants................................................................................................ 17

11 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Natural GasFired Power Plants ............................................................................................................. 18

12 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by De pth from Surface for Nuclear Power Plants.... 18

13 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants

Located on Rivers and Creeks ........................................................................................... 19v List of Figures (Cont.)

14 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs ...................................................................................... 19

15 Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface Water Allocation ........................................ 24

16 Potomac River Basin showing Current Reservoir Sites .................................................... 26

17 Susquehanna River Basin and Subbasins .......................................................................... 28

18 Delaware River Basin Showing Major Tributaries............................................................ 30

19 Tennessee Valley Authority Jurisdiction........................................................................... 32

20 Ohio River Basin............................................................................................................ .... 33

21 Great Lakes Basin Map...................................................................................................... 34

22 Columbia River Basin........................................................................................................ 36

23 Lower Colorado Region..................................................................................................... 3 8

24 Upper Colorado Region ..................................................................................................... 38

25 Status of State Progr am Drought Planning ........................................................................ 41

List of Tables

1 Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Devi ation for Intake Distance from Shore for All Categories............................................................................................................. .. 15

2 Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Devi ation for Intake Depth from Surface for All Categories............................................................................................................. .. 20vi This page intentionally left blankvii 

### Prepared by:

Todd A. Kimmell Argonne National Laboratory

John A. Veil Argonne National Laboratory

Under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357viii 

# Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the U.S. De partment of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Exis ting Plants research prog ram for entrusting Argonne National Laboratory with the responsibility for c onducting the scope of work for this project in a thorough and unbiased manner.

In addition, Argonne would like to thank the numerous organizations contacted for information as input to the report, and offer special thanks to the individuals within these organizations for their thoughtful insights and the informative documentation provided. These include the following:

Colorado River Commission of Nevada Columbia River Gorge Commission

Delaware River Basin Commission

Edison Electric Institute

Electric Power Research Institute Great Lakes Basin Compact

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Interstate Council on Water Policy

Northwest Power and Conservation Council Ohio River Valley Wate r Sanitation Commission Susquehanna River Basin Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Upper Colorado River Commission Utility Water Act Group Washington State Cons ervation Commission

Western States Water Council1 

## Chapter 1 – Introduction

Extent of the Problem

This report was funded by the U.S. Departme nt of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Exis ting Plants Research Program, which has an energy-water research effort that focuses on water use at pow er plants. This study complements their overall research effort by evaluating water availability at power plants under drought conditions.

According to the National Drought Policy Co mmission, which was established in July 1998 when the 105th Congress enacted the Nationa l Drought Policy Act (Public Law 105-199), drought will occur at some time every year in the United States and can and does extend over long periods of time and across large geographical areas (NDP C 2000). Drought can also be more localized in nature, affecting smaller areas over shorter periods of time. Examination of the U.S. Drought Monitor archive, a program funded by several fe deral agencies and operated by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln ( http://drought.unl.e du/DM/MONITOR.HTML ), confirms

this. Examination of historical records within the archives of the Drought Monitor reveals that there really is no time when some area within the United States is not experiencing at least some level of drought. Figure 1 shows the drought conditi ons across the United States as of January 6,

2008.

Figure 1 – Recent National Report from the U.S. Drought Monitor (Source: http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML )2 During the summer and fall of 2007, a serious drought affected the southeastern United States. As shown in Figure 1, a part of this area of the country is still experiencing extreme drought. In 2007, river flows in the southeast de creased, and water levels in la kes and reservoirs dropped. In some cases, water levels were so low that pow er production at some po wer plants had to be stopped or reduced. The problem fo r power plants becomes acute when river, lake, or reservoir

water levels fall near or below the level of the water intakes used for drawing water for cooling. A related problem occurs when the temperature of the surface water increas es to the point where the water can no longer be used for cooling. In this case, the concern is w ith discharge of heated water used for cooling back into waterways that are just too warm to keep temperatures at levels required to meet state water qual ity standards. Permits issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) program limit power plants from discharging overly heated water. For exampl e, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Gallatin Fossil Plant is not permitted to discharge water used for cooling back into the Cumberland River that is higher than 90 oF (WSMV Nashville 2007).

The southeast experienced particularly acute drought conditions in August 2007. As a result, nuclear and coal-fired plants within the TVA syst em were forced to shut down some reactors (e.g., the Browns Ferry facility in August 2007) and curtail operati ons at others. This problem has not been limited to the 2007 drought in the s outheastern United States. A similar situation occurred in August 2006 along the Mississippi River (Exelon Quad Cities Illinois plant). Other plants in Illinois and some in Minnesota were also affected (Union of Concerned Scientists 2007). Given the current prolonged drought being experienced in the western United States (see also Figure 1), and also the scarcity of water resources in this region in general, many western utilities and power author ities are also beginning to examin e the issue. The problem has also been experienced in Europe as well. During a serious drought in 2003, France was forced to reduce operations at many of its nuclear power plants (Union of Con cerned Scientists 2007).



### Meeting Cooling Water Demands in a Water-Constrained Environment

Situations of extreme drought, in addition to bein g associated with prol onged lower precipitation, are often accompanied by excessively high temper atures. Demand for power during these times, for example, for use in air conditioning, is very high. If power plants reduce or close down operations, electricity can usually be obtained from other genera tors through th e grid; however, the cost of power in this situ ation will also increase. Duri ng the summer of 2007, TVA could not generate as much power as was needed, so addi tional electricity was purchased on the market, at higher cost than could be generated within the TVA system. These costs were passed on to consumers (WSMV Nashville 2007).

In addition to the utilities and power plants, there are a number of other competing users for water. Cities and municipalities draw water for use by the general population. For example, about 15 million people use water from the Dela ware River Basin for household and industrial purposes. In addition to the Philadelphia, Penns ylvania, area, about seven million people from New York and northern New Jersey also rely on th e Delaware River Basin for drinking water. New York City itself draws about half of its wa ter from three of the la rge reservoirs located within the Delaware River Basin (DRBC 2007).3 The Delaware River also is used for industria l water supply and irrigation. An additional concern, especially during drought conditions, is that enough water be maintained in water systems to support the local wa ter system ecology. Recreationa l water use for boaters and fishermen has also entered into the equation, as has uses of the primar y river systems in the United States for commercial navigation. One of the most long-stan ding disputes involving

these issues has involved the Kl amath River Basin in southern Oregon and northern California. The ongoing drought in this area has aggravated the problems of “too many users for too little water,” causing tensions between farmers, fishermen, and Indian tribes over water in the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon for a number of years. Many news stories and Internet

articles can be found on this su bject. The National Academies of Science National Research Council (NRC) has also published a number of reports on this subject (NRC 2008).

It is likely that in coming years competing wate r demands will increase across the United States. It is also possible, considering global warming, that climatic conditions will become warmer or at least more variable, ther eby exacerbating future droughts and additional conflicts over competing uses. This is one of the primary them es outlined in a recent report of the Interstate Council of Water Policy (ICWP) (ICWP 2006), and in similar reports, such as one issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government Accountability Office) (GAO) in 2003 (GAO 2003).



### Purpose and Structure of the Report

While there are a number of competing demands on water uses, particularly during drought conditions, this report focuses solely on impacts to the U.S. steam elect ric power plant fleet.

Included are both fossil-fuel and nuc lear power plants. One plant examined also uses biomass as

a fuel.

The purpose of this project is to estimate the impact on genera tion capacity of a drop in water level at U.S. steam electric power plants due to climatic or other conditio ns. While, as indicated above, the temperature of the water can impact decisions to halt or curtail power plant operations, this report specifically examines impacts as a result of a drop in water levels below power plant submerged cooling water intakes. Im pacts due to the combined effects of excessive temperatures of the returned cooling water and el evated temperatures of receiving waters (due to high ambient temperatures associated with drought) may be examined in a subsequent study.

For this study, the sources of cooling water used by the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet were examined. This effort entailed developmen t of a database of pow er plants and cooling water intake locations and depths for those plan ts that use surface water as a source of cooling water. Development of the database and its gene ral characteristics are described in Chapter 2 of this report. Examination of the database give s an indication of how lo w water levels can drop before cooling water intakes cease to function. Water level drops are ev aluated against a number of different power plant characteris tics, such as the nature of the water source (river vs. lake or reservoir) and type of plant (nuclear vs. fossil fuel). This is accomplished in Chapter 3.

In Chapter 4, the nature of any compacts or agr eements that give priority to users (i.e., which users must stop withdrawing wate r first) is examined. This is examined on a regional or4 watershed basis, specifically for western water ri ghts, and also as a function of federal and state

water management programs.

Chapter 5 presents the findings a nd conclusions of this study.

In addition to the above, a related intent of th is study is to conduct pre liminary modeling of how lowered surface water levels could affect gene rating capacity and other factors at different regional power plants. If utility managers are forced to take some units out of service or reduce plant outputs, the fuel mix at the remaining plants and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions may change. Electricity costs and other factors may also be impacted. Argonne has conducted some modeling based on the information presented in the database described in Chapter 2 of this report. A separate report of the modeling effo rt has been prepared (P och et al. 2009). In addition to the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet, this modeling also in cludes an evaluation of power production of hydroelectric facilities. The focus of this modeling is on those power plants

located in the western United States.5 

## Chapter 2 – Database of Power Pl ants and Cooling Water Intakes

In order to conduct the above anal yses, one of the most important pieces of information that was needed was identification of the various plants nationwide that ma ke up the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet, including both t hose that use fossil fuels and t hose that employ nuclear power. Many other data inputs were also critical data to the analysis. The key data needed were as

follows:

• Plant name

• Plant state

• Plant location (latitude/longitude)

• Utility name

• Nameplate rating (e.g., generating cap acity, preferably in megawatts)

• Plant status (e.g., operating, out-of-service, standby)

• Fuel type (e.g., coal, oil, na tural gas, biomass, nuclear)

• Cooling identification (intake)

• Cooling type (e.g., once through, cl osed cycle, combination)

• Rate of withdrawal (f rom the cooling intake)

• Rate of discharge (to the receiving water body)

• Rate of consumption (water used during the process)

• Cooling water source (e .g., river, reservoir)

• Intake depth below surface (from normal flow or pool)

• Intake distance from shorelin e (at normal flow or pool)

• Intake rate (at 100% generation)



### Data Sources

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Inform ation Administration (EIA) is one source of

much of this information. EIA has been collect ing the type of information referred to above annually since 1949 and accumulating it in a databa se commonly referred to as “the 767 database.” The EIA-767 form was used by the EI A to collect the information annually through 2005 from all U.S. plants with a total existi ng or planned organic-fu eled or combustible renewable steam-electric unit that has a generato r nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or larger (EIA 2005a). The EIA-767 form was replaced in 2007 by two new forms (EIA-860 and EIA923).

At the time this report was prepared, the most re cent year of available EIA data was 2005; this was used to develop the projec t database. The 2005 EIA-767 form does not include information on nuclear plants. The last year in which th at form contained nucle ar plant data was 2000. Therefore, for the nuclear plants , data were obtained from the 2000 EIA-767 form data collection effort (EIA 2000).

The EIA-767 data are used for economic analyses conducted by DOE. The da ta collected on this

form are used to monitor the current status a nd trends in the electric power industry and to6 evaluate the future of the industry. Th e data are also used in preparing the Electric Power

Annual (EIA, prepared annually) and the Annual Energy Review (EIA, prepared annually)

.

Following data analysis and filtering (see below), the EIA data were provided to the Edison Electric Institute, the Electric Po wer Research Institute, and the Utility Water Act Group in an attempt to identify any errors a nd to update the information. Se veral adjustments were made to

the database as a result of the a bove contacts. In addition, as part of the effort to examine legal issues and agreements affecting water availabi lity during droughts (Cha pter 4), a number of different types of water authorities (compact s, commissions, councils, and state programs) representing different regions and watersheds nationwide were contacted for information.

Several of these contacts led to ad ditional refinement of the database. For example, in one case, a power plant that had been decommissioned between 2005 and the present was removed from

further consideration.



### Data Analysis and Filtering

The data collected through EIA’s 767 form are mainta ined in a series of database files that focus on specific data elements, such as general plant information, boiler generator, and boiler cooling intakes. Each file is organized differently, but the common identifier in eac h file is a utility and plant code. These codes were used to extract needed data elements from each file and then combine them all into a project data base, created using Microsoft Excel ® , containing all of the data elements needed for this study.

Many of the power plants employ multiple boilers and multiple cooling water intakes. Typically, there is an intake for each boiler. The projec t database included a separate row for each boiler and for each cooling intake, which then needed to be combined so that each cooling water intake was paired with the correct boiler. This da ta compilation was conducted for every power plant included in the 767 system, including both the fo ssil fuel/biomass systems (2005) and the nuclear systems (2000). The resulting project database th erefore often included multiple entries for each power plant. Including multiple boilers and c ooling intakes for each power plant, the initial project database included 1,338 entries (rows).

In order to make the database more representati ve and useful for the purpose of the study, it was necessary to apply several types of filtering to remove incomplete or non-applicable data. For example, in the process of ex tracting the needed information from each file and creating the project database, it became apparent that each utility, and sometimes each power plant within each utility, entered information into the EIA data submittal differently. Interpretation of the entered data was frequently necessary. In ma ny cases, data were missing, and, in some cases, it

was difficult to determine an exact match betw een cooling intakes and the boiler. Where the validity of the data entry was in question, we chose to exclude the power plant (or, in some cases, just one or more cooling intake/boiler from the power plant) from further analysis.

In addition, the project database was further refined by removing t hose plants that draw cooling water from non-surface water supplies (e.g., wastewater systems, ground water), since the focus of the study was on drought and surface waters . Although droughts can affect ground water elevation levels, we were not able to take that into account; therefore, the project database was7 limited to just those plants that withdraw surf ace waters for cooling. In addition, the database was further refined by removing those plants that draw their cooling wa ter from tidal zones (saline water). During drought, the levels of tidal waters are unaffected or minimally affected. In addition, considering the affects of global warming, melting of glaciers and ice caps will likely result in an increase of water level. The increase in water level in tidal areas associated with global warming presents a di fferent type of problem for pow er plants located in coastal areas; however, this issue is not fu rther evaluated in this report.

Finally, the most critical data needed for the study were the depths of the submerged water intakes. If this data was missing for a partic ular intake, the database was further revised by removing the intake (and sometimes an entire power plant).



### Database Description

After the filtering described above, the final project database, still containi ng individual data for each intake/boiler combination, was reduced to a total of 829 entries (rows). After combining intake/boiler information from each power plant into one data entry (row) for each power plant in the project database, the database covered 423 power plants. Figure 2 shows the approximate location of each power plant using latitude/longitude information and a geographic information system (GIS) program.

Figure 2 – Distribution of Power Plants Included in Project Database Nationwide8 Overall, the database consists of the following:

• 423 total power plants

• Power plants in 44 states

• 293 power plants that draw cooling water fr om rivers (including creeks and canals)

• 130 power plants that draw coo ling water from lakes or reser voirs (includes some cooling ponds)

• 257 coal-fired power plants

• 105 natural gas-fired power plants

• 46 nuclear power plants

• 9 fuel oil-fired power plants

• 1 combination fuel oil/natural gas power plant

• 1 biomass power plant

• 4 power plants where the fuel was unspecified

The resulting database of the 423 power plants , showing selected fiel ds, is presented as Appendix A to this report. A ppendix B provides a list of power plants filtered out, showing the reason for excluding each power plant. In total, 193 plants were removed.



### Database Assumptions

As indicated above under “Data Sources,” the 76 7 database was populated by individual utilities and power plants. Many times, data were ente red differently by each utility and power plant, often requiring some interpretation. Also as indicated above, the project database created for the purpose of this study was provided to select industrial and utility a ssociates for review, and in the process of doing this, a number of errors in the database were identified and corr ected. On the positive side, few errors overall were found, and ma ny of the errors dealt with utility and power plant names and owners. The most critical data fo r this analysis is the depth of the submerged

intakes and distance from the s horeline, and there was only on e instance where a power plant

identified an error in intake depth.

One very important caveat to the data used in ou r project database is that we have no way to verify if the original data were entered co rrectly into the EIA-767 form. The EIA-767 form contains only minimal guidance for supplying data (see Figure 3 below, sp ecifically line 19 on page 11 of the actual 2005 form — the only advice provided was to enter the data as feet). Overall, the separate instructi ons provided by EIA to those pers ons or companies completing the EIA-767 form were not particularly helpful for most of the cooling water data fields. For example, the only instructions given for the most relevant piece of data, the depth of the intake, are included in the following:

For lines 18 through 21, if the c ooling system is a zero discharge type (RC, RF, RI, RN), do not complete column (b). The intake and the outlet are the point s where the cooling system meets the source of cooling water found on line 4. For all longitude and latitude coordinates, please provide de grees, minutes, and seconds.9 Figure 3 – Page 11 from the 2005 EIA-767 Form (Source: EIA 2005b)

In addition, nothing in the 767 form instructions is mentioned about how to select the surface water elevation baseline from which the depth of the intake is measured. For example, a plant located on a large river could use the elevation of the surf ace water resulting from long-term average flow, or could take a maximum or mini mum elevation. A second s ource of variation is

where on the intake structure the de pth of the intake is measured. Most power plants have very large intake structures or pipes th at typically are several feet in diameter. In order to express the depth of the intake below the surf ace, a utility respondent could se lect the top of the intake, the bottom of the intake, or a midpoint value. Simila rly, no guidance is provided in the form on how to determine distance from shore. For example, distance could be measured from the intake to the shoreline, from the intake to the power plant property line, or even to the point where the cooling water enters the power plant.

No space is allocated on the form for providing comments on how data were derived. Without detailed guidance from EIA, a range of baseline elevations and distance from shore is possible. We have no way of determining which points of reference were used to measure the entered values. Therefore, we must rely on the actual numb ers entered in the database as our only source of information addressing intake depth and distance from shore. We make no assumption regarding the basis for the measurements and must accept the values as provided.

The database for fossil fuels represents data coll ected in 2005, and the data base for nuclear plants represents data collected in 2000. An additional a ssumption has to be that the data collected in10 2005 (for fossil fuel plants) and in 2000 (for nuclear plants) are st ill relevant in 2009. Since few changes in power plant operation and design ha ve taken place in the last few years, the assumption that the data collected are reflectiv e of conditions today is believed to be valid.

An additional consideration regarding the above assump tions is that, in general, the intent of this report is not to identify concerns for individual power plants or even power plants in regional locations. The intent, rather, is to identify trends in intake depth below the water surface and

intake distance from the shorelin e, and to determine whether ther e may be a concern regarding a reduction in electrical generati on capacity during droughts. Our a ssumption is that the project database is adequate for this purpose.11 

## Chapter 3 – Database Evaluation

In this chapter, the database is examined to gi ve an indication of how low water levels can drop before a cooling water intakes ceas e to function. Distance of the inta ke from the shoreline is also

evaluated because of the inferred relationship between that metric and intake water quality and temperature. We assume the closer the intake is to the shoreline the greater the potential for degraded water quality and impaired cooling ca pability. Although a wate r level decline may not result in the water falling below the level of the intake, a water decline can result in the shoreline being much closer to the in take, causing higher intake temp eratures and suspended solids content, which may impact the ability of the power plant to use the water effectively for cooling.

The distance of the intakes from the shoreline an d intake depth are evaluated separately below. Distance and depth are evaluated against a number of different power plant characteristics, such as the nature of the water source (i.e., river vs. lake or reservoir) and the type of plant (nuclear vs. fossil fuel). Case examples are then disc ussed that examine issues for a water body that supports multiple power plants.

It should be noted that many ri ver and reservoir systems can be operated by effective use of dams so as to maximize certain uses, such as maintaining navigation channels, preserving ecosystem health, and enabling continued power plant operations – even during drought. Priority uses of water during drought are eval uated in Chapter 4. Given the time and budget constraints for this study, we were not able to evaluate whether water levels are actively managed on a water body by water body basis. Therefore, our assumption for the analyses below is that water levels are not managed so as to enable continued power plant operations.



### Evaluation of Intake Distance from Shore

While the project database cont ained many data points for each power plant on the depth of the intakes from the water surface, there were far fe wer data presented for intake distance from the

shoreline. Of the total of nine oil-fired plants, data on intake distance from shore were presented for only four of the plants (1, 25, 660, and 850 feet). For the one oil/gas co mbination plant in the database, no data were provided for intake dist ance from shore. In addition, there were four plants in the project database th at did not show the fuel source; for these plants, only one data point was provided for intake distance from shore (20 feet). For the remaining plants, less than half provided data on intake distance from shore.

The data provided regarding intake distance from s hore are examined in this report in five data ranges, as follows:

• 0 ft

• 1 to 10 ft

• 11 to 100 ft

• 101 to 1,000 ft

• Greater than 1,000 ft12 These data ranges were determined as being th e best manner of presentation from a visual examination of the data across all plants.

Many plants provided data on inta ke distance from shore as “0” feet. It is unknown whether the intakes were literally located at the shoreline, or whether the data were entered into the original EIA-767 database incorrectly. In addition, ther e were two instances where data on intake

distance from shore showed dist ances greater than a mile (e. g., 7,920 and 8,000 ft). One possible explanation for power plants having intakes located far from shore may be the desire to draw water from locations where the water may be deeper and/or cooler than it would be if it were

drawn from locations closer to shore. The r eason for locating cooling in takes far from shore, however, was not examined as part of this st udy. The data are presen ted as provided and are

assumed to be accurate.

Figures 4–8 below show the distribution of intake distance from shore for the above ranges in various categories. Figure 4 s hows the distribution of intake di stance from shore for all of the power plants where these data were provided. Fi gure 5 shows the distribu tion only for coal-fired power plants. Figure 6 shows the distribution for natural gas-fire d plants. Figure 7 shows the

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)No. of Intakes in DistanceRange

Figure 4 – Distribution of Power Plant Inta kes by Distance from Shore for All Power

Plants13 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore:

Coal

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)No. of Intahes inDistance Range

Figure 5 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Coal-Fired

Power Pants

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore:

Natural Gas

0 5 10 15 20

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)No. of In takes inDistance Range

Figure 6 – Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Natural GasFired Power Pants14 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore: Rivers

and Creeks

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)No of Intakes inDistance Range

Figure 7 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants

Located on Rivers and Creeks

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore:

Lakes and Reservoirs

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 1 to 10 11 to 100 101 to 1000 > 1000

Distance from Shore (ft)No. of Intakes inDistance Range

Figure 8 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Distance from Shore for Power Plants

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs

distribution for plants located on rivers and creeks. Figure 8 s hows the distribution for plants located on lakes and reservoirs. Table 1 provide s simple statistical information (range, mean, median, and standard deviation) for each of the above categories.15 Table 1: Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Distance from Shore for All Categories (ft)

Power Plant Category Data Range Mean Median Standard Deviation

All 0 to 8,000 486 50 1,254

Coal 0 to 7,920 530 60 1,246

Gas 0 to 8,000 399 28 1,349

Rivers and

Creeks 0 to 7,920 396 44 1,154

Lakes and

Reservoirs 0 to 8,000 791 95 1,522

As indicated above, and as show n in the above figures, many pow er plants reported that their intakes were located right at the s horeline (0 feet). Most of the power plants that reported this information, however, show that their intakes ar e located quite a distan ce from the shoreline.

More than half showed a distance of 50 ft or greater. Perhaps the most interesting trend, however, is that there does not seem to be a significant difference in in let distance from shore among the power plants as a function of fuel source or water body type.

It is also interesting to examine means and medi ans for the data categorie s (Table 1). In every case, the mean is much higher than the median value, suggesting a highly skewed distribution, with most of the intake distances reported as be ing relatively close to shore. With a substantial number of intake distances repo rted at greater than 1,000 feet, and two reported at far greater than a mile, the average would be much highe r than the median, as shown. The standard deviation also shows a high degree of variability in the data. In these circumstances, the median value is a much better representation of the “average” condition than the mean.



### Evaluation of Intake Depth from Surface

The project database contained ex tensive information on the depth of the intakes from the water surface — overall, 423 power plants reported this information. The available data provide a representative picture of the vari ous plants and the location of thei r intakes as a function of depth

from the water surface.

The data provided regarding intake depth from th e surface are examined in this report in thirteen data ranges, as follows:

• 0 ft

• 1 to 5 ft

• 6 to 10 ft

• 11 to 15 ft

• 16 to 20 ft

• 21 to 25 ft

• 26 to 30 ft16 • 31 to 35 ft

• 36 to 40 ft

• 41 to 45 ft

• 46 to 50 ft

• 51 to 100 ft (note the difference in range for this category)

• Greater than 100 ft

These data ranges were determined as being th e best manner of presentation from a visual examination of the data across all plants. In add ition, since water level drops of even several feet can cause significant issues for some power plan ts, it was appropriate to present the data in tighter ranges than were presented for the da ta above on the distance from shore.

As shown in Figures 9–14, many pl ants provided data on intake de pth as “0” feet. It is unknown

whether the intakes were literally at the water surface for thes e plants, or whether the data were entered into the original EIA-767 database in correctly. In addition, there are a number of instances where power plants repor ted intake depth in round number s (e.g., 10 feet). In fact, the most commonly reported value for depth in every da ta category examined was 10 feet. It may be that there are many intakes where the depth is tr uly 10 feet, or there may be a number of cases where data were rounded or estimated as they were entered into the original EIA-767 database. The reason why many depths were re ported as “0” and “10” feet was not examined as part of this study. The data are presented as provided and are assumed to be accurate for the purposes of this study.

Figure 9 below shows the distribution of intake depth from surface for all of the power plants where these data were provided. Figure 10 show s the distribution only for coal-fired and oilfired power plants. Figure 11 shows the distribution for natura l gas-fired plants. Figure 12

shows the distribution for nuclear plants. Figure 13 shows the di stribution for plants located on rivers and creeks. Figure 14 shows the distribution for plants located on lakes and reservoirs. Table 2, following these figures, provides simple statistical informati on (range, mean, median, and standard deviation) for each of the above categories.17 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Depth from Surface (ft)No. of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 9 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for All Power Plants

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface:

Coal and Oil

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Depth from Surface (ft)No. of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 10 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Coal-Fired and

Oil-Fired Power Plants18 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface:

Natural Gas

0 10 20 30 40

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Depth of Intake to Surface (ft)No. of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 11 – Distribution of Power Plant Inta kes by Depth from Surface for Natural GasFired Power Plants

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface:

Nuclear

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Intake Depth from Surface (ft)No. of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 12 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Nuclear Power

Plants19 Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface:

Rivers and Creeks

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Depth of Intake to Surface (ft)No. of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 13 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants

Located on Rivers and Creeks

Distribution of Power Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface:

Lakes and Reservoirs

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 1 to 5 6 to

10 11 to

15 16 to

20 21 to

25 26 to

30 31 to

35 36 to

40 41 to

45 46 to

50 51 to

100 > 100

Depath of Intake to Surface (ft)No of Intakes in DepthRange

Figure 14 – Distribution of Pow er Plant Intakes by Depth from Surface for Power Plants

Located on Lakes and Reservoirs20 Table 2: Range, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation for Intake Depth from Surface for All Categories (ft)

Power Plant Category Data Range Mean Median Standard Deviation

All 0 to 220 15.8 12 16.7

Coal and Oil 0 to 220 16.1 12 19.1

Gas 0 to 40 14.4 12 9.0

Nuclear 0 to 95 16.8 13.5 15.5

Rivers and

Creeks 0 to 95 13.2 10 9.9

Lakes and

Reservoirs 0 to 220 21.6 17 25.2

Evaluation of the above graphical distributions and the data in Ta ble 2 reveals some interesting trends. Most interesting, as referred to above, is the number of power plan ts reporting 10 feet as their intake depth. In most cases, the differences in statistics for most of the categories are minor. There are only isolated cases where ther e may be a significant diff erence in trend. For example, the mean and median intake depth for lakes and reservoirs seems significantly deeper than for rivers and creeks. There is also signif icantly more variation for lakes and reservoirs as compared to rivers and creeks.

Examination of the median vs. the mean for the various categories, as well as the above graphics, suggests a highly skewed distribution, with the majority of power plant intakes being relatively shallow. What is strikingly significant for th is study is the fact that there are a substantial number of power plants where the intakes are on the shallow side, with many located at a depth of 5 feet or less and many more located at a dept h of 10 feet or less. Approximately 43% of the power plants overall have intakes at a depth of 10 feet or less, a nd 65% have intake depths at 15

feet or less. There are neve rtheless a significant number of power plants, approximately 26%, with intake depths greater than 20 feet.



### Case Examples for Multiple Pl ants on the Same Water Body

In this section, two example situ ations are examined with multip le power plants located on the same water body. As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, we assumed that water levels are not actively managed so as to en able preferred uses, such as c ontinued power plant operations.

The Arkansas River supports five power plants (two coal and three natural gas). The power plants are operated in two states by three different utilities. The depth to surface for the intakes for these plants are 2 feet for one plant and 3 f eet for another plant — th e intakes for the other three plants are deeper than 20 f eet. In this situation, the two pl ants with shallow intakes would be affected first by drought conditions; the remain ing plants would be aff ected only by severe drought.21 Another example can be found in the Delaware River, which supports five coal-fired power plants located in two states. The five plants are operated by five different utilities. The intake depths for the five plants are 6, 10, 11, 13, and 15 feet. All of these plants would be affected by a moderate to severe drought. With different utilities operating each plan t, determinations of water withdrawal during droughts for coo ling could become quite contentious.

Both of these examples assume that the dr ought conditions would a ffect surface water body levels equally throughout the portions of the basin in which the power plants are located. For a larger or longer water body, it is less likely that this assumption will be valid.

Clearly, the situation during drought and decisions regarding wate r withdrawal for cooling can become very difficult. In both of the above situat ions, it is necessary to also consider the other primary water users, including municipalities (d rinking water), farmers (irrigation), navigation and industry. It is also necessary to consider projections for increasing demand into the future within these and other sectors. Water consump tion for energy production itself (e.g., oil, gas, coal, and biofuels) is expected to increase dram atically over the next 25 years (Elcock 2008).

In addition, the ecological ramifi cations of lowered water leve ls and increasing withdrawals

should be factored in. All of th ese issues can create a potential for the same types of water wars as witnessed for the Klamath River Basin. Compe ting uses on a regional and watershed basis are examined in the next chapter.22 This page intentionally left blank23 

## Chapter 4 – Legal Issues and Agreements Affecting Water Availability

Overview

In July 2003, the GAO released a report describing issues on fresh water supply, where the focus was on identifying the views of the states on how the federal government could help them meet the challenges of expected water shortages (GAO 2003). As background for its report, the GAO found, through the results of a surv ey, that 36 states anticipated having to deal with issues relating to water shortages even under normal wa ter conditions. This number increased to

46 states under dr ought conditions.

The GAO report found that the federal government ha s a limited role in dea ling with water use, indicating that, in large part, th e states are “primarily responsib le for managing the allocation and use of freshwater supplies.” The report descri bed a “complex web” of both federal and state laws, regulations, and contractual obligations regarding the allocati on and use of freshwater. The report indicated that state law rega rding water uses and withdrawals are different for each state in many respects. However, the report referenced two general doctrines for water allocation among the states, referred to as “ripar ian” and “prior appropr iation.” These doctrines are summarized

as follows:

• Riparian can be described as a “common law” doctrine. Under th e riparian doctrine, water rights are linked to land ownership — ow ners of land borderi ng a waterway have an equal right to use the water that flows pa st the land for any reasonable purpose, even if they have never used the water before — and historical use has no bearing on future use.

• Prior appropriation is more of a regulated (e.g., through a state-issued permit) system. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, water righ ts are not based on land ownership, but rather are linked to priority pol icy and agreements, as well as determinations of beneficial water use. Even so, users that first obtain ed water rights genera lly have seniority, but water rights are predicated on the water being used for “beneficial” purposes. The GAO report describes this policy as “first in time, first in right” and “use it or lose it.”

Under drought conditions, users operating under the riparian doctrine “share the shortage in proportion to their rights”; under the prior appropriati on doctrine, water sh ortages under drought

conditions would first affect “t hose who last obtained a legal right to use the water” (GAO 2003). This includes power plants in the steam electric power gene rating fleet addressed in this

report.

The GAO report identified a third category as “o ther doctrine,” which in many cases is a combination of riparian and pr ior appropriation, and also indicat ed that some states do not regulate water use and withdrawals at all. The GAO report indicated that all states vary in their water laws, but that eastern states generally he ld to the riparian doctr ine and western states generally followed the prior a ppropriation doctrine. Figure 15 , taken from the GAO report,24 Figure 15 – Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface Water Allocation (Source: GAO 2003)

shows state preferences regarding water doctrine based on a survey taken specifically for use in the report.

Irrespective of the above , compacts and commissions or watershed managers have been established to govern or at leas t coordinate water use and wit hdrawals on specific watersheds throughout the United States. Thes e are examined further below.



### Water Commissions and Compacts

A number of water commissions, compacts, or similar organizations have been established throughout the United States that have specific responsibilities regarding the management or oversight of the waters within specific geogr aphical areas, basins, or watersheds. These commissions or compacts are in many cases indepe ndent of state programs and in other cases are part of state programs. Many include members fr om multiple states wherein the watershed lies

and/or that use waters from the watershed for municipal or other purposes. Other members of many of the commissions or compacts include elem ents within the federal government, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Some also include25 representatives of one or more Indian tribes. Some programs are federally mandated and operated, including, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority.

These commissions and compacts were identifie d nationwide, and a number of them were selected for in-depth evaluation. Commissions or compacts were selected for specific examination with the general intent of providi ng a representative view of these types of organizations throughout the United States. Those selected for more in-depth study include the following:

• Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)

• Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)

• Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

• Ohio River Valley Water Sani tation Commission (ORSANCO)

• Great Lakes Basin Compact (GLBC)

• Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC)

• Colorado River Authorities

In addition, conversations with the Columbia River Gorge Commission led to further research with the Washington State Conservation Comm ission (WSCC) and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC).

Results of research with each of the above commissions or compacts are presented below. For each of these organizations, the primary resear ch focus was to explore the nature of any compacts or agreements that give priority to certain users under drought conditions, for example, to determine which users (e.g., municipalities, farmers, power plants) must stop or reduce withdrawing water first. Initial research began wi th the Internet, as it was anticipated that each organization would maintain an In ternet website. This was tr ue in all cases but one. The websites of these organizations are provided under “Other Or ganizations or Organization Websites Contacted,” include d within the reference s ection of this report.

The websites provided varying degrees of inform ation; few specifically addressed compacts or agreements that give priority to certain user s under drought conditions. The next step was to follow up the Internet research with a phone call to each organizat ion as a means of obtaining

more information or more accurate informati on. In most cases, individuals within the commissions and compacts were very willing to provide additional information, while, in other cases, individuals were reluctant to divulge any information at all. The Argonne research team that collected the information and discussed the issues with the commission or compact members is very grateful for the help provided by those compacts or commissions that were willing to provide information.

In addition to the above commissions and compac ts, the Argonne research team also contacted associations and similar organizations that represented the common interests of multiple commissions or compacts. These included the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) and the Western States Water Council (WSWC). Th e websites of these organizations are also provided in the reference section of this report. In addition to examination of the websites of26 these organizations, the Argonne research team also followed up with a phone call and email exchanges and obtained additional information. The Argonne research team is very grateful for the help provided by these associations.

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

According the ICPRB website, the ICPRB was “established by Congress in 1940 to help the Potomac basin states and the federal government to enhance, protect, and conserve the water and

associated land resources of the Potomac Ri ver Basin through regi onal and interstate cooperation.” The commission is directed by ap pointed commissioners from its member states, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and We st Virginia. It also includes representatives from the District of Columbia and the federal government.

The drainage area of the Potomac includes ove r 14,000 square miles in the above-named four states (ICPRB website). Four major reservoirs located within the basin may be used to enhance flow during conditions of low fl ow (i.e., drought). A graphic of the Potomac basin showing the four reservoirs is presented in Figure 16, excer pted from an ICPRB’s report, published in 2000,

that forecasted water demand and availa bility for a 20-year period (ICPRB 2000).

Figure 16 – Potomac River Basin Showing Cu rrent Reservoir Sites (Source: ICPRB 2000)

Only two of the above reservoirs are located above the Potomac Ri ver tidal zone and can be used

to enhance flow when needed over the non-tida l Potomac. These include the Jennings Randolph

and Little Seneca reservoirs. Releases from th ese reservoirs can be executed when consumptive demand, including that required to maintain enviro nmental flow requirements, is predicted to exceed availability (ICPRB 2000) (i.e., during emergency drought conditions). Consumptive demand, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (U SGS 1998), is “that part of water withdrawn that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or27 livestock, or otherwise remove d from the immediate water e nvironment.” Consumptive use upstream would reduce availability downstream by water utilities within the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

Management of drought and releases from the reservoirs within the Potomac basin is described in the ICPRB’s drought operations manual (ICP RB 1988), which amends the original Potomac Water Supply Coordination Agreement establ ished for the Potomac basin in 1982 (ICPRB 1982). To date, there has been only one instan ce, during the 1999 drought, when releases from one of the Potomac reservoirs (Little Seneca) was necessary to augment Potomac non-tidal flow (ICPRB 2000). The ICPRB reported that “c ooperative operations...ran smoothly and the augmented flow of the Potomac provided all th e water required by utilities” (ICPRB 2000). The report concluded that “the current system of resources is adequate to meet the most likely and high growth estimates of 2020 demands even if the wors t drought of record was to be repeated” (ICPRB 2000).

In addition to defining conditions for release of reservoir reserves to augment flow to the Potomac, the ICPRB’s Drought Operations Ma nual (ICPRB 1988) further outlines requirements for “suppliers” to report use for the previous day and a projection of demand for the coming day. “Suppliers,” though undefined in the Drought Oper ations Manual, is presumed to be the reservoir operators. In add ition, the manual (ICPRB 1988) provides the means to set restricted withdrawal rates whenever the Water Supply Coordination Agreement (ICPRB 1982), initiated during emergency low-flow events, is in effect. However, major users of the waters of the Potomac (other than water utilities) are not de fined in either the Drought Operations Manual (ICPRB 1988) or in the agreement (ICPRB 1982).

Our conclusion is that, within the Potomac River Basin, the authority to re strict consumptive use during drought conditions exists, even though us ers (other than wate r utilities) are not specifically identified. In additi on, no priority is established as to which users would be required to reduce or stop withdrawals first. Pres umably, because the Drought Operations Manual (ICPRB 1988) and the original Agreement (ICPRB 1982) focus on water replenishment by

reservoirs and water withdrawal by water utilities, th e utilities would rece ive priority during drought conditions.

It is interesting to note also for the Potom ac basin that the ICPRB oversees an annual drought emergency exercise that is designed to simu late emergency conditions and the associated coordinated response (ICPRB 2007). This is the only instance within all of the research conducted to prepare this report that a commi ssion or compact operated an annual emergency response exercise. This is hi ghly commendable. Emergency exer cises of this sort, however, might be more useful if they were to include upstream users, such as power plants.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

The SRBC website indicates th at the SRBC operates under th e Susquehanna River Basin Compact. The compact was established by the U.S. Congress in 1970 and adopted by the SRBC member states: Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland. The 1970 compact contains the basic provisions by which the water resources with in the Susquehanna basin are managed.28 The basin itself drains an area of more than 27,00 0 square miles in the three states noted above and drains eventually in the Chesapeake Bay (SRBC 2006) at Havre de Grace, Maryland. Figure 17 provides an overview of the basin and its various subbasins (SRBC 2008a). The Susquehanna is described as one of the most fl ood-prone areas in the Un ited States, experiencing a major flood on average every 14 years (SRBC 2006).

Figure 17 – Susquehanna River Basin and Subbasins (Source: SRBC 2008a)

While, as indicated above, the Susquehanna is de clared to be one of the most flood-prone river systems in the nation, the historical frequency of droughts indicates th at it is also highly prone to drought, with droughts occurring th roughout the 1990s and several tim es thus far this decade (SRBC 2007a).

Regulation of specific projects within the Su squehanna basin is es tablished within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 18, Parts 801, 806, 807, and 808 (SRBC 2007b). Section 801.3 is particularly relevant to this study, and is repeated in its entirety below (SRBC 2006):29 (4) In the matter of drought, disasters or ca tastrophes, natural or manmade, which cause

actual and immediate short age of available and usable water supply, determine and delineate the area of shortage and by unanim ous vote declare a state of water supply emergency therein, and impose direct controls on any and all alloca tions, diversions and uses of water to meet the emergency condition.

During drought emergencies, SRBC act s to avoid depleting water reso urces, protect public health and safety, and support essential and high-pr iority water uses (SRBC 2007b). While highpriority water uses are not specifically defi ned, SRBC has the authority, among other actions, to

reduce diversions and water allocations and coordi nate reservoir operations within the basin as needed to preserve public health and protec t the environment (SRBC 2007b). SRBC has direct authority to require drought re strictions among all the member states and is specifically authorized to review and approve water dive rsions and regulate consumptive use (SRBC 2007b) (see definition of “consump tive use” in USGS 1998).

According to SRBC Policy No. 2003-1 (SRBC 2002), “the commission utilizes passby flows, conservation releases, and consumptive use comp ensation to help protect aquatic resources, competing users, and in-stream flow uses downstr eam from the point of withdrawal.” Further, “passby flow is a prescribed quantity of flow th at must be allowed to pass a prescribed point downstream from a water supply intake at any time during which a withdrawal is occurring. When the natural flow is equal to, or less th an, the prescribed pass by flow, no water may be withdrawn from the water source, and the entire na tural flow shall be allo wed to pass the point of

withdrawal....A conservati on release is a prescribed quantit y of flow from an impoundment structure that must be continuously maintained downstream from the impoundment structure. Conservation releases are intended to help protect aquatic resources and downstream uses. Additionally, conserva tion releases are intended to prevent water quality degradation and adverse lowering of stream flow levels downstream from the impoundment. Conservation releases achieve these purposes through flow augmentation from storage, not only during periods of low flow, but throughout the life of the reservoir, including periods when the reservoir is replenishing its storage during refilling.”

Reservoir operation within the Susquehanna basi n is described in two informational sheets published by the SRBC, one for operation of Co wanesque Lake (SRBC 2005a) and the other for operation of the Curwensville Project (SRBC 2005b) . As described within the Cowanesque Lake informational sheet (SRBC 2005a), SRBC regulations on consumptive water uses (SRBC 2002) require large water users, consum ing water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day over a 30-day average, to compensate for their wa ter uses during low flows. For instance, just one electric generating plant in the Susquehanna River Basin consumptively uses an estimated 40 million gallons of water each day (SRBC 2005a ). By requiring large water users to compensate for their water use, SRBC insures that fresh water will be available for downstream users, habitat preservation, and for maintaining flow to the Chesapeake Bay. Compensation in this case refers to fees consumptive users must pay when water is released from the Susquehanna reservoirs to compensate for low flows (SRBC 2005a,b).

To summarize, the SRBC is one of the few wate rshed commissions that ha ve direct control, through regulation, to control consumptive us e during drought conditions, and consumptive30 users, including power plants, ar e required to compensate the S RBC for releases from lakes and reservoirs needed to replenish flows to maintain the river system. There seems to be no priority established within the SRBC program as to which users would be re quired to reduce use first; the program seems to apply equally to all large- volume consumptive user s (consuming water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day over a 30-day average).

Pertinent to this study, the depth of the water inta ke seems not to be an issue for power plants within the Susquehanna system. In fact, an email from one member of the SRBC (SRBC 2008b) indicated that there was only one instance where a power plant within the Susquehanna system was required to reduce operations. This was not b ecause of the depth of the intake, however, but rather was due to the temperature of the water be ing too warm to be able to achieve the cooling needed to run the plant at full capacity.

Delaware River Basin Commission

The website for the DRBC indicates that the Dela ware is the longest rive r east of the Mississippi

with no dams. It extends 330 m iles, with the watershed covering more than 13,000 square miles, draining areas within Delaware, Pennsylvania , New Jersey, and New York. The Delaware watershed is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 – Delaware River Basin Showing Major Tributaries (Source: DRBC 2004)31 The DRBC operates much like the SRBC. The DRBC was created in 1961 when President Kennedy and the governors of Delaware, Pennsylva nia, New Jersey, and New York co-signed legislation creating the Delaware River Basin Compact. The D RBC was created as a regional body with regulatory authority to manage and ov ersee the resources of the Delaware without regard to political boundaries. Like the SRBC, the DRBC is guided by appointed members of the representative states, with federal repres entation, as well. DRBC programs include water quality, water supply allocation, regulatory review and permitting, water conservation, watershed planning, drought and flood manage ment, and recreation (DRBC 20007).

According to DRBC’s Water Resources Progra m, the dominant users of water on the basin include thermoelectric power gene ration, public water supply, and i ndustrial use, with the rising demand for thermoelectric power generation pos ing the potential for “significant additional future demand on water supplies” (DRBC 2008). DRBC’s role includes regulation and arbitration of conflicts regardi ng withdrawals and diversions, as well as water allocation, among other functions (DRBC 2008). DRBC’s objective for the allocation of water during drought

includes allocation decisions and us e restrictions, and maintaining the ecological integrity of the overall ecosystem (DRBC 2004).

To summarize, the DRBC operates much like the S RBC, with the authority to exercise direct control, through regulation, to control consumptive use during drought conditions. However, once again, there seems to be no pr iority established within the DRBC program as to which users would be required to reduce use first.

Tennessee Valley Authority

The TVA was established as one of the many New Deal programs to help bring the nation out of the Great Depression. The TVA, as envisioned by President Roosevelt, is “a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and ini tiative of a private enterprise”. Created by Congre ss in 1933 as the TVA Act, the TVA’s many programs included dam construction, power production, na vigation, flood control, erosion control, and reforestation. TVA’s purview includes the Tennessee River Syst em, a system with drainage through parts of Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, North Ca rolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi ( http://www.tva.gov ). Figure 19 shows the TVA drainage area and power service area, as well as the location of its many fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

In accordance with a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Record of Decision (ROD) released in 2004 (TVA 2004), the TVA has adopted a new approach for managing the Tennessee River and reservoir system. This new approach resulted from a reservoir operations study conducted to examine the impacts and bene fits of various approaches for optimizing reservoir operations and flows al ong the river system. The approach selected, referred to as the “preferred alternative,” is “designed to provide increased recreation opportunities while avoiding or reducing adverse impacts on other operating objectives an d resource areas” (TVA 2004). These other operating objectives include flood control, power production (both hydroelectric and steam-electric), improving water quality, and navigation. The PEIS ROD does not speak specifically to managing flows during drought co nditions. Therefore, the goal of providing increased recreational opport unities while avoiding or reduc ing adverse impacts on other32 Figure 19 – Tennessee Valley Authority Jurisdiction (Source: https://maps.tva.com/ )

operating objectives and resource areas remain s the same. However, during drought, concerns about maintaining navigation channels (i.e., su fficient depth to accommodate commercial and recreational use) are very important (TVA 2009).

The TVA area was especially impacted by the 2006/2007 drought and is s till experiencing the effects of the drought today. TVA serves as a host and facilitator for the Tennessee Valley Water Partnership, a group established in 2005 to improve regional cooperation in water resource management. The group includes representatives fr om all TVA states, as well as from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USGS . Its basis is not regulatory, but rather to coordinate issues recognizing state interests, laws, and regul ations (TVA 2007a). The group has reviewed drought management plans developed by some of the member states, and TVA has drafted a Drought Management Plan for the Te nnessee Valley Water Partnership Drought Committee (TVA 2007b).

The Drought Management Plan (TVA 2007b) provide s the basis for coordinating actions through the Tennessee Valley Water Partnership Drought Committee. Response actions, however, are not specifically identified, nor is there a priority established for which types of uses must begin curtailing water withdrawals or stopping water withdrawals alt ogether. Decisions regarding response actions would be made collectively th rough the Drought Commi ttee, considering the provisions of the TVA Act and the 2004 PEIS ROD.

TVA (TVA 2008, 2009) has indicated that it has had to curtail operations at some of its operating nuclear plants due to the drought. However, thes e actions were not due to water levels falling below cooling water intakes, but rather due to th e temperatures of the receiving water being too33 warm. As indicated above, the problem is the di scharge of heated water used for cooling back into waterways that are just too warm to keep temp eratures at levels required to meet state water quality standards.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

The Ohio River runs a total of 981 miles, st arting at the confluence of the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers in Pennsylvania and ending when the Ohio intersects the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois. There are a series of 20 da ms along the Ohio, with 49 hydroelectric power generating stations ( http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/facts.asp ). The dams and hydroelectric stations are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fi gure 20 provides an overview of

the Ohio River Basin and shows th e locations of the various dams.

Figure 20 – Ohio River Basin (Source: http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/basin/basin.asp )

According to the ORSANCO website, ORSANC O was established as a compact in 1948. Member states include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Oh io, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. ORSANCO’s mission is to contro l and abate pollution in the Ohio River Basin.

ORSANCO sets waste water discha rge standards, performs biologi cal assessments, monitors the river and its tributaries against chemical and bi ological makers, and conducts surveys and studies as needed. While ORSANCO does respond to sp ills and accidents within its purview, its mission does not include flood control or drought management.

In a conversation with an ORSANCO official (ORSANCO 2008), the Ohio was described as being “rich in water” where droughts are not commonly experienced. Further, the official

indicated that there were a numbe r of coal-fired power plants al ong the river, and none of them34 have ever (in memory) experienced problems a ssociated with droughts. While the official acknowledged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would control the dams in the event of a flood or drought, because of the water-rich environment, he was not aware of any compacts or agreements that give priorities to the users (i.e ., which users must stop withdrawing water first). The individual did, however, suggest that state programs within th e Ohio River system may have such stipulations. State programs are reviewed below under the section on federal and state

programs.

Great Lakes Basin Compact

The Great Lakes Basin Compact was adopted in 1955 by the eight states bordering the Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Mich igan, Minnesota, New York, Ohi o, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin)

and associate members from the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It resulted in the formation of the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), as shown in Figure 21. The GLC “carries out policy research, advocacy, coordination, and co mmunication functions promoting the orderly, efficient, and balanced development use and c onservation of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System” (GLC 2007).

Figure 21 – Great Lakes Basin Map (Source: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135- 3313_3677-15926--,00.html )

In the Great Lakes, drought management policy accepted by GLC membership is embodied within a regional policy statement developed by the Task Force on Drought Management and Great Lakes Water Levels, which was estab lished in 1989 (GLC 2007). The Task Force published a draft report in 1989 (GLC 1989), which still serves today as a guide to drought planning, management, and water level change s in the Great Lakes. This 1989 report specifically addresses impacts of drought on electrical power genera tion. However, water levels falling below submerged intakes are not recogni zed as a problem within the Great Lakes.35 Rather, the problem in the Great Lakes seems to be more a function of the release of heated cooling water from power stations to waters wh ere the ambient temperatures are too high to be able to accommodate the heated cooling wate r. Lower water levels and increased air temperatures result in elevated water temperatur es within the lake system, and the addition of heated cooling water from the power plants reduc es dissolved oxygen levels below levels needed for sustaining the local ecology (GLC 1989).

Water rights and water laws in the Great Lakes states are also reviewed within the 1989 policy statement (GLC 1989). The policy statement indicates that the wate r rights system in the Great Lakes states and provinces follow the riparian doctrine. Hence, land owners have a right to reasonable beneficial use of the water, alt hough what is accepted as reasonable during normal conditions may differ from what is accepted as reasonable during droughts. In addition, some

but not all of the Great Lakes stat es require large water users to obtain water withdrawal permits. In addition, as of 1989, only Minnesota was known to have established a formal system defining water use priorities. In general, public water suppliers have priority over individual users to serve public needs (GLC 1989). It is unclear how this relates to electrical power generation

facilities.

With respect to the Great Lakes, it is also im portant to mention that drought and water policy positions are established through other government organizations as well as the GLC. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Water Management Regional Body, coordina ted by the Council of Great Lakes Governors, was created through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (Coun cil of Great Lakes Governors 2005). The Agreement details how the Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Québec will manage the Great Lakes Basin. Article 203 of the agreement specifi cally addresses decision making for water withdrawals and consumptive use (Council of Great Lakes Governors 2005). It does not, however, define prior ity uses during drought.

Columbia River Gorge Commission

According to the website of the Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) ( http://www.gorgecommission.org/ ), the commission “was established in 1987 to develop and implement policies and programs that protect a nd enhance the scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Gorg e, while encouraging growth with in existing urban areas of the Gorge and allowing development outside urban areas consistent with resource protection.”

Examination of the commission website did not rev eal any information rega rding participation in programs relating to drought and pow er plant cooling water intakes. In a conversation with an official of the commission (CRGC 2008), it was revealed that the commission programs deal mainly with conservation and have little to do with power generation capacity unless hydroelectric operations impact the gene ral ecology of the river system.

The commission official explained first that the Columbia basin is “water rich” and rarely faces serious drought conditions. He al so indicated that the Columbia basin itself is very large and controlled by many different government and quasi-government organi zations. Figure 22 presents an overview of the Columbia basin.36 Figure 22 – Columbia River Basin (Source: http://www.nwdwc.usace.army.mil/report/colmap.htm )

The CRGC official suggested that policy and decision-making aut hority with respect to drought and power plant operations would probably be co ntrolled by any one of a number of other

authorities active in the Pacific Northwest. A few such organizat ions were identif ied, including the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Wa shington State Conservation Commission, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Upper Co lumbia River Water Compact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bonnev ille Power Administration, and wate r authorities within each of the states within the Columbia drainage system . He indicated that water management in the Northwest is very complicated and that each of the above organizations would likely have at least some role in any decision regarding water levels and power management.

Following this CRGC communication, the websites of several of the above organizations were visited, and for some of the orga nizations, follow-up phone calls were made, as well. An official within the Columbia River Program of the Washington Department of Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology 2009) indicated that wate r code in the Columbia system is based on “Western Water Law.” The premise is the “pri ority doctrine,” which was summarized as “first in time, first in right.” (Note that the priority doctrine referre d to in the above quote is assumed to be the same as the prior appr opriation doctrine menti oned previously). The official estimated

that there were well over 300 holders of “interru ptible water rights” in the Columbia basin and37 that at least one of these belonge d to a power plant. They are interruptible because their water rights were issued after the state’s adopted in-stream flow right (W ashington Administrative Code WAC 173-563).

This same message regarding Western Water La w was reiterated in a conversation with an official from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) (NWPCC 2009). The NWPCC official referred to it as a sy stem of “junior vs. senior” rights.

An overview of western water rights is provided following the discussion on the Colorado River

Authorities.

Colorado River Authorities

The following, from the U.S. Bureau of Reclam ation’s lower Colorado Ri ver website, provides a summary of what has become know as the “Law of the River” ( http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ ):

The Colorado River is managed and operated unde r numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulator y guidelines collectivel y known as the "Law of the River.” This collection of documents apportions the water and regulates the use and management of the Colorado River among the seven basin states and Mexico.

The primary compact governing management a nd operation of the Colorado River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lower Colorado River website, ( http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ ). The following is a synopsis of the compact:

The cornerstone of the "Law of the River,” this Compact was negotiated by the seven

Colorado River Basin states and the federal governmen t in 1922. It defined the relationship between the upper basin states, where most of the river's water supply originates, and the lower basin states, where most of the water demands were developing. At the time, the upper basin states were concerned that plans for Hoover Dam and other water development projects in the lower basin would, under the Western water law doctrine of prior appropriation, deprive them of their ability to use the river 's flows in the future.

The states could not agree on how the wate rs of the Colorado River Basin should be allocated among them, so the Secretary of Comme rce Herbert Hoover suggested the basin be divided into an upper and lower half, with ea ch basin having the right to develop and use 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) of river water annually. This approach reserved water for future upper basin development and allowed planning a nd development in the lower basin to proceed.

There are many other laws, contracts, and documents that are part of the “Law of the River.” Several of these pertain to international treatie s and similar agreements with Mexico. These can be reviewed by going to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lower Colorado River website ( http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ ). In addition to these provisions , the federal Endangered Species Act

and various Native American water claim settl ements affect the extent to which water developments and diversions can be u tilized in the Colorado River Basin.38 In general, and as an outgrowth of the Co lorado River Compact of 1922, management of the Colorado and its tributaries has been split among the upper and lower Colorado states. Figure 23 provides a map showing the areas included within the Lower Colorado Region. Figure 24 provides a map showing the areas incl uded within the Upper Colorado Region.

Figure 23 – Lower Colorado Region (Source: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ )

Figure 24 – Upper Colorado Region (Source: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/ )39 As referred to above and in the discussion for the Columbia River Basi n, the Western Water Law doctrine of prior appropriation gene rally governs use of the waters of the Colorado by individual users. Western water rights are reviewed below. Keep in mind as the discussion proceeds that many power plants in the West, and the vast majority of power plants in the Lower Colorado Region, draw their cooling water from ground wa ter sources (Colorado River Commission of Nevada 2008).



### Western Water Rights Overview

The website of the Colorado River Energy Di stributors Association (CREDA) provides a good

introduction to the evolution of what ha s become known as “Western Water Law” ( http://www.creda.org/Pages/Background.html ):

As the water supplies in the West became more intensively used in the early part of the twentieth century, the “water wars” began. As a result, western water law evolved through a series of legislative as well as c ourt-related actions. Many of the issues were local in nature; however, they also evolved into interstate and eventually international issues. A great amount of attention focused on the Colorado River because it is one of the most heavily used rivers for multipurpose activities.

Western Water Law developed due to the relative scarcity of water in the southwest states as compared to the rest of the United States. Water s carcity resulted in the e volution to a system of water rights that are different fr om the “water rich” regions of the country. In essence, water rights in the southwest are sim ilar to those established for r eal property. These rights are somewhat independent of the land or shoreline from which the water is derived. The water rights, known generally as “prior appropriation,” are established by actual use of the water, and maintained by continued use and need. The premis e behind prior appropriation is that the right to use water for beneficial purpos es is not associated with ow nership. No one person, company, or jurisdiction owns the water, but all have th e right to use it for be neficial purposes. As

indicated above in the Columbia River discussion, water use is ba sed on the premise of “first in time, first in right.”

As indicated above, an official from the NW PCC (NWPCC 2009) referred to Western Water Law as a system of “junior vs. senior” rights. The “senior” in this case is the first entity (person, jurisdiction, corporation) to use the water, while the “junior” re fers to entities that later use the water for whatever purpose. The only requirement is that the use have some benefit. The resulting system, fraught with arguments as to who is senior and who is junior and what constitutes a beneficial use, among other things, has been the subject of local and state laws, policies, and numerous disagreements and lawsuits.

For steam generating power plants that would us e the water for cooling, the determination of which user would be required to begin curtailing use, or sto pping use altogether, would fall on the determination of senior vs. junior, again the premise of “first in time, first in right.”40 In most of the western states, a state agency (e.g., department of water re sources) or official is charged with the administration of all water rights within the st ate. In addition, each state may

differ in the manner in which it administers the wa ter program. An overview of some of the state programs, including those that a pply the riparian doctrine as we ll as those that follow prior appropriation, is provided below, along with a brief discussion of federal programs.



### Federal and State Programs

Federal Programs

The primary agency within the federal government responsible for emergency management is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA is in the process of producing a series of Comprehensive Program Guides (CPGs) that address many aspects of em ergency management. The first guide, CPG 101 “Producing Emergency Plans: A Guide for All-Hazar d Operations Planning for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments (Interim),” was released for comment in August 2008 (FEMA 2008). FEMA plans to release supplementa l guides as well, including those pertaining to natural hazards such as drought. While a ny drought plan should serve as a guide for the development of mitigation and response strategies, it is unclear whether FEMA will recommend establishing priorities for essential and non-essential us es during drought.

FEMA is not the only federal ag ency however, that has a role in drought response. Many other federal agencies are also invol ved in drought planning and mitigation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have been mentioned previously. Many other federal agencies also have a role.

The State of California Department of Water Res ources, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, recently published the Urban Drought Guidebook (State of California Department

of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2008). Among many other recommendations, the Guidebook recommends esta blishing priorities for essential and nonessential water uses during droughts. One such priority included “commercial, industrial, and institutional — maintain economic base, protect jobs.” Directly related to this priority is the need

to include use of water for power plant operation.

State Programs

Many state programs also deal directly with drought management. The National Drought Mitigation Center, operated by University of Nebras ka-Lincoln, includes a summary of the status of state drought programs ( http://www.drought.unl.edu/mitigate/status.htm ):

Because water shortfalls are initially loca l and regional issues, and because of the lack of a cohesive U.S. water policy, states have emerged as important innovators in devising ways to reduce long-term vulnerability to drought. During the widespread U.S. drought of 1976–77, no state had a formal drought plan, and in 1982, only three states had drought plans. But as of October 2006, thirty-seven states had drought plans.41 Figure 25 below provides an overview of the status of state drought planning as of 2006. As of the time of this compilation, only nine states di d not have formal drought plans. Some states such as Alabama (see below) have since established such programs.

Figure 25 – Status of State Program Drought Planning (Source: http://www.drought.unl .edu/mitigate/status.h tm )

In addition to an examination of the water co mmissions and compacts, a number of the states

were examined to determine the nature and extent of the drought measures put in place. The focus, as with the water commissions and compac ts, was to explore the nature of any compacts or agreements that give prio rity to certain users under droug ht conditions, for example, to determine which users (e.g., municipalities, fa rmers, power plants) must stop or reduce withdrawing water first.

The initial scope of this study did not envision examining federal or state programs at all. As we began looking at the compacts and commissions, and after talking with their staffs, however, it became apparent that some of the types of priori ty information that we were looking for might turn out to be associated with state program s. Hence, while research on state programs was initially unintended, it was conducted to ensure that we looked into what turned out to be a very pertinent source of information. Research, however , was limited to the Internet. Further, there

were insufficient funds within th e initial budget to look at all state programs. Therefore, the states were selected for examination with the gene ral intent of providing a representative view of the states throughout the United States.

As the effort began to look at state programs, it also became apparent that many of the states differed in how they assigned responsibility for drought mitigation and management. Some states assigned this responsibility to state em ergency management organizations, and others to42 state water boards, others to state environmenta l departments. Many st ates also established working groups or task forces made up of repres entatives of these agencies, as well as others, such as agriculture and commerce. Hence, finding drought-related programs and documentation within state programs may be qualified as hit or miss.

Alabama

Alabama’s Drought Management Plan was developed by the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs 2004). The Alabama plan did not establish any hard and fast priorities for certain users; however, it did promote conservation within various sectors. The industrial sector, for example, was:

“... encouraged to coordinate water usage and constraints during drought conditions by:

1. Establishing more direct drought communi cation between the industrial sector and state and local governments and the appropriate water systems; 2. Conduct voluntary water audits for busine sses that use water for a production or service, especially in an ar ea that has a history of drought related water shortages; 3. Encourage the development and implemen tation of water conservation and drought contingency plans to limit any unnecessary consumption and interbasin transfers, if applicable, during droughts; and 4. Identify vulnerable water dependent i ndustries and, as necessa ry and as funding is available, work to determine their impacts and provide assistance with procedures to curtail water use during droughts and/or id entify alternative water sources for

emergency use. 5. Implement industrial water reduction opportunities previously identified (i.e., use less water in producing pro ducts and services during drought, and thereby reducing quantity of wastewater in stream).

Arizona

The Arizona Division of Emergency Manageme nt established an Emergency Response and Recovery Plan (Arizona Division of Emergenc y Management 2006) with a very comprehensive annex dealing with drought. No priority sy stem for essential or non-essential use was established within this plan. The Arizona De partment of Water Resources, however, published a Drought Preparedness – Operatio nal Drought Plan in 2004 (Ariz ona Department of Water Resources 2004). This plan also did not establish priori ties or essential/non- essential uses per se, but it did establish a “response progress” that requires reductions in use in various “Work Group” categories. For example, the Muni cipal and Industrial Work Group may recommend state or locally imposed short-term emerge ncy restrictions during a drought emergency, including water use restrictions on public facilities and industria l user conservation programs and partnerships.43 Colorado

In Colorado, drought mitigation planning is the responsibility of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Board produced The Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan in 2001 (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2001). No specific priority system for essential or non-essential uses was established; however, comprehensive treatment on preparedness and mitigation for all sectors was stressed, and the plan indicated that “competing interests could require suspension of [the] cu rrent water rights system.”

Connecticut

The State of Connecticut is developing the Connecticut Drought Management Plan ( http://www.drought.state.ct.us/mgmtplan.htm ), although it is not ye t available through the Internet. Connecticut does, however, have the Connecticut Drought Preparedness and Response

Plan that defines non-essential us es of water during drought and authorizes the government to take a number of conservation actions during drought.

Idaho

The Idaho Department of Water Resources developed the Idaho Drought Plan in 2001 (Idaho Department of Water Resources 2001). The Ida ho plan establishes a nu mber of coordinating committees, although no priorities fo r essential or non-essential uses are established. One of the coordinating committees deals with energy. Th e following regarding the Energy Subcommittee is excerpted from the plan:

Energy Subcommittee

1. Evaluate and monitor energy supplies; c oordinate with other subcommittees. 2. Coordinate with the state member of the Northwest Power Planning Council. 3. Membership should include, Idaho No rthwest Power Planning Council, Public
Utilities Commission, Bonneville Power Admi nistration, Idaho Power Co., IDWR, the Association of Commerce and Industry, COE, and BOR.

Indiana

The State of Indiana has the Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan developed in 1994 by a task force of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The task force was composed of professionals representing public water supply ut ilities, agriculture, steam elect ric generating utilities, industry, municipalities, environmentalists, consumer advocates, economic development advocates, academia, and the public. The plan established a conservation program for a water shortage emergency and defined a number of non-essential uses geared main ly for industry and the public. The plan established specific provisions for el ectrical generating faci lities, indicating that:

The Department and the Utility Regulatory Commission will jointly consult with all major electric utilities in the region to ascertain the current status and projection of electric use demand, associated water requi rements, and potential for energy and water conservation during the water shortage em ergency. Consultations will consider the potential for: (a) shifting a portion of electr ic energy demand to generation from plants44 outside the area affected by the emergency (including increased whee ling of energy); (b) increasing energy production from plants wi th lower consumptive water use rates per unit of energy; and (c) adjustment of plant production and maintenance schedules within the system to reduce water use in the affected area.

Maryland

The Maryland Statewide Water Conservation Advisory Committee (2000) developed the Drought Monitoring and Response Plan in 2000. The plan provides the Governor with a series of responsibilities, including implementation of mandatory restrictions on non-essential water uses. In addition, business and i ndustry are required to comply w ith water conservation plans to reduce water use by at least 10% and eval uate possible reduced hours of operation.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts describes itself as a “water rich ” state, but a 1999 drought caused activation of a Drought Management Task Force, which resulted in the Massachusetts Drought Management

Plan , a working draft of which was released in 2001 (Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force 2001). The plan required municipalities and water suppliers to subm it plans to establish priority among competing users, indicating th at the government has the right under eminent domain authority to establish priorities among competing users:

During a state of water emergency, DEP may i ssue orders, applicable within or outside the affected area of the water emergency, to: (1) establish prio rities for the distribution of any water or quantity of water use; (2) permit any person engaged in the operation of a water supply system to reduce or increase by a specified amount or to cease the distribution of that water; to distribute a specified amount of water to certain users as specified by the department; or to share any water with ot her water supply systems; (3) direct any person to reduce, by a speci fied volume, the withdrawal or use of any water; or to cease the withdrawal or use of any water; (4) requir e the implementation of specific water conservation measures; and, (5 ) mandate the denial, for the duration of the state of water emergency, of all applicati ons for withdrawal perm its within the areas of the commonwealth to which the st ate of water emergency applies.

Missouri

The Missouri State Emergency Management Agency’s Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan (Missouri State Emergency Management Agency 2007) gives a great deal of attention to drought, but much of the discussion is acad emic and historical in nature. The Missouri Drought

Plan , however, produced by the State Department of Natural Resources in 2006, established a priority system for allocation of water dur ing drought (Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2006). The priority system was divided into three classes, wher e Class 1 is designated “Essential Water Uses,” Class 2 is designated “Socially or Economically Important Uses of Water,” and Class 3 is designated “Non-Essential Uses of Water.” Use of water for electrical power generation was included with in Class 1, right behind domestic use, health care facilities, fire-fighting, and waste-water management.45 Montana

The Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services’ State of Montana Disaster and Emergency Plan (Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services 2006) includes Volume X, “Montana Drought Plan.” This plan establishes a drought advisory committee with many recommendations. The following is excerpted from Volume X:

Managers of hydroelectric facilities devel op annual operating plans based on energy demand and projected surface water s upplies. Arrangements to accommodate downstream fisheries, flatwater recreation, and navigation needs are considered in the annual operating plan. In the Columbia River drainage, reservoir operating agencies work closely with the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) and agencies such as DFWP to balance instream flow and energy requirements. Changes to reservoir plans may be made each year to reflect changes in the water supply outlook. Final operating plans are formulated after comprehensi ve assessments are made. Public comment on reservoir operations is documented at open meetings and taken under advisement by managing agencies. Reservoir plans for th e season are announced by the Bureau of Reclamation and Montana Power Company through press releases as summer approaches.

In addition to the above, the state has The Montana Drought Response Plan developed by an Advisory Committee on Drought and publishe d in 1995 (Montana Advisory Committee on Drought 1995). The plan is very detailed, but no pr iority system for esse ntial and non-essential uses is established within the plan.

North Carolina

The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, operating under the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, established the State of North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan in 2002 (North Carolina Division of Emergency Management 2002). Drought is addressed in Appendix 3 of this document. In accord ance with the appendix, drought is addressed by fi ve different task forces, one of which deals with energy loss. Among other responsibilities, the task force is required to produce assessm ents that include total energy loss attributable to drought and an evaluation of water shortage impa cts on electrical power generation, as well as iden tification of other majo r potential problem areas.

Ohio

The website of the Ohio Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) ( http://ema.ohio.gov/index.aspx ) contains the State of Ohio Em ergency Operations Plan Drought Incident Annex (OEMA 2003). This annex, very sim ilar to that of Missouri, as discussed above, established a priority system for allocation of water during drought. The priority system was divided into three classes, wher e Class 1 is designated “Essential Water Uses,” Class 2 is designated “Socially or Economically Important Uses of Water,” and Class 3 is designated

“Non-Essential Uses of Water.” As with Missour i, use of water for electrical power generation46 was included within Class 1, right behind domestic use, health car e facilities, fire-fighting, and

waste-water management.

South Carolina

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources developed the South Carolina Drought Response Plan (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, undated). The plan appears geared for public use and is not very useful for determining prio rities or essential/non-essential uses. Regulations prepared by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources are more detailed in this regard (South Carolina De partment of Natural Resources, DNR Chapter 121, undated). These regulations provide that:

During severe or extreme drought conditions , the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources may require mandatory reduction or curtailment of non-essential water use in affected drought management areas if recommended by the Drought Response Committee

in accordance with R.121-11.6. The curtailment of water use may involve adjusting the quantity of water used; adjusting the quality of water to meet the water use; adjusting the time of water use; and/or utilizi ng different sources of water.

Further, the Drought Response Committee is required to consider a number of factors, including, among other things, the purpose of the use, suitab ility of the use to th e watercourse, lake, or aquifer, and the economic and social value of the use.

Virginia

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has responsibility for drought management ( http://www.deq.virginia.gov/ waterresources/drought.php ) and, through a Drought Response Technical Advisory Committee, developed the Drought Assessment and Response

Plan (Virginia Department of Environmental Qu ality 2003). Many requirements are established during a drought emergency, including a number of mandatory use restrictions. For example, public waterworks and self-supplied water users who withdraw more than 10,000 gallons per day are required to initiate mandato ry water conservation requirement s contained in drought water conservation and contingency plans. Further, th e Director of the Department of Environmental Quality is authorized to allocate ground water and surface water resources and to restrict any withdrawals based upon the adequacy of the resource to meet the necessary beneficial uses as set forth in §62.1-44.36 of the Code of Virginia. Such allocations may apply to any withdrawer and override any existing authorizations to us e or withdraw surface water or ground water.47 

## Chapter 5 – Findings and Conclusions

The findings and conclusions are presented separate ly with respect to “Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes”; “Distance to Shore fo r Power Plant Intakes”; “Depth of Power Plant Intakes”; and “Commission, Compact, and Federal/S tate Programs.” While our findings and

conclusions are limited to these areas, it should be recognized th at the database developed to support this project can be used to examine many different asp ects of the relationship between power plant intake distance and depth as a function of ma ny other factors.



### Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes

Findings

• The project database of electr ic steam generation power plants, developed from the EIA-767 form data collection effort, does not include a ll power plants nationwide. It includes data from 423 plants in 44 states. Data collected fo r fossil fuel plants were current as of 2005 and for nuclear plants, as of 2000.

• The project database of electr ic steam generation power plants, developed from the EIA-767 form data collection effort, includes a substa ntial amount of data on cooling water intake distance from shore and depth from surface.

• The project database is subject to some uncerta inty because the original data in the EIA-767 database were entered by representatives of many different utilities and other power generators across the county. The database was provided to utility asso ciations for a review of accuracy. Some errors in data entry were id entified and corrected as part of this effort; however, additional errors are possible.

Conclusion

In spite of the uncertain ty mentioned in the third bullet above, the project database is considered representative of power plants na tionwide, at least as it relates to intake distance from shore and depth from surface, and is considered robust enou gh to enable drawing co nclusions regarding the effect of drought on power plant operations as a function of intake cooling.



### Distance to Shore for Power Plant Intakes

Findings

• Data from the EIA 767 form database regardi ng intake distance from shore were not as complete as data regarding depth from surface.

• There is a tremendous range in distance to shor e for power plant intakes, ranging from 0 feet

to well over a mile.48 • Many power plants reported that their intakes were located right at the shoreline (i.e., 0 feet from the shore).

• More than half of the power plan ts showed an intake distance fr om shore of 50 ft or greater.

• There does not seem to be a significant differe nce in intake distance from shore among the power plants as a function of fu el source or water body type.

• The distribution of data on intake distance fr om shore shows a mean value that is much higher than the median value, suggesting a highly skewed, non-normal distribution, with most of the intake distances reported as being relatively close to shore.

• There are nevertheless a s ubstantial number of power plants w ith intake distances reported at greater than 1,000 feet, a nd two reported at far greater than a mile.

• The standard deviation of the distribution of power plant inta ke distance from shore shows a high degree of variability.

Conclusion

The EIA-767 form data on intake distance from shore represent a wide range and high variability, with no clear pattern among the power plants as a function of fuel source or water body type. Distance from shore has far less bear ing than inlet depth from surface during drought conditions, unless the reason why some intakes are located far from shore has to do with lower temperatures or other factors.



### Depth of Power Plant Intakes

Findings

• All power plants in all categor ies (fuel type, water body type) re ported 10 feet most often as their intake depth.

• In all cases but one, the differences in statisti cs for intake depth for most of the categories (fuel type, water body type) are minor.

• The mean and median intake depth for lakes and reservoirs are substantially deeper than for

rivers and creeks.

• There is substantially more variation in intake depth for lakes and reservoirs as compared to

rivers and creeks.

• There are many power plants where the intakes are relatively shallow. Approximately 43% of the power plants overall have intakes at a depth of 10 feet or less, and 65% have intake depths at 15 feet or less.49 • There are, nevertheless, a substantial number of power plants, approximately 26%, with intake depths greater than 20 feet.

Conclusion

Because of shallow intake depth, some power plants nationwide may be at risk of having to curtail or shut down operations in case of modera te or severe drought. El evated temperature of the intake water may cause disruptions, however, pr ior to the water falling below the level of the intake. Active management of water levels so as to enable preferred uses, such as continued power plant operations, may help to reduce risk.



### Commissions, Compacts, an d Federal/State Programs

Findings

• There are many different federal, state, and local government and quasi-government organizations that would have a role in responding to droughts, including decisions pertaining to water use and wit hdrawal and prioritization among competing users. In some cases, task forces or working groups are establ ished to facilitate agreement and coordinate implementation.

• Some river basin/watershed commissions or comp acts have established controls over basins and watersheds (e.g., use of reservoirs to supple ment flow or a payment system to subsidize uses). Such systems may serve to avoid the ne ed to have to contro l uses and withdrawals during drought.

• No river basin/watershed commissions or compact s have established a system of priorities

for essential and non-essential uses duri ng drought. Some river basin/watershed

commissions have indirect au thority, subject to approval by different authorities (e.g., officials in multiple states), to manage water use during drought situations. Priorities, when they need to be set, would be es tablished on a case-specific basis.

• The federal government has a minor role, at best, for responding to drought; most of the authority rests with the states.

• While most states prescribe to either the ripa rian or prior appropria tion doctrine regarding water rights, each state program is different in at least some respects. Water systems (reservoirs, river basins) that span more than one state may be managed differently in each state during drought situations. The exception is when a commission or compact has been given direct regulatory author ity to manage water use durin g drought situations, has been given a coordinating role, or where a task fo rce or working group has been established to facilitate agreement and coordinate implementation.

• Most states have developed provisions (e .g., drought plans) for responding to drought situations. Many such provisions have been de veloped by multi-organizational task forces or working groups. Some state programs would di rectly control water a llocations in accordance50 with classifications of essential and non-e ssential uses establis hed to address drought

conditions.

• Many states identify non-essential water uses that should be curt ailed or stopped during drought, but have not identified or prioritized es sential uses. Of the two state programs that have established a system of priorities for essential and non-essential uses during drought, power production is ra ted within the highest priority category.

• Most reported cases where power plants have ha d to curtail or shut down operations were not due to shallow depth of the intake, but rather were due to the high temperature of the cooling water and the relatively high te mperature of the receiving water, and the concern of protecting the ecosystem.

Conclusions

The system of water rights in the United States (riparian vs. prior ap propriation) and water control (commission/compact vs. stat e) is very different in different parts of the nation. The prospect of drought is unlikely to force a change in this system. It seems that few authorities (i.e., commission/compact vs. stat e) have established priority systems of essential and nonessential uses during droughts. Where such prio rity has been establis hed, power production is rated within the highest priority category.

Also pertinent for this study, however, is the findi ng that most reported cases where power plants have had to curtail or shut down operations were not due to shallow depth of the intake, but rather were due to the high temperature of the cooling water and the rela tively high temperature of the receiving water, and the concern of protecting the ecosystem.51 

## References and Organi zations Contacted

References

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, 2004, Alabama Drought Management Plan , draft final, Montgome ry, AL. Available at http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/Office%20of%20W ater%20Resources/D ocument%20Library/20 040422_ALDroughtPlan_DraftFinal.pdf

.

Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2006, Emergency Response and Recovery Plan

, Phoenix, AZ. Version 2003 available at http://www.dem.azdema.gov/preparedness/docs/ serrp.pdf

.

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2004, Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan – Operational Drought Plan , Governor’s Drought Task Force, P hoenix, AZ, Oct. 8. Available at http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/d rought/files/Arizona_Drought_P reparedness_PlanFIN AL100804.p

df

.

California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2008, Urban Drought Guidebook, 2008 Updated Edition , Sacramento CA. Available at http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/UrbanDroughtGuide.pdf

.

Colorado River Commission of Nevada, 2008, pe rsonal communication, Mr. Jim Salo, Dec. 12.

Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2001, The Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response

Plan , Denver, CO. Available at http://dola.colorado.gov/dem/ publications/droughtplan.402b.pdf

.

Columbia River Gorge Comm ission, 2008, personal communication with Mr. Tom Asher,

Dec. 16.

Council of Great Lakes Governor s, 2005, “Great Lakes-St. Lawr ence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement,” Ann Arbor, MI. Available at http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/
docs/12-13-05/Great_Lakes-St_Lawrence_Ri ver_Basin_Sustainable_Water_Resources Agreement.pdf

.

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission), 2008, Delaware River Ba sin Commission Water Resources Program, West Tr enton, NJ. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/

DRBC, 2007, Delaware River Basin Commission 2006/2007 Report , West Trenton, NJ.

Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/AnnualReport2006-07.pdf

.

DRBC, 2004 “Water Resources Plan for the De laware River Basin,” West Trenton, NJ.

Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/basinplan.htm

.52 EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2005a “F orm 767 Database for Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.

EIA, 2005b, “Form 767 Instructions,” U.S. Depart ment of Energy, Washington, DC. Available

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.

EIA, 2000, “Form 767 Database for Nuclear Po wer Plant Operation and Design,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.

EIA, prepared annually, Electric Power Annual , U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.

EIA, prepared annually, Annual Energy Review , U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

.

Elcock, D., 2008, Baseline and Projected Water Demand Da ta for Energy and Competing Water

Use Sectors , ANL/EVS/TM/08-8, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2008, “Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 - Producing Emergency Plans: A Guide for All-Hazard Operations Planning for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments (In terim),” National Preparedness Directorate, Washington, DC. Available at ( http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=45314

.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), 2003, Freshwater Supply — States’ Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages , Washington,

DC. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03514.pdf

.

GLC (Great Lakes Commission), 2007, “Great Lake s Commission Policy Positions,” Ann Arbor,

MI. Available at http://glc.org/policy/index.html

.

GLC, 1989, Draft Guide to Drought Planning, Manageme nt and Water Level Changes in the

Great Lakes , second draft, Great Lakes Commission Task Force on Drought Management and Great Lakes Water Levels, A nn Arbor, MI. Available at http://www.glc.org/policy/documents/ DroughtManagement-Nov1989.pdf

.

Idaho Department of Water Resources, 2001, Idaho Drought Plan , Boise, ID. Available at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/a bout/issues/Drought%20Plan.pdf

.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1994, Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan , Indianapolis,

IN. Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/watshplan.pdf

.53 ICPRB (Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin), 2007, 2006 Drought Exercise and Operations Guide , Rockville, MD. Available at http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/

.

ICPRB, 2000, Year 2000 Twenty-Year Water Demand Fo recast and Resource Availability Analysis for the Washington Metropolitan Area , Rockville, MD. Available at http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/ publicationspdf/ICPRB00- 6.pdf

.

ICPRB, 1988, Drought-Related Operations Manual fo r the Washington Me tropolitan Area Water Suppliers , attachment to the Water Supply Coor dination Agreement, dated July 22, 1982, and updated June 13, 1988, Rockville, MD.

ICPRB, 1982, “Water Supply Coordination Agreement,” Rockville, MD.

ICWP (Interstate Council on Water Policy), 2006, Interstate Water Solutions for the New

Millennium , Alexandria, VA. Executive Summary available at http://www.icwp.org/cms/ic/ InterstateReport_ExecSummFINAL.pdf

.

Maryland Statewide Water Conservation Advisory Committee, (2000), Drought Monitoring and Response Plan , Annapolis, MD. Available at http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/ drought/droughtreport.pdf

.

Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force, 2001, Working Draft Massachusetts Drought Management Plan , Boston, MA. Available at http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/wrc/ droughtplan.pdf

.

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency, 2007, Missouri State Hazard Mitigation Plan

, Jefferson City, MO. Available at http://sema.dps.mo.gov/State%20HMP%20- %20Enhanced.pdf

.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Missouri Drought Plan , Rolla, MO. Available

at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/WR69.pdf

.

Montana Department of Disaster and Emergency Services, 2006, State of Montana Disaster and Emergency Plan , Helena, MT. Available at http://dma.mt.gov/des/Library/SECP.ASP

.

Montana Advisory Committee on Drought, 1995, The Montana Drought Response Plan , Helena,

MT. Available at http://nris.state.mt.us/drought/committee/DroughtP.pdf

.

NDPC (National Drought Policy Commission), 2000, Preparing for Drought in the 21 st Century

, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/finalreport/accesstorepo rts.htm

.54 NRC (National Research Council), 2008, Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River

Basin , National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nap.edu/ catalog.php?record_id=12072 . Additional NRC reports dealing with competing uses for the Klamath River Basin may be found at http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/de.cgi?term=klamath &GO.x=31&GO.y=19

.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2009 , personal communication with Mr. Jeff King,

Jan. 8.

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, 2002, State of North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan, November 2002 , Raleigh, NC. Available at http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/ div/EM/documents/FinalEOP-Public-19May08.pdf

.

ORSANCO (Ohio River Water Sanitation Commission), 2008, personal communication with Mr. Jason Heath, Dec. 12.

Poch, L., G. Conzelmann, and T.D. Veselka, 2009, An Analysis of the Effects of Drought

Conditions on Western U.S. Electric Power Generation , Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

IL.

South Carolina Department of Natural Res ources, undated, “The South Carolina Drought Response Plan,” Columbia, SC. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/Drought/ drought_response_program.php

.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resour ces, DNR Chapter 121, undated. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sc o/D rought/drought_regulations.php

.

OEMA (Ohio Emergency Management Agency), 2003, “State of Ohio Emergency Operations Plan Drought Incident Annex,” Columbus, OH.

SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission) , 2008a, “2008 Water Resources Program,” Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/

.

SRBC, 2008b, email from Andrew Dehoff, SR BC, Harrisburg, PA, to Todd Kimmell, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Nov. 26.

SRBC, 2007a, “Managing the Susquehanna Basin’s Water Resources during Droughts,” information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/hydrologic/docs/Drought %20Management%20(5_07).PDF

.

SRBC, 2007b, “Susquehanna River Basin Commi ssion Regulation of Projects: 18 CFR Part 801.3,” Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/

.

SRBC, 2006, “Susquehanna Basin,” informati on sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/Susq% 20River%20Basin%20General%20(11_06).P DF

.55 SRBC, 2005a, “Cowanesque Reservoir Water Stor age Project: Storing Water for Low Flows,” information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/ COWANESQ.pdf

.

SRBC, 2005b, “Curwensville Lake Water Storag e Project: Storing Water for Low Flows,” information sheet, Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/docs/ CURWENSV_2.pdf

.

SRBC, 2002, “Policy No. 2003-01, Guidelines for Using and Determining Passby Flows and

Conservation Releases for Surface-Water and Ground-Water Withdrawals Approvals,” Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.srbc.net/po licies/docs/Policy%202003_01.pdf

.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), 2009, personal communication with Mr. Donald Dycus and Mr. Stephen Barnes, Feb. 3.

TVA, 2008, personal communi cation with Mr. Donald Dycus, Dec. 17.

TVA, 2007a, “Regional Approach Helps Deal with Drought,” Knoxville, TN. Available at http://www.tva.gov/river/ne ighbors/m ay07/regional.htm

.

TVA, 2007b, “Drought Manage ment Plan,” Knoxville, TN. Available at http://www.tva.gov/rrsc/readingroom4/ pdf/oct12_drought_m anagement_plan.pdf

.

TVA, 2004, Programmatic Environmental Impact St atement, Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoir Operations Study, Record of Decision , Knoxville, TN. Available at http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ros_eis/ros_rod.pdf

.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1998, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC.

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007, “Risi ng Temperatures Undermine Nuclear Power’s Promise,” Union of Concern Scientists backgrounder, Washington, DC, August 23. Available at http://www.nirs.org/climate/ background/ucsrisingtem ps82307.pdf

.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2003, Drought Assessment and Response Plan

, Drought Response Technical Advisory Comm ittee, Richmond, VA. Available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/waterresources/drought.php

.

Washington Department of Ecology, 2009, personal communication with Mr. Daniel Haller, Washington Department of Ecology Co lumbia River Program, Jan. 6.

Washington Administrative C ode 173-563, “Instream Resources Protection Program for the

Main Stem Columbia River in Wa shington State.” Available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/ default.aspx?cite=173-563

.56 WSMV Nashville, August 22, 2007, “Power Plants Affected by Drought, Temps,” Nashville,

TN. Available at http://www.wsmv.com/money/13952333/detail.html

.57 Other Organizations or Organization Websites Contacted

Colorado River Board of California (CRBC) http://www.crb.ca.gov/

Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) http://crc.nv.gov/index.asp

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association http://www.creda.org/

Colorado Water Conservation Board http://cwcb.state.co.us/Conservation/Dr oughtPlanning/DroughtMit igationP lanning/ DroughtMitigationPlanning.htm

Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC) http://www.gorgecommission.org/

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) http://www.eei.org/Pages/default.aspx

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?

Great Lakes Commission (GLC) http://www.glc.org/

Great Lakes Basin Compact (GLBC) http://www.glc.org/about/glbc.html

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/

Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) http://www.icwp.org/cms/

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality http://www.michigan.gov/deq/

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency http://sema.dps.mo.gov/58 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) http://www.nwcouncil.org/

Ohio Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) http://ema.ohio.gov/index.aspx

Ohio River Valley Water Sani tation Commission (ORSANCO) http://www.orsanco.org/

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) http://www.srbc.net/

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) http://www.tva.gov/

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, National Drought Mitigation Center http://www.drought.unl.edu/

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, U.S. Drought Monitor http://drought.unl.e du/DM/MONITOR.HTML

Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) No specific website identified

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region http://www.usbr.gov/lc/

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region http://www.usbr.gov/uc/

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Columb ia Basin Water Management Division http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) No specific website identified

Washington State Cons ervation Commission http://www.scc.wa.gov/

Western States Water Council (WSWC) http://www.westgov.org/wswc/A-1 

## Appendix A – Database of Power Plants and Cooling Water Intakes (Selected Fields)A-2 This page intentionally left blankA-3Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Charles R LowmanAL Alabama Electric Coop IncCoal 1.5 River10 200BarryAL Alabama Power CoCoal 0 Mobile River10 NAE C GastonAL Alabama Power CoCoal 0.1 Coosa River16 NAFarleyAL Alabama Power CoNuclear NA Chattahoochee River14 NAGadsdenAL Alabama Power CoCoal 0.7 Coosa River25 NAGorgasAL Alabama Power CoCoal 12.8 Warrior River14 3,300Greene CountyAL Alabama Power CoCoal 0.9 Black Warrior5 NAJames H Miller JrAL Alabama Power CoCoal 12.74 Mulberry Fork40 5Decatur Energy CenterAL Calpine Construction Fin Co LpGas NA Tennessee River10 NAH Allen Franklin Combined CycleAL GeorgiaPower CoGas 1.24 Chattahoochee River15 50E B Harris Electric Generating Plant ALSouthern Co Gas 38.1 Alabama River 30 NABrowns FerryAL Tennessee Valley Authority Nuclear NA WheelerReservoir 21 NAColbertAL Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Tennessee River14 NAWidows CreekAL Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Tennessee River10 1,120Carl BaileyAR Arkansas ElectricCoop CorpGas0 White River15 100Mcclellan ARArkansasElectric Coop CorpGas0 Ouachita River8 20AshdownAR Domtar Industries IncGas0 Millwater System15 900Cecil LynchAR Entergy ArkansasInc Gas0.03ArkansasRiver 2050Hamilton MosesAR Entergy Arkansas IncGas NA L'anquille River6 25IndependenceAR Entergy Arkansas IncCoal 10 River16 0Lake CatherineAR Entergy Arkansas IncGas0 Lake Catherine36 90Robert E RitchieAR Entergy ArkansasIncGas NA Mississippi River31 NAWhite BluffAR Entergy Arkansas IncCoal 10.4 Arkansas River30 125Arkansas OneAR Entergy OperationsInc Nuclear NA LakeDardanelle 14 NAFlint CreekAR Southwestern Electric PowerCo Coal 0.1 Flint Creek Reservoir20 NAKyreneAZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P DistGas NA Canal Well3 NANavajoAZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P DistCoal 10.9 Lake Powell220 NASouth Point Energy CenterAZ South Point Energy Center LLCGas 2.7 Colorado River8 15El CentroCA Imperial Irrigation DistrictGas 0.26 Dogwood Canal14 NAHaydenCO Public Service Co of ColoradoCoal 3.9 Yampa River8 2,640ValmontCO Public Service Co of ColoradoCoal 5.1 South Boulder Creek0 0A-4Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)CraigCO Tri-State G & T Assn IncCoal 6.6 Yampa River8 7,920NuclaCO Tri-State G & T Assn IncCoal 2.2 San Miguel River5 NAMiddletown CTNrgMiddletownOperations IncOil0 Connecticut River11 1PutnamFL Florida Power & Light CoGas0 St Johns River5 NASanfordFL Florida Power & Light CoOil0 St Johns River6 660Indiantown Cogeneration LpFL Indiantown Cogeneration LpGas 4.4 Taylor Creek6 NASuwannee RiverFL Progress Energy Florida IncOil0 Suwannee River9 NASeminoleFL Seminole Electric CoopIncCoal 13.5 St Johns River5 350BowenGA Georgia Power CoCoal 10.2 Etowah River15 NAHammondGA Georgia Power CoCoal 0 Coosa River12 0Harllee BranchGA Georgia PowerCo Coal0LakeSinclair 25NAHatch GAGeorgiaPowerCoNuclear NA Altamaha River18 NAJack McdonoughGA Georgia Power CoCoal 5 Chattahoochee River12 NAMcintoshGA Georgia Power CoCoal 0 Savannah River12 NAMitchellGA Georgia Power CoCoal 0 Flint River10 NASchererGA Georgia Power CoCoal 12.1 Lake Juliette26 130VogtleGA Georgia Power CoNuclear NA Savannah River0 NAGeorgia Pacific Cedar SpringsGA Georgia-Pacific CorpGas 29 Chattahoochee River 10 NADuane ArnoldIA Ies Utilities IncNuclear NA Cedar River6 NABurlingtonIA Interstate Power & LightCoCoal 8 Mississippi River13 NALansingIA Interstate Power & LightCoCoal 0 Mississippi River6 NAMilton L KappIA Interstate Power & Light CoGas0 Mississippi River6 NAPrairie CreekIA Interstate Power & Light CoGas0 Cedar River6 NAOttumwaIA Interstate Power And LightCoal 5.1 Des Moines River5 NACouncil BluffsIA Midamerican EnergyCoCoal 0 Missouri River16 NAGeorge Neal NorthIA Midamerican EnergyCoCoal 11.4 Missouri River12 NAGeorge Neal SouthIA Midamerican EnergyCoCoal 0 Missouri River12 NARiverside IAMidamericanEnergyCoCoal 0 Miss River9 NAMuscatine Plant #1IA Muscatine City OfCoal 0 Mississippi River13 40Potlatch Idaho Pulp PaperID Potlatch Forest Products CorpGas1 Clearwater River20 15CoffeenIL Ameren Energy Generating CoCoal 0 Mcdavid Branch10 NAA-5Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Hutsonville ILAmerenEnergyGenerating CoCoal 0 Wabash River14 NAMeredosiaIL Ameren Energy Generating CoCoal 0 Illinois River13 0NewtonIL Ameren Energy Generating CoCoal 0 Laws Creek, Sandy Creek17 NAE D EdwardsIL Ameren Energy ResourcesGenerating Coal 0 Illinois River12 NABraidwood ILCommonwealthEdisonCoNuclear NA Kankakee River10 NAByronIL Commonwealth Edison CoNuclear NA Rock River8 NADresden ILCommonwealthEdisonCoNuclear NA Kankakee River (I)10 NALasalleIL Commonwealth Edison CoNuclear NA Illinois River17 NAQuad CitiesIL Commonwealth Edison CoNuclear NA MississippiRiver 9 NAKincaid Generation LLCIL Dominion EnergyServices CoCoal0 Lake Sangchris32 0Baldwin Energy ComplexIL Dynegy Midwest Generation IncCoal 0 Kaskaskia River10 NAHavanaIL Dynegy Midwest Generation IncGas0 Illinois River10 NAHennepin Power StationIL Dynegy Midwest Generation IncGas 1.9 Illinois River10 NAVermilion ILDynegyMidwestGenerationInc Gas 3.1 VermilionReservoir 10 NAWood RiverIL Dynegy Midwest Generation IncGas0 Mississippi River12 NAJoppa SteamIL Electric Energy IncCoal 2.6 Ohio River0 175ClintonIL Illinois Power CoNuclear NA Clinton Lake25 NAKendall County Generation FacilityIL Ls Power Development LLCGas 0.7 Illinois River8 200CrawfordIL Midwest Generations Eme LLCCoal 0 Chicago Sanitary And Ship11 NAFisk StreetIL Midwest Generations Eme LLCCoal 0 Chicago River- South Bra6 NAJoliet 29IL Midwest Generations Eme LLCCoal 0 Desplaines River5 NAJoliet 9IL Midwest Generations Eme LLCCoal 0 Desplaines River5 NAPowerton ILMidwestGenerationsEmeLLCCoal 20 Illinois River10 NAWaukegan ILMidwestGenerationsEmeLLCCoal 0 Lake Michigan5 NAWill CountyIL Midwest Generations Eme LLCCoal 0 Chicago Sanitary And Ship17 NAMarionIL Southern Illinois Power CoopCoal 7.3 Lake Egypt25 NADallmanIL Springfield City OfCoal 6.7 Lake Springfield24 NAWarrickIN Alcoa Power Generating IncCoal 0 Ohio River33 NAFrank E RattsIN Hoosier Energy R E C IncCoal 0 White River16 NAMeromIN Hoosier Energy R E C IncCoal 0 Turtle Creek Reservoir8 NARockportIN Indiana Michigan Power CoCoal 0 Ohio River18 136A-6Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Tanners CreekIN Indiana Michigan Power CoCoal 0 Ohio River10 36Clifty CreekIN Indiana-Kentucky Electric CorpCoal 0 Ohio River11 270Aes PetersburgIN Indianapolis Power & Light CoCoal 0.7 White River5 NAEagle ValleyIN Indianapolis Power & Light CoCoal 0 West Fork of White River4 0Harding StreetIN Indianapolis Power & Light CoCoal 17.2 West Fork of White River10 600Burns Harbor PlantIN International Steel GroupGas0 Lake Michigan40 3,500BaillyIN Northern Indiana Pub Serv CoCoal 36.9 Lake Michigan20 1,500Dean H MitchellIN Northern Indiana PubServ CoCoal NA Lake Michigan10 NAMichigan CityIN Northern Indiana Pub Serv CoGas NA Lake Michigan8 NAR M SchahferIN Northern Indiana PubServ CoCoal 0 Kankakee River15 150CayugaIN Psi Energy IncCoal 0 Wabash River10 0EdwardsportIN Psi Energy IncCoal 0 West Fork White River9 0GibsonIN Psi Energy IncCoal 0 Wabash River9 0R GallagherIN Psi Energy IncCoal 0 Ohio River9 0Wabash RiverIN Psi EnergyInc Coal0WabashRiver 170A B BrownIN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co Coal 0 Ohio River20 30F B CulleyIN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co Coal 0 Ohio River27 NAState Line EnergyIN State Line Energy LLCCoal 0 Lake Michigan7 0Gary WorksIN United States Steel CorpGas 0.96 Lake Michigan7 NAKawKS Kansas City City OfCoal NA Kaw River10 10Nearman CreekKS Kansas City CityOfCoal 0 Missouri River19 NAQuindaro KSKansasCityCityOf Coal0MissouriRiver 1510La CygneKS Kansas City Power & Light CoCoal 0 La Cygne Reservoir8 NAJeffrey Energy CenterKS Westar EnergyCoal 32.1 Kansas River6 15Wolf Creek (Ks)KS Wolf Creek Nuc Oper CorpNuclear NA John Redmond Reser (M)14 NAEast BendKY Duke Energy KentuckyCoal 0 Ohio River36 48CooperKY East Kentucky Power Coop IncCoal 0 Cumberland River45 60DaleKY East Kentucky Power Coop IncCoal 0 Kentucky River5 NABig SandyKY Kentucky Power CoCoal 0 Big River Sandy5 NAE W BrownKY Kentucky Utilities CoCoal 2 Herrington Lake25 10GhentKY Kentucky Utilities CoCoal 19.4 Ohio River20 50A-7Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Green RiverKY Kentucky Utilities CoCoal 0 Green River13 12TyroneKY Kentucky Utilities CoCoal NA Kentucky River15 NACane RunKY Louisville Gas & Electric CoGas0 Ohio River4 NAMill CreekKY Louisville Gas & Electric CoGas0 Ohio River10 0Trimble CountyKY Louisville Gas & Electric CoCoal 14.8 Ohio River23 NAElmer SmithKY Owensboro City OfCoal 0 Ohio River50 100ParadiseKY Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Green River20 160ShawneeKY Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Ohio River15 NAD B WilsonKY Western Kentucky Energy CorpOil0 Green River9 NAHmp&L Station Two HendersonKY Western Kentucky Energy CorpCoal 17.7 Green River10 40Kenneth C ColemanKY Western Kentucky Energy CorpCoal 0 Ohio River9 NAR D GreenKY Western Kentucky Energy CorpCoal 5.4 Green River10 NAEvangeline Power StationLA Cleco Evangeline LLCGas0 Bayou Cocodrie9 NADolet HillsLA Cleco Power LLCCoal 794.05 Makeup Pond On Property0 0RodemacherLA Cleco Power LLCGas0 Rodemacher Lake10 0Willow GlenLA Entergy Gulf States IncGas0 Mississippi River12 339Little GypsyLA Entergy Louisiana IncGas0 Mississippi River10 0MonroeLA Entergy Louisiana IncGas NA Ouachita River20 20Nine Mile PointLA Entergy Louisiana IncGas0 Mississippi River15 0SterlingtonLA Entergy Louisiana IncGas0 Ouachita River15 0Waterford 1 & 2LA Entergy Louisiana IncGas 0.2 Mississippi River10 0River BendLA Gulf States UtilitiesNuclear NA Mississippi River20 NABig Cajun 2LA Louisiana Generating LLCCoal 8.9 Mississippi River10 1,000WaterfordLA Louisiana Power & LightNuclear NA Mississippi River10 NAOuachita Generating PlantLA Ouachita Operating Sevices LLC Gas 1.57 Quachita River11 195Arsenal HillLA Southwestern Electric Power CoGas 0.48 Arsenal Hill Cooling Pond17 NALieberman LASouthwesternElectricPower CoGas0 Caddo Lake10 NAWest SpringfieldMA Consolidated Edison E Ma IncOil0 Connecticut River9 NAMount TomMA Northeast Generation Services Co Coal 0 Connecticut River13 NAR Paul Smith Power StationMD Allegheny EnergySupply Co LLC Coal 0 Potomac River7 NADickerson MDMirantMid-AtlanticLLC Coal 0 Potomac River7 NAA-8Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)J H CampbellMI Consumers Energy CoCoal NA Lake Michigan35 NAPalisades (Mi)MI Consumers Power CoNuclear NA Lake Michigan0 NAMisterskyMI Detroit City OfGas 0.22 Detroit River6 NAFermiMI Detroit Edison CoNuclear NA Lake Erie12 NADc CookMI Indiana Michigan PowerCo Nuclear NA LakeMichigan 20 NAErickson StationMI Lansing City OfCoal 0.4 Grand River5 NANew Covert Generating FacilityMI New Covert Generating Company LLC Gas 9.48 Lake Michigan14 1,300Presque IsleMI Wisconsin ElectricPower CoCoal 0 Lake Superior20 1,200Clay BoswellMN Allete IncCoal 0 North Blackwater Lake13 NASyl LaskinMN Allete IncCoal 1.2 Colby Lake11 NATaconite Harbor Energy CenterMN Allete IncCoal 0.1 Lake Superior22 NASilver Bay PowerMN Cleveland Cliffs IncGas 4.9 Lake Superior30 NAFox LakeMN Interstate Power & Light CoGas0 Fox Lake8 NAAllen S KingMN Northern States Power CoCoal 1.3 Lake St. Croix6 NABlack DogMN Northern States Power CoCoal 0 Minnesota River8 NAHigh BridgeMN Northern States Power CoGas0 River4 NAMonticello (Mn)MN Northern States Power CoNuclear NA Mississippi River7 NAPrairie IslandMN Northern States Power CoNuclear NA Mississippi River17 NASherburne CountyMN Northern States Power CoCoal 24.7 Mississippi River6 NAHoot LakeMN Otter Tail Power CoOil0 Otter Tail River9 NALabadieMO Ameren UECoal 0 Missouri River25 30MeramecMO Ameren UECoal 0 Mississippi River22 60Rush IslandMO Ameren UECoal 0 Mississippi River32 30SiouxMO Ameren UECoal 0 Mississippi River20 1,750Lake RoadMO Aquila IncGas0 Missouri River9 0SibleyMO Aquila IncCoal 0 Missouri River15 NANew MadridMO Associated Electric CoopIncCoal 6.1 Mississippi River26 NAThomas HillMO Associated Electric Coop IncCoal 11.5 Thomas Hill Lake35 50HawthornMO Kansas City Power & LightCoCoal 0 Missouri River13 NALatanMO Kansas City Power & LightCoCoal 0 Missouri River15 NAMontroseMO Kansas City Power & LightCoCoal 0 Montrose Reservoir8 NAA-9Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)James River Power StationMO Springfield City OfGas 9.2 Lake Springfield14 NACallawayMO Union Electric CoNuclear NA Missouri River10 NABaxter WilsonMS Entergy Mississippi IncGas0 Mississippi River30 0DeltaMS Entergy Mississippi IncGas 0.7 Sunflower River8 10Gerald AndrusMS Entergy Mississippi IncGas NA Mississippi River20 NARex BrownMS Entergy Mississippi IncGas0 Cooling Pond10 10Grand GulfMS Entergy Operations IncNuclear NA Mississippi River95 NABatesville Generation FacilityMS Lsp Energy LtdPartnership Gas 1.63 LittleTallahtchieRiver 30 150Weyerhaeuser Columbus MsMS Weyerhaeuser CoCoal1.4Tennessee-TombigbeeWaterway28NAColstripMT Ppl Montana LLCCoal 15 Yellowstone River15 200Hardin Generator ProjectMT Rocky Mountain Power IncNA0 Bighorn River3 20Harris (Nc)NC Carolina Power & Light CoNuclear NA Harris Lake0 NABelews CreekNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 7.6 Belews Lake18 NABuckNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 0.5 Yadkin River/High Rock26 NACliffsideNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 0.4 Broad River4 NADan RiverNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 0.7 Dan River6 NAG G AllenNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 1.5 Lake Wylie16 NAMarshallNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 4.1 Lake Norman31 NAMcguireNC Duke Energy CorpNuclear NA Lake Norman45 NARiverbendNC Duke Energy CorpCoal 0.7 Catawba River18 NAAshevilleNC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 1.1 Lake Julian6 NACape FearNC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 0.6 Cape Fear River15 NALeeNC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 13 H F Lee Lake5 NAMayoNC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 24 Mayo Lake12 NARoxboroNC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 0 Lake Hyco10 NAAntelope ValleyND Basin Electric Power CoopCoal 6.5 Lake67 2,170Coal CreekND Great River EnergyCoal18.69MissouriRiver 4NAStantonND Great River EnergyCoal 0.1 Missouri River9 40R M HeskettND Mdu Resources Group IncCoal 0 Missouri River17 NAMilton R YoungND Minnkota Power Coop IncCoal 0 Nelson Lake20 0CoyoteND Otter Tail Power CoCoal 7.1 Missouri River10 NAA-10Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)CanadayNE Nebraska Public Power District Oil/Gas 0 Tri-County Supply Canal2 NAFort CalhounNE Omaha Public Power Dist Nuclear NA MissouriRiver 4 NANebraska CityNE Omaha Public Power DistrictCoal 0 Missouri River8 NANorth OmahaNE Omaha Public Power DistrictCoal 0 Missouri River8 2MerrimackNH Public Service Co OfNH Coal 0 Merrimack River7 NAChambers Cogeneration LpNJ Chambers Cogeneration LpCoal 4 Salem Canal4 60Oyster CreekNJ Gpu Nuclear CorpNuclear NA Forked River (I)14 NALogan Generating PlantNJ Logan Generating Co LpCoal 3.6 Delware River13 NAPseg Mercer Generating StationNJ Pseg Fossil LLCCoal 4.8 Delaware River15 NAFour CornersNM Arizona Public Service CoCoal 34.3 San Juan River5 NATracyNV Sierra Pacific Power CoGas 2.68 Truckee River10 NAAes CayugaNY Aes Cayuga LLCCoal 0.7 Cayuga Lake44 526Aes Greenidge LLCNY Aes Greenidge LLCCoal 0 Seneca Lake11 NAAes Somerset LLCNY Aes Somerset LLCCoal 0 Lake Ontario16 NADunkirk Generating StationNY Dunkirk Power LLCCoal 0 Lake Erie21 NADanskammer Generating StationNY Dynegy Northeast Gen IncCoal 0 Hudson River5 NARoseton Generating StationNY Dynegy Northeast Gen IncGas0 Hudson River29 254FitzpatrickNY New York Power Authority Nuclear NA LakeOntario 12 NAC R Huntley Generating StationNY Nrg Huntley Operations IncCoal 0 Niagara River10 NAOswego Harbor PowerNY Nrg Oswego Power Operations Inc Oil0 Lake Ontario20 850Pseg Albany Generating StationNY Pseg Power New York IncGas0 Hudson River24 NAGinnaNY Rochester Gas & Elec CorpNuclear NA LakeOntario15 NARochester 7NY Rochester Gas & Electric CorpCoal 0 Lake Ontario36 NARichard GorsuchOH American Mun Power-Ohio IncCoal 0 Ohio River12 NACardinal OHCardinalOperating CoCoal 13.5 Ohio River12 7Perry (Oh)OH ClevelandElec Illum CoNuclear NA Lake Erie18 NAAshtabula OHClevelandElectric Illum CoCoal 0 Lake Erie20 1,000EastlakeOH Cleveland Electric Illum CoCoal 33 Lake Erie20 NALake ShoreOH ClevelandElectric Illum CoCoal 0 Lake Erie20 500ConesvilleOH Columbus Southern Power CoCoal 0 Muskingum River11 NAPicwayOH Columbus Southern Power CoCoal 0 Scioto River7 NAA-11Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)J M StuartOH Dayton Power & Light CoCoal 3.5 Ohio River40 100Killen StationOH Dayton Power & Light CoCoal 12.5 Ohio River17 140O H HutchingsOH Dayton Power & Light CoGas0 Great Miami River4 175Hanging Rock Energy FacilityOH Duke Energy Hanging Rock LLC Gas 2.17 Ohio River16 91Miami FortOH Duke Energy KentuckyCoal 0 Ohio River22 NAW H ZimmerOH Duke Energy OhioCoal 0 Ohio River12 40Walter C BeckjordOH Duke Energy OhioCoal 0 Ohio River6 25HamiltonOH Hamilton City OfGas0 Miami River10 NAR E BurgerOH Ohio Edison CoCoal 0 Ohio River10 NAW H SammisOH Ohio Edison CoCoal 0 Ohio River21 NAGeneral James M GavinOH Ohio Power CoCoal 0 Ohio River10 NAMuskingum RiverOH Ohio Power CoCoal 0 Muskingum River15 NAKyger CreekOH Ohio Valley Electric CorpCoal 0 Ohio River13 180Avon LakeOH Orion Power Midwest LpCoal 0 Lake Erie20 NABay ShoreOH Toledo Edison CoCoal 0 Lake Erie14 NADavis BesseOH Toledo Edison CoNuclear NA Lake Erie11 NAAes Shady PointOK Aes Shady Point LLCCoal 4.32 Poteau River3 NAGrdaOK Grand River Dam AuthorityCoal 7.35 Grand River40 73Horseshoe LakeOK Oklahoma Gas & Electric CoGas 0.8 Cooling Pond4 NAMuskogeeOK Oklahoma Gas & ElectricCo Gas NA ArkansasRiver 30 10SoonerOK Oklahoma Gas & Electric CoCoal 15.3 Arkansas River3 NANortheasternOK Public Service Co ofOklahoma Gas 1.9 VerdigrisRiver40 NASouthwesternOK Public Service Coof OklahomaGas 0.7 Ft. Cobb4 8,000TulsaOK Public Service Co ofOklahoma Gas 1.42 Arkansas2 NAHugoOK Western Farmers Elec Coop IncCoal 5.2 Kiamichi River10 90BoardmanOR Portland General ElectricCoCoal 18 Columbia River23 NAPort WestwardOR Portland General Electric CoNA NA Columbia River16 NAAes Beaver Valley Partners Beaver Valley PAAes Beaver Valley Coal 0 Ohio River 6 NAArmstrong Power StationPA Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Coal 0 Allegheny River16 NAHatfields Ferry Power StationPA Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC Coal 6.5 Monongahela River14 NAMitchell Power StationPA Allegheny EnergySupply Co LLC Gas 12.6 Monongahela River15 NAA-12Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Fayette Energy FacilityPA Duke Energy Fayette LLCGas 0.4 Monongahela River14 97Beaver ValleyPA Duquesne Light CoNuclear NA Ohio River11 NACromby Generating StationPA Exelon Generation Co LLCCoal 0 Schuylkill River12 NAEddystone Generating StationPA Exelon Generation Co LLCCoal 0.6 Delaware River10 NASchuylkill Generating StationPA Exelon Generation Co LLCOil0 Schuylkill River18 NAThree Mile IslandPA Gpu Nuclear CorpNuclear NA Susquehanna River13 NAHomer City StationPA Midwest GenerationCoal 26 Two Lick Creek6 0Brunot IslandPA Orion Power Midwest LpGas 0.2 Ohio River6 NACheswick Power PlantPA Orion Power Midwest LpCoal 0 Allegheny River8 NAElrama Power PlantPA Orion Power Midwest LpCoal 3.7 Monongahela River8 NANew Castle PlantPA Orion Power Midwest LpCoal 0 Beaver River2 NAP H GlatfelterPA P H Glatfelter CoCoal 0 North Codorus4 100LimerickPA Peco Energy CoNuclear NA Schuylkill River (M)10 NAPeach BottomPA Peco Energy CoNuclear NA Susquehanna River0 NASusquehannaPA Pennsylvania Power & LtNuclear NA Susquehanna River4 NABruce MansfieldPA Pennsylvania Power CoCoal 22.3 Ohio River15 12Northampton Generating CompanyPA Pg&E NationalEnergy GroupCoal 1.7 Lehigh River5 NAPpl Brunner IslandPA Ppl CorpCoal 4.1 Susquehanna River15 0Ppl Martins CreekPA Ppl CorpCoal 0 Delaware River11 NAPpl MontourPA Ppl CorpCoal 14 Susquehanna River5 350SewardPA Reliant Energy IncCoal 5.7 Conemaugh River20 NAPortlandPA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PhCoal 2 Delaware River6 5ShawvillePA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PhCoal 0 Susquehanna River3 1,760TitusPA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PhCoal 2.1 Schuylkill River5 70Wps Energy Servs Sunbury GenPA Sunbury Generation LLCCoal 0 Susquehanna River7 NAColver Power ProjectPA Tifd Viii-W IncCoal 1.8 Vetera Reservoir25 90G F Weaton Power StationPA Zinc Corp of AmericaGas0 Ohio River12 NARobinsonSC Carolina Power & LightCo Nuclear NA LakeRobinson 40 NACatawbaSC Duke Energy CorpNuclear NA Lake Wylie29 NAOconeeSC Duke Energy CorpNuclear NA Lake Keowee36 NAW S LeeSC Duke Energy CorpCoal 1.1 Saluda River8 NAA-13Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)International Paper Eastover Facility SC International Paper Co-Eastovr Biomass 0 Wateree River 11 NAH B RobinsonSC Progress Energy Carolinas IncCoal 0 Lake Robinson40 15SummerSC South Carolina Elec & GasNuclear NA Monticello Reservoir 16 NACanadys SteamSC South Carolina Electric&Gas CoCoal 4.75 Edisto River10 NACopeSC South Carolina Electric&Gas CoCoal 5.5 South Fork/Edisto River6 NAMcmeekinSC South Carolina Electric&Gas CoCoal 0 Lake Murray185 NAUrquhartSC South Carolina Electric&Gas CoCoal 0 Savannah River9 NAWatereeSC South Carolina Electric&Gas CoCoal 0 Wateree River20 800Dolphus M GraingerSC South Carolina PubServ AuthCoal 0 Waccamaw River3 NAStone Container Florence MillSC Stone Container CorpOil0 Great Pee Dee River10 25Big StoneSD Otter Tail Power CoCoal 6 Big Stone Lake13 NATennessee Eastman OperationsTN Eastman Chemical Co-Tn OpsCoal 0 South Fork - Holston River9 NASequoyahTN Tennessee Valley AuthNuclear NA Chickamauga Reservoir 27 NAAllen Steam PlantTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Mississippi River16 NABull RunTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Clinch River25 NACumberlandTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Cumberland28 400GallatinTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Cumberland17 NAJohn SevierTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Holston River12 800JohnsonvilleTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Tennessee River12 4,000KingstonTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal 0 Emory River20 4,400Watts Bar FossilTN Tennessee Valley AuthorityCoal NA Tennessee River24 200Sandow StationTX Alcoa IncCoal NAAlcoa Lake Treatment System 15 NADecker CreekTX Austin City OfGas0 Lake Long10 NASand HillTX Austin City OfGas0 Lower Colorado River3 NAR W MillerTX Brazos Electric Power Coop IncGas1 Lake Palo Pinto30 0Brazos Valley Generating FacilityTX BrazosValley EnergyGas 4.1 Brazos River7 NADansbyTX Bryan City OfGas0 Lake27 28J K SpruceTX City Public Service of San Antonio Coal 13.1 Calaveras Lake21 NAJ T DeelyTX City Public Service of San Antonio Coal 9 Calaveras Lake Make-Up FR 10 NAO W SommersTX City Public Service of San Antonio Gas 1.2 Calaveras Lake; Make-Up Fr 10 NAV H BraunigTX City Public Service of San Antonio Gas 0.6 VH Braunig Laek; Make Up FR 6 NAA-14Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)HandleyTX Extex Laporte LPGas 4.7 Lake Arlington15 NAMountain CreekTX Extex Laporte LPGas 1.4 Mountian Creek Lake20 NARay OlingerTX Garland City OfGas NA Lake Lavon15 20Guadalupe Generating StationTX Guadalupe Power Partners LpGas 3.5 Lake Dunlap16 60Cottonwood Energy ProjectTX Intergen Oper Co (Cottonwood)Gas0 Sabine River1 50Fayette Power ProjectTX Lower Colorado River AuthorityCoal 0 Fpp Lake9 8Sim GideonTX Lower Colorado River AuthorityGas0 Colorado River/Lk Bastrop12 NAThomas C FergusonTX Lower Colorado River AuthorityGas 1.1 Lake LBJ25 NALimestone TXNrg Coal23.11LakeLimestone401,886W A ParishTX NrgGas0 Brazos River0 0Knox LeeTX Southwestern ElectricPowerCo Gas 0 LakeCherokee12 NAPirkeyTX Southwestern Electric Power CoGas8 Brandy Branch Reservoir25 NAWelshTX Southwestern Electric Power CoCoal 1.6 Swauano Creek Reservoir25 NAWilkesTX Southwestern Electric PowerCo Gas 0 JohnsonCreekReservoir 20 NAGibbons CreekTX Texas Municipal Power AgencyCoal 0 Gibbons Creek16 NAComanche PeakTX Texas Utilities Elec CoNuclear NA Squaw Creek Reservoir29 NAColeto CreekTX Topaz Power Group LLCCoal 2 Coleto Creek Reservoir5 NALa PalmaTX Topaz Power Group LLCGas 1.18 Resaca De Las Palmas10 NAVictoriaTX Topaz Power Group LLCGas NA Guadalupe River8 NABig BrownTX Txu Electric CoCoal0FairfieldLake 12NADecordova Steam Electric StationTX TxuElectric CoGas 0.3 Lake Granbury33 NAEagle MountainTX Txu Electric CoGas 0.2 Eagle Mountain Reservoir 30 190GrahamTX Txu Electric CoGas 186 Lake Graham15 NALake CreekTX Txu Electric CoGas 0.1 Lake Creek Lake10 NALake HubbardTX Txu Electric CoGas NA Lake Ray Hubbard 18 NAMartin LakeTX Txu ElectricCo Coal0MartinLake 32NAMonticelloTX Txu Electric CoCoal 0 Monticello Reservoir 10 NAMorgan CreekTX Txu Electric CoGas NA Lake Colorado City 15 NANorth LakeTX Txu ElectricCo GasNANorthLake 21NASandow No 4TX Txu ElectricCo CoalNALakeAlcoa 35NAStryker CreekTX Txu Electric CoGas 0 StrykerCreekReservoir 17 NAA-15Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)TradinghouseTX Txu Electric CoGas0.6 Tradinghouse Creek Reservoir 17 NATrinidadTX Txu Electric CoGas0TrinidadLake 17NAValleyTX Txu Electric CoGas0 Valley Lake15 NABonanzaUT Deseret Generation & Tran Coop Coal 10.6 Green River36 20Intermountain Power ProjectUT Los AngelesCity OfCoal 13.9 Dmad Reservoir20 NACarbon UTPacificorp Coal1.7PriceRiver13NAGadsby UTPacificorp Gas0.1JordanRiver6NAHunter UTPacificorp Coal8.4CottonwoodCreek14NAHuntington UTPacificorp Coal8.2HuntingtonCreek12NAClinch RiverVA Appalachian Power CoCoal 0 Clinch River5 5Glen LynVA Appalachian Power CoCoal 0NewRiver 10NABirchwood PowerVA Birchwood Power Partners LpCoal 3.3 Rappahannock River18 120Cogentrix Of RichmondVA Cogentrix Of Richmond IncCoal 3.9 James River30 6,300Mecklenburg Power StationVA Dps Mecklenburg LLCCoal 167.8 John H Kerr Reservoir34 100North AnnaVA Virginia Elec & Power CoNuclear NA Lake Anna27 NACloverVA Virginia Electric & Power CoCoal NA Roanoke River7 30Vermont YankeeVT Vermont Yankee NucPower Nuclear NA ConnecticutRiver 10 NATransalta Centralia GenerationWA Transalta Centralia Gen LLCNA 0.4 Skookumchuk River30 NAColumbiaWA Washington Pub Pwr SupplyNuclear NA Columbia River11 NAAlmaWI Dairyland Power CoopCoal 0 Mississippi River12 0GenoaWI Dairyland Power CoopCoal 0 Mississippi River11 NAJohn P MadgettWI Dairyland Power CoopCoal 0 Mississippi River12 NAGreen Bay West MillWI Fort James Operating CoGas 17 Lower Fox River12 NABlount StreetWI Madison Gas &Electric CoGas0 Lake Monona10 390ManitowocWI Manitowoc Public UtilitiesGas0 Lake Michigan27 NAPoint BeachWI Wisconsin Elec Power CoNuclear NA Lake Michigan10 NAElm Road Generating StationWI Wisconsin Electric Power CoNA NA Lake Michigan35 NAPleasant PrairieWI WisconsinElectric Power CoCoal 9.4 Lake Michigan11 1,750South Oak CreekWI Wisconsin ElectricPower CoCoal 0 Lake Michigan17 NAEdgewaterWI Wisconsin Power & Light CoCoal 0 Lake Michigan10 1,500Nelson DeweyWI Wisconsin Power & LightCoCoal 0 Mississippi River10 NAA-16Plant NameStateUtility NameFuelTypeAverageConsumption(cfs) CoolingWaterSourceIntakeDepthBelowSurface(ft)IntakeDistanceFromShore(ft)Rock RiverWI Wisconsin Power & Light CoGas 0.6 Rock River4 NAKewauneeWI Wisconsin Public Service Nuclear NA LakeMichigan 25 NAPulliamWI Wisconsin Public Service CorpCoal 0 Green Bay6 12WestonWI Wisconsin Public ServiceCorpCoal 0 Wisconsin River6 20John E AmosWV Appalachian PowerCo Coal 14.1KanawhaRiver 5 75Kanawha RiverWV Appalachian PowerCo Coal 0KanawhaRiver 15NAMountaineer WVAppalachianPowerCo Coal NAOhioRiver 19290Philip SpornWV Central Operating CoCoal 0 Ohio River24 28AlbrightWV Monongahela Power CoCoal NA Cheat River19 0Fort Martin Power StationWV Monongahela Power CoCoal 6.2 Monongahela River14 NAHarrison Power StationWV Monongahela PowerCoCoal 12.67 West Fork River10 NAPleasants Power StationWV Monongahela Power CoCoal 14.6 Ohio River10 NARivesvilleWV Monongahela Power CoCoal 0 Monongahela River20 0Willow IslandWV Monongahela Power CoGas0 Ohio River18 10KammerWV Ohio Power CoCoal 0 Ohio River19 256Ppg Natrium PlantWV Ppg Industries IncGas0 Ohio River30 NALaramie River StationWY Basin ElectricPower CoopCoal 8.3 Laramie River54 140Dave JohnstonWY PacificorpCoal 0.9 North Platte River7 NAJim BridgerWY PacificorpCoal 7.7 Green River8 NANaughtonWY PacificorpCoal 1.7 Hams Fork River5 NAB-1 

## Appendix B – Database of Power Plants Filtered Out (Selected Fields)B-2 This page intentionally left blankB-3 Plant Name State Utility Name Reason for Deletion from

Database

Union Power Station AR Union Power Partners LP No depth data in EIA-767

Hot Spring Power Project AR Hot Spring Power Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767

KGen Hot Spring Generating Facility AR Cinergy Solutions O&M LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Santan AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Not surface water

Desert Basin AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist No depth data in EIA-767

AES Alamitos LLC CA AES Alamitos LLC Salt/tidal water

Humboldt Bay CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co Salt/tidal water

Morro Bay Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water

Moss Landing Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water

AES Huntington Beach LLC CA AES Hunt ington Beach LLC Salt/tidal water

Encina CA Cabrillo Power I LLC Salt/tidal water

Haynes CA Los Angeles Ci ty of Salt/tidal water

AES Redondo Beach LLC CA AES Redondo Beach LLC Salt/tidal water

Diablo Canyon CA Pacific Gas & Elec Co Salt/tidal water

El Segundo Power CA El Segundo Power LLC Salt/tidal water

Mandalay CA Reliant Energy Mandalay LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Ormond Beach CA Reliant Energy Ormond Bch LLC Salt/tidal water

San Onofre CA Southern Calif Edison Co Salt/tidal water

Pittsburg Power CA Mirant Delta LLC Salt/tidal water

South Bay Power Plant CA Duke Energy North America LLC Salt/tidal water

Hunters Point CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co Salt/tidal water

Potrero Power CA Mirant Potrero LLC Salt/tidal water

Contra Costa CA Mirant Delta LLC Salt/tidal water

Scattergood CA Los Angeles City of Salt/tidal water

Comanche CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767

Arapahoe CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767

Cherokee CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767

Zuni CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767

Fort St Vrain CO Public Service Co of Colorado No depth data in EIA-767

Rocky Mountain Energy Center CO Rocky Mountain Energy Ctr LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Bridgeport Station CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Salt/tidal water

Devon Station CT NRG Devon Op erations Inc Salt/tidal water

NRG Norwalk Harbor CT NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations Salt/tidal water

New Haven Harbor CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Salt/tidal water

Millstone CT Northeast Nuc Energy Co Salt/tidal water

AES Thames CT AES Thames LLC Salt/tidal water

Montville Station CT NRG Montville Operations Inc Salt/tidal water

Benning DC Mirant Mid-Atlantic Serc LLC Salt/tidal water

Edge Moor DE Conectiv Energy Supply Inc Salt/tidal water

Delaware City Plant DE Motiva Enterprises LLC Salt/tidal water

Indian River Generating Station DE Indian River Operations Inc Salt/tidal water

Anclote FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water

St Lucie FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water

Cutler FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water

Turkey Point FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767

Crist FL Gulf Power Co Salt/tidal waterB-4 Plant Name State Utility Name Reason for Deletion from

Database

Crystal River FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water

Big Bend FL Tampa Electr ic Co Salt/tidal water

Cape Canaveral FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water

Henry D King FL Fort Pierce Utilities Auth Salt/tidal water

Indian River FL Reliant Energy Florida LLC Salt/tidal water

Vero Beach Municipal Power Plant FL Vero Beach City of Salt/tidal water

Port Everglades FL Florida Powe r & Light Co Salt/tidal water

Riviera FL Florida Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water

Manatee FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767

Lansing Smith FL Gulf Power Co Salt/tidal water

St Johns River Power Park FL JEA No depth data in EIA-767

Northside Generating Station FL JEA No depth data in EIA-767

Martin FL Florida Power & Light Co No depth data in EIA-767

P L Bartow FL Progress Energy Florida Inc Salt/tidal water

Blue Heron Energy Center FL Calpine Eastern Corp No depth data in EIA-767

Yates GA Georgia Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

McIntosh Combined Cycle Facility GA Savannah El ectric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Kraft GA Savannah Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal water

McManus GA Georgia Powe r Co Salt/tidal water

Augusta Energy Center GA Augusta Energy Center LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Longleaf Energy Station GA Longleaf Energy Associates, LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Honolulu HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water

Kahe HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water

Waiau HI Hawaiian Electric Co Inc Salt/tidal water

Duck Creek IL Ameren Energy Resources Generating Salt/tidal water

Holland Energy Facility IL Holland Energy LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Prairie State Generating Station IL Prairie State Generating Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Prairie State Generatng Station IL Prairie State Generating Co LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Indeck Elwood Energy Center IL Indeck-Elwood LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Whiting Clean Energy IN Whiting Clean Energy Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Estill County Energy Partners LLC KY Estill County Energy Partners LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Kentucky Mountain Power LLC KY Kentucky Mountain Power LLC No depth data in EIA-767

H L Spurlock KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc No depth data in EIA-767

J K Smith KY East Kentucky Power Coop Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Thoroughbred Generating Station KY Thoroughbred Generating Station Co No depth data in EIA-767

Perryville Power Station LA Perryville Energy Partners No depth data in EIA-767

Teche LA Cleco Power LLC Salt/tidal water

A B Paterson LA Entergy New Orleans Inc Salt/tidal water

Michoud LA Entergy New Orl eans Inc Salt/tidal water

R S Nelson LA Entergy Gulf States Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Salem Harbor MA U S Gen New England Inc Salt/tidal water

New Boston Generating Station MA Exelon Ne w England Holdings LLC Salt/tidal water

Pilgrim MA Boston Edison Co Salt/tidal water

Canal MA Mirant Canal LLC Salt/tidal water

Brayton Point MA Dominion Ener gy New England Salt/tidal water

Mystic Generating Station MA Boston Generating LLC Salt/tidal waterB-5 Plant Name State Utility Name Reason for Deletion from

Database

Cleary Flood MA Taunton City of Salt/tidal water

Somerset Station MA Somerset Power LLC Salt/tidal water

Calvert Cliffs MD Baltimore Ga s & Elec Co Salt/tidal water

Vienna Operations MD Vienna Operations Inc Salt/tidal water

Sparrows Point MD International Steel Group No depth data in EIA-767

Brandon Shores MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water

Herbert A Wagner MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water

Chalk Point LLC MD Mirant Mid- Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water

Morgantown Generating Plant MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water

C P Crane MD Constellation Power Source Gen Salt/tidal water

Rumford Cogeneration ME MeadWestvaco Corp No depth data in EIA-767

William F Wyman ME FPL Energy Wyman LLC Salt/tidal water

Somerset Plant ME S D Warren Co Salt/tidal water

Conners Creek MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

River Rouge MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

Eckert Station MI Lansing City of No depth data in EIA-767

Harbor Beach MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

B C Cobb MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767

J R Whiting MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767

Dan E Karn MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767

J C Weadock MI Consumers Energy Co No depth data in EIA-767

Marysville MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

St Clair MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

Belle River MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

Midland Cogeneration Venture MI Midland Cogener ation Venture No depth data in EIA-767

Trenton Channel MI Detroit Edison Co No depth data in EIA-767

Jack Watson MS Mississippi Power Co Salt/tidal water

Caledonia MS Caledonia Operating Serv ices LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Lone Oak Energy Center MS Calpine Construction No depth data in EIA-767

J E Corette Plant MT PPL Montana LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Brunswick (Nc) NC Carolina Power & Light Co Salt/tidal water

L V Sutton NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc No depth data in EIA-767

W H Weatherspoon NC Progress Energy Carolinas Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Leland Olds ND Basin Electric Powe r Coop No depth data in EIA-767

Gerald Gentleman NE Nebraska Public Power District No depth data in EIA-767

Seabrook NH North Atlantic Energy Salt/tidal water

Newington NH Public Service Co of NH Salt/tidal water

Schiller NH Public Service Co of NH Salt/tidal water

PSEG Sewaren Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water

Deepwater NJ Atlantic City Electric Co Salt/tidal water

Hope Creek NJ Public Service Elec & Gas Salt/tidal water

Salem (NJ) NJ Public Servic e Elec & Gas Salt/tidal water

B L England NJ Atlantic City Elec tric Co No depth data in EIA-767

PSEG Hudson Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water

PSEG Kearny Generating Station NJ PSEG Fossil LLC Salt/tidal water

San Juan NM Public Service Co of NM No depth data in EIA-767B-6 Plant Name State Utility Name Reason for Deletion from

Database

Reid Gardner NV Nevada Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

E F Barrett NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water

Astoria Generating Station NY Astori a Generating Co LP Salt/tidal water

Charles Poletti NY Power Authority of State of NY Salt/tidal water

East River NY Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Salt/tidal water

Ravenswood NY KeySpan-Ravenswood Inc Salt/tidal water

Glenwood NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water

Bowline Point NY Mirant Bowline LLC Salt/tidal water

Indian Point NY Consolidated Edison Co Salt/tidal water

Indian Point Three NY New York Power Authority Salt/tidal water

Lovett NY Mirant New York Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Northport NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water

Port Jefferson NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water

Arthur Kill Generating Station NY Arthur Kill Power LLC Salt/tidal water

Far Rockaway NY KeySpan Generation LLC Salt/tidal water

AES Westover NY AES Westover LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Niles OH Orion Power Midwest LP No depth data in EIA-767

AEP Waterford Facility OH Columbus Southern Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Muskogee Mill OK Fort James Operating Co No depth data in EIA-767

Mustang OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co No depth data in EIA-767

Coyote Springs 2 OR Avista Corporation No depth data in EIA-767

Conemaugh PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co No depth data in EIA-767

Keystone PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co No depth data in EIA-767

River Hill Power Company LLC PA River Hill Power Company, LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Williams SC South Carolina Genertg Co Inc Salt/tidal water

Cross SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth No depth data in EIA-767

Jefferies SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth No depth data in EIA-767

Winyah SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Salt/tidal water

Haywood Energy Center LLC TN Haywood Energy Center LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Lon C Hill TX Topaz Power Group LLC No depth data in EIA-767

Webster TX Texas Genco Salt/tidal water

South Texas TX Houston Lighting & Power Salt/tidal water

Corpus Christi Energy Center TX Corpus Christi Cogeneration LP Salt/tidal water

Eastman Cogeneration Facility TX Eastman Cogeneration LP No depth data in EIA-767

P H Robinson TX Texas Genco No depth data in EIA-767

Sam Bertron TX Texas Genco No depth data in EIA-767

Barney M Davis TX Topaz Power Group LLC Salt/tidal water

Lewis Creek TX Entergy Gulf States Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Deer Park Energy Center TX Deer Park Energy Center No depth data in EIA-767

Nueces Bay TX Topaz Powe r Group LLC Salt/tidal water

Laredo TX Topaz Power Group LLC Salt/tidal water

Sabine TX Entergy Gulf States Inc Salt/tidal water

Cedar Bayou TX Texas Genco Salt/tidal water

Arthur Von Rosenberg TX San Antonio Public Service Bd No depth data in EIA-767

Currant Creek UT PacifiCorp No depth data in EIA-767

Chesapeake VA Virginia Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal waterB-7 Plant Name State Utility Name Reason for Deletion from

Database

Bremo Bluff VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Chesterfield VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Surry VA Virginia Elec & Power Co Salt/tidal water

Possum Point VA Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Potomac River VA Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Salt/tidal water

Yorktown VA Virginia Electric & Power Co Salt/tidal water

Sumas Energy 2 Generation Fac WA Sumas Energy 2 Inc No depth data in EIA-767

Port Washington Generating Station WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co No depth data in EIA-767

Mt Storm WV Virginia Electric & Power Co No depth data in EIA-767