Re[2]: "POLLUTION FREE"

["GOLDIN, ERIC" <goldinem@songs.sce.com>]

Excuse me, but what about thermal pollution?  I don't know much about 
nuclear power, but aren't large amounts of water needed for cooling 
purposes with resulting elevation of temperature in the receiving 
waters?  Temperature changes can cause population changes in various 
organisms, from microbes on up.
     
     This isn't exactly related to radiation safety, but, yes thermal 
     "pollution" is a consideration with ALL steam plants.  Either the 
     ocean or a river or lake is the ultimate heat sink, or cooling 
     towers must discharge heat to the atmosphere.  I can speak about 
     coastal plants, which are tightly regulated for thermal 
     discharges.  Bottom line: no adverse affects from thermal 
     discharges.  Questionable/controversial affects from turbulance 
     associated with discharges that might cause increased turbidity, 
     hence reduced sunlight to the ocean floor and subsequent 
     reduction in kelp growth.  This was studied in extraordinary 
     detail (at a huge cost) for potential impacts on all manner of 
     sealife, population distributions, etc.  Discharges that I'm 
     familiar with are essentially immeasurable (temperature-wise) at 
     1000' from the discharge structure.  No more than 4 degrees F 
     difference at the ocean surface above the discharge structure.  

     But keep in mind, ALL steam plants, regardless of the fuel, will 
     discharge heat to the environment, either to air or water.  The 
     only distinction possible is the difference in thermal 
     efficiency, which is only a few percent for large plants.
     
     The opinions expressed may not be those of my employer. 
     Eric Goldin
     Southern California Edison
     goldinem@songs.sce.com