DRAFT
INTERAGENCY
316(a) TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL
AND
GUIDE FOR THERMAL EFFECTS SECTIONS
OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Enforcement
Permits Division
Industrial Permits Branch
Washington, D. C.
May 1, 1977
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
DRAFT
No. Figures Page
Decision Train Flow Chart ^ ^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 o Acknowledgements 1
2.0 Introduction 3
o
2.1 Background Information J
Q
2.2 Suggested Uses of this Technical Manual
3.0 Productive Demonstration 11
3.1 Introduction 11
3.2 Decision Train 11
3.3 Biotic Category Determinations and Recommended
Early Screening Procedures by Industry 18
3.4 How to Select the Most Appropriate Demonstration
Type 33
3.5 Type II Demonstrations (Representative Important
Species) 34
3.6 Type III Low Potential Impact Determinations 63
3.7 Other Type III Demonstrations (Biological,
Engineering, and Other Data) 64
3.8 Decision Criteria 65
3.9 Non-Predictive Demonstrations (Type I, Absence
of Prior Appreciable harm) 72
4.0 Definitions and Concepts 73
-------
- 1 1 -
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pag(
Sample Table to Summarize 41
Data for Each Representative
Important Species (RIS)
Thermal Effects Parameters 42
Applicable to Aquatic Organisms
Potentially Selected as RIS
Cooling Water Characteristics 5 3
-------
-1-
DRAFT
1.0 Acknowledgements
This manual represents the efforts of many who unselfishly con-
tributed their time and expertise. Originally, specific assignments
were delegated to working groups but, as time went by, individuals in
these working groups were asked to provide assistance in other areas.
Therefore, to simplify the acknowledgements, the following is a list
of those who at one time or another contributed to the development of
this manual:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allan Beck, Narragansett, Rhode Island
William Brungs, Duluth, Minnesota
Stephen Bugbee, Washington, B.C.
John Christian, Washington, B.C.
Jeffrey Goodman, Washington, B.C.
Belbert Hicks, Athens, Georgia
J. William Jordan, Washingt9n, B.C.
J. H. McCprmick, Buluth, Minnesota
Bonald Miller, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Bonald Mount, Buluth, Minnesota
Biane Olsson, Washington, B.C.
Mark Pisano, Washington, B.C.
Jan Prager, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Ronald Preston, Wheeling, West Virginia
Ronald Raschke, Athens, Georgia
Robert Schaffer, Washington, B.C.
Eric Schneider, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Lee Tabo, Jr., Athens, Georgia
Bruce Tichenor, Corvallis, Oregon
Howard Zar, Chicago, Illinois
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Harold Berkson, Bethesda, Maryland
Thomas Cain, Bethesda, Maryland
Phillip Cota, Bethesda, Maryland
Robert Geckler, Rockville, Maryland
Bennett Harless, Rockville, Maryland
Robert Jaske, Bethesda, Maryland
Michael Masnik Bethesda, Maryland
Robert Samworth, Bethesda, Maryland
-------
-2-
DRAFT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Boreman, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Thomas Edsall, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Phillip Goodyear, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Roy Irwin, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Glen Kinser, Washington, B.C.
Mark Maher, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Charles Cputant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Jack Mattice, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
Heyward Hamilton, Washington, B.C.
W.R. Taylor, Germantown, Maryland
Argonne National Laboratory
Rajendra Sharma, Argonne, Illinois
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Carlos Fetterolf, Jr., Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
-3-
DRAFT
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background Information
2.1.1 Brief History of the Evolution of this Document
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 92-500 [the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA)], the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) had regulatory authority pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to impose effluent limitations
on facilities requiring an AEC license or permit.
The FWPCA now requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish (for use in permits for the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States from point sources as defined in the FWPCA
such as nuclear power plants, etc.) effluent limitations for all pollutants.
The FWPCA provides that nothing under NEPA shall be deemed to authorize
any Federal agency to review any effluent limitation or other requirement
established pursuant to the FWPCA, or to impose, as a condition of any
license or permit, an effluent limitation other than any such limitation
established pursuant to FWPCA.
Pursuant to the authority of the FWPCA, EPA required applicants
for discharge permits to submit information required by EPA in order to
establish effluent limitations in permits. Pursuant to the authority of
NEPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may require applicants for
licenses or permits to submit information required by NRC in order to
evaluate and consider the environmental impacts of any actions it may
take. Consequently, the informational needs imposed by the two agencies
may be similar in the area of impacts on water quality or biota.
NEPA requires that all Federal agencies prepare detailed environ-
mental statements on proposed major Federal actions which can significantly
affect the quality of the human environment. A principal objective of
NEPA is to require the agency to consider, in its decision-making
process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major action and the
available alternative actions. Both EPA and NRC have responsibilities
pursuant to NEPA regarding the issuance of licenses or permits for
nuclear power plants and certain other facilities.
In late 1973, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) wrote to the Chairman of the then AEC and the Administrator
of EPA Suggesting steps that might be taken "to make the analysis of the
water quality impact of nuclear power plants more effective and more
meaningful and, at the same time, reduce demands for data being placed
upon applicants for licenses."
-------
-4-
DRAFT
In summary, CEQ suggested that AEC and EPA:
m explore mechanisms available to assure that applicants'
environmental reports to AEC contain sufficient data to
satisfy EPA requirements on water quality matters;
(2) consider the possibility of preparing a single impact
statement to meet AEC's requirements under NEPA and
EPA's requirements under FWPCA; and
(3) consider the possibility of unified hearings.
In response to CEQ's suggestions, AEC (subsequently NRC) and EPA
developed the Proposed Second Memorandum of Understanding regarding
their perspective responsibilities under NEPA FWPCA, which was
published in the Federal Register for public comment on November 7, 1974
(39 FR 39490), and in final on December 17, 1975 (40 FR 60115).
In summary, the Memorandum:
1. specified the statutory authority of both agencies for
entering into the Memorandum.
2. Defined those licensing and regulatory activities to which
the Memorandum shall be applicable.
3. specified that NRC and EPA will work together to identify
needed environmental information for early evaluations
related to impact from the identified activities on water
quality and biota.
4. Provided for EPA to exercise its best efforts to evaluate
impacts on water quality and biota as far as possible
in advance of the issuance of NRC's final environmental
impact statement for any covered activity, and specified
that EPA and NRC will maintain close working relationships
during the entire environmental review process.
5. Specified that EPA will issue to the applicant, where appro-
priate, in light of substantive requirements, a complete
section 402 permit as far as possible in advance of authoriza-
tion by the NRC of any commencement of construction or
issuance by NRC of a license or early site approval, whichever
is applicable.*
See 10 CRF Part 2, Appendix A, Paragraph I(c).
-------
6. Specified chat EPA and MRC vill consider che feasibiiicy
of holding combined or concurrent hearings oa EPA's
proposed section 402 permits and SRC's proposed issuance
of construction permit* or other activities where
appropriate.
7. Rescinded the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
loplementation of Certain Complementary Responsibilities
under the FWPCA and dated January 12, 19, and 22, 1973
(38 F* 2713).
As a first step cowards implementing che objectives of che
Memorandum, a series of aeetings between EPA and JfRC took place in late
November 1974.. At chese aeetings it was decided that one of the most
difficult tasks to b* done, and one which should be started first, was
to standardize aquatic biological data requirements to satisfy FWPCA
requirements for EPA and NEPA requirements for MRC. Technical expert*
representing' the two agencies in the field of aquatic biology held a
series of aeetings in December 1974, formulated aany tentative agree—
aents, and appointed a series of eight working groups. Each working
group was co-chaired by one representative from each agency.
On January 28—30, 1975, the- eighc working groups aet in Falls
Church, Virginia, to complete specific writing assignments contributing
to the development of a new guidance manual. Each working group submitted
draft summaries, of their work on che last day of che meeting and final
sianarlas by early March 1975.
The long process- of piecing1 the products of che eight working
groups together into on* cohesive technical aanual was slowed by key
personnel changes within the agencies and heavy schedules of other
individuals on che working groups. In spite of che maerous setbacks,
a December 11, 1975, draft was completed and reviewed by key working
group members during January 1976 in Athens, Georgia. At chis aeecing
it was indicated that several sections still needed revision and others
should be deleted, altogether. Areas of responsibility were assigned
to willing working group members and this edition of the aanual is che
result of these efforts.
-------
2.1.2 A. Shift of Emphasi*
In cha course of eh* development of ehis draft, ic beci
apparent to many working group members chat early screening procedures
by industry or chair consultants could somatiaas reveal choaa cypas
of information which would, aot ba necessary to gather la graat datall
ac some sites. If initial pilot fiald surveys and lltaratura survey*
ravaalad chat, tha site waa oua of low potantlal impact for phytoplankton
for example, it would ba unnacaaaary to conduce datallad studies co
give tha tttonomic identification of every rpaclaa of phytoplankton
in tha vicinity.
2.1.3 Public Availability of 316(a) Demonstrations
Ic la cha intention of EPA, co aaka tha- tacholcal indorsation
submitted by induatrlaa in accordance with 316(a) available for use
by othar induatrlaar scientists,, and nambars of cha public. This
will ba dona initially by placing copies of tha demonstration and
supporting document* into tha collection of cha raaponaibla EEA, Ragional
Of flea library. A. siallar approach U also suggaatad for Stata aganciaa.
In caaaa whara damand for cha daBooatration aatarlala azcaada tha capa-
bility of aa EPA. or Stata agancy library, cha EPA. Ragional Administrator
may alsa subvlc cha materials co tha- national Technical Information
Sarrlca (HTIS) so that cha reports ara avallabla to cha public in
aicrofiche or hard copy fora, ac cha prica of duplication. Tha EPA
ELagional librarian will ba able to provide detailed information regarding
input and. accasa co th* STIS
It iJ also noted thac cha Atomic Industrial Forum, Environmental
Scudiaa Project, ha* developed DJTORDM, a data system which will extract
information crom reports submitted by utilities in accordance vich
section* 316(a) and (b)« Quastion* should ba referred co cha Project at
1747 Pennsylvania Avanua, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone 202-433-9234.
Tha Saptember 30, 1974, draft of tha EPA. 316(a) Technical Guidance
*•««•i suggest* two possibilities for predictive demonstrations: Type II
demonstration* (with specific data, requirement* for Rapraaentative
Important Spades (113) and biotic communities) and Typa III demonstra-
tion*: (an alternative plan following written concurrences from EPA). The
SIC tmgulatory Guide 4.2*. on tha othar hand, gives general guidance and
include* mention of studying a wide spectrum of trophic level* which
mighe ba adversaly affected by tha power plane's operation*. The net
result of this combination of situation* is chat power companies have
often embarked, without tha benefit of appropriate screening or pilot
studies, on large-acala, expansive, Inappropriate studies which supply
aaaaiva amounts of raw data but ara aot necessarily helpful to regulatory
agencle* in decision-making.
* JflC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports Cor
Nuclear Pover Stations. July 1976, Revision 02: 102 p.
-------
-7-
Tha decision train suggested by chis manual encourages che
utility co conduce preliminary pilot or screening procedures co decarmine
how detailed the baseline bioclc containi t7 studies should be and co
initiate che appropriate selection of Type II, Type- III, or low potential
impact Typa- III demonstrations.
Tnis procedure, plus «n increased focus on comparing rationales
dcralopad by eha applicant with dacljlon criteria glvan in chls draft,
r«prt«anca a shift of avphaal* which will hopafully raault in studlaa,
daaonatratiooa, and anvlronamcal raports which aaka aora sanaa and ara
•aaiar to intarprtt.
In davaloping chis varsion of cha manual, an ••phaals haa
baan placad upon identifying: chos* cypaa of inforaation aoct ralaranc
for dacialon «^n T»y and for dalcting- data r*quiraaanc» which tiava baan
found to b* of llctla uaa in paat 316(a) daclaiona* 3y identifying such
information aaeda by water body type (river, eatuary, Lake, ocean) and
by defining: which araaa need leaa detailed studiaa, this version of the
«^«t"l attempts to discourage the collection, of maacaa of costly,
unnecessary data which aay actually confuse- the Lssua by diverting-
attention from more important information.
la ehl« regard, it is interesting to note the balance of general
ecoaysteat (baseliner field work.) data, versus the BIS (Laboratory and
literature search) data proposed by this version of the manual. Past
exparianca suggests chat neither baseline field surveys nor US laboratory
studies alona ware sufficient for predictive demonstrations; some
mixture of cha two is desirable. Ganaral ecosystem field work, is
necessary co characterize cha environment impacted, co have a basis of
comparison for post operational studies, and to counter possible arguments
that che entire ecosystem has not baan examined. Laboratory studies on
BIS ara helpful bacausa they offer increased predictive capabilities,
such as how much of the theroal plum* area will preclude reproduction or
migration.
-------
2.2 Suggested Uses of this
Technical Manual by:
2.2.1 The- U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency
Ibis version of th» guidance manual, after in-house review
within EPA, will replace the September 30, 1974, draft of che EPA
3 16 (a) Technical Guidance Manual. The aanual describe* che information
which should be developed and evaluated in connection with making
technical determinations under section 3 16 (a) of the Federal Vater
Pollution Control Act, a* amended., 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1326(4), and 40
CFR Parr 122.
Most of the "first round1' of tfTOES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permits for thermal discharges will have already
been issued, (or at least study plan* will have- been agreed upon by the
applicant and the Regional Administrator) , by the time, this edition of
the technical «mp"4t is issued. The determinations or study plans
finalized, to date have been aade on the basis of case-by-cas* technical
decisions made by the Regional Administrator. These earlier technical
decisions and study plans which were finalized with the approval of the
Regional Administrator or State Director will aoc be negated or otherwise
adversely affected by the issuance- of this newer version of the 316(a)
technical manual.
The- primary us* seen for this version of the technical aanual
will be- for new sources- and. for the "second round" of 316 (a) deter-
minations- which will come when the first round of permits expire.
The
-------
-9-
capability through the requirement that they continue to review
permits before they are issued.
Since- those States which have the permit program have
essentially the same- responsibilities as EPA, it follows that these.
States may find this technical ••""• 1 useful in the- same, manner that
the Regional Administrators of EPA. f fiad it useful. On the other
hand, just as the Regional Administrators are not rigidly bound by the
contents of this document, neither are the State Directors. It is suggest«d
that those. States which desire to administer their 316(a) program in
a way different from that which is proposed here, first discuss these
differences with the Regional Administrators so that common agreements
can be reached and applicants can be- assured that their 316(a) study
designs will b« acceptable to both the State and EPA.
The applicant should also be aware that in general one or more
State permit program, staff have been, designated as 316 coordinators.
It is suggested that applicants considering 316(a) demonstrations
contact these- individuals at an early date to discuss potential
problems and available data.
2.2.3 The. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tentatively plans
to incorporate- this 316(a) manual and the separate 316(b) manual with
futur* drafts of NRC Regulatory Guide- 4.2. The contents of these manuals
would form- the basis for aquatic ecology data, requirements. Just
how the- manuals will be- incorporated has not yet been decided, but
one- possibility discussed would be to include the 316(a) and 316(b)
manuals in their entirety as appendices to future editions of NRC
Regulatory Guide: 4.2. There has also been some discussion of using
parts of these manuals in future editions of NRC Regulatory Guide
4.7* and documents to b* generated by the NRC coordinated State/Federal
Siting Working Group.
2.1.A. The U.S. Tish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior
Th» Fish and Wildlife Service (TVS) is mandated by the Fish
and wildlife Coordination Act (46 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 O.S.C.
661, ec seq.), th* Eadaagered Species Act of 1973, and other asso-
ciated Acts, to coordinate review* with the. appropriate Federal
regulatory agencies on projects that will have impact on fish and
wildlife communities. These, guidelines will provide a basis for
coordination among FW5, EPA, NRC, and other agencies involved in
* NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for
Nuclear Power Stations. November 1975, Revision t2: 32 p.
-------
-10-
che 316(A) review process by representing a common understanding of
the decision criteria agreed upon which cb« 316(a) variance will be
based and, therefore, upon which che appropriate regulatory agency
should be. advised*
2.2.5 Other federal Agencies
Although in no way bound by this document, other Federal
agencies may find it useful as a source of information. For example,
che national Marine- Fisheries Service (XKFS) of the Department of
Commerce has similar concerns and responsibilities as che FWS in che
Federal regulatory review process. The NMFS was originally che
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries which, together with che Bureau of
Sport Fisheries ind Wildlife (now FWS), constituted che old Fish and
Wildlife Service in che Department of Interior (as referred to in the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). Reorganization Plan Ho. 4, which
transferred che Bureau of Connerlcial Fisheries to che- Department of
Commerce, also transferred all associated responsibilities. Principle
concerns of »CFS are marine- and anadromous fish, as well as inland
commercial fish, the FWS, by contrast, has a parallel responsibility
in the fisheries aspect, but has an additional responsibility for
aquatic waterfowl (both fresh water and marine) in the. 316(a.) review
process.
2.2.6 The- Electric Power Industry and Consulting: Organizations
For each individual site, applicants for 316(a) or 316(b)
determinations should discuss the- contents of this manual wich the
lead HPDES Permit Program Agency (either the EPA. Regional Administrator
or the State Director) to determine, the applicability of che manual's
recommendations to chat site* This document will serve as a starting
point for discussion* leading to a written concurrence between the applicant
and the Regional Administrator/Director on individual study plans which
will satisfy the requirements of both PL 92-300 and che aquatic ecology
sections) of NZPs>.
-------
-11-
3.0 PREDICTIVE DEMONSTRATIONS
DP AFT
3.1 Introduction UJX/VT 1
Predictive studies and associated demonstrations representing
the best estimate of "what will happen" are appropriate for 316(a)
demonstrations for:
1. New sources not yet discharging;
2. Facilities discharging into waters which, during
effluent for a sufficient period of time to allow
evaluation of the effects of the effluent;
3. Facilities discharging into waters which, during
the period of the applicant's prior thermal discharge,
were so despoiled as to preclude evaluation of the
effects of the thermal discharge on species of shell-
fish, fish and wildlife; and
4. Major changes in the facilities operational mode.
The two most detailed baseline aquatic ecology studies done for
NRC under NEPA are done two years before a nuclear plant becomes opera-
tional. All studies done for 316(a) demonstrations during this time frame
are therefore predictive in nature. The regulations (see 40 CFR Part 122)
published by EPA provided for two possible types of predictive 216(a)
demonstrations: Protection of Representative Important Species (Type II)
and Alternative Demonstrations, with the written concurrence of the
Regional Administrator or State Director (Type III). This section provides
explanations of these demonstration types, details the decision train and
decision flow chart, and recommends early screening procedures helpful in
choosing the most appropriate demonstration type.
3.2 Decision Train
This section provides a flow chart and narrative summary of the
recommended decision train.
3.2.1 Flowchart
The flow chart identified as Figure 1. is a summary of the
recommended sequence of events leading to the decision. The following
is an explanation of abbreviations and terms used in the flow chart:
-------
-12-
FIGURE 1. DECISION TRAIN FLOW CHART
asUtU
lllt«fatMl€
l»fo»a>atla« avall«a>|aj
ia !•
I) far aach alotlc
u^altMC or *ot CM •!*• I*
uf low pot*«tta|
1) A
Ur Mty
»r woik »*c*a
-------
-13-
Appllcant -• i industrial Raprasantatlva
Applying for EPA and MRC
Parolts and Llcansas
Director Director of cha Stata NPDES
Parole Program
FTSA. Far Fiald Study Area
RA • . Raglonal Administrator, SPA.
MS "' •' Rapraaantativa Important
Spaciaa
3.2.1 Dacision Train Harrativ*
Tha decision train (saquanea of avants laadiog co «. decision)
IIscad, tiara 1* dasignad a« ganaral guldanca for both tha applicant and
tha cafTilacorr afanclaa:
1. Bafora daaignlnf aqoaclc •coLofj scxidla>» cba applicant
consult* vleh cha Rafioual ktim-i n1 itracor/Dlractor* co
varlfy cha appllcabilicy of thl* cachnical manna I for
satisfying tharmal pluact affacts (316(a) and affluanc
guldallaaa) raquiramanta undar PL 92-500. If cha
Rational Adalnistrator/Diractor spaclflas an altarnatlva
or aodlfiad rarsiem of this aanual, cha applicant should
utiliza ic. If Cha Rational Adalnlstrator/Diractor
Jpaclfla* using this cachnical aanual as a gulda, cha
applicant goaa to th« aaocc scap.
2. Th* applicant rasds saction 3.3 of this aanual to
datarmlna what biological data raqulroMncs ara aacasaary
for aarly scraanlag dacatmlnaclons such as dafialng low
potential iapacc araas.
* SOTI; Thai Rational Administrator aakaa 316 (a) datarmlnatioaa for EPA
laauad permits* tAlla tha Stata Olractor aakaa such datarmlna-
doas for parmtta issuad by Statas with EPA, approvad parmlc
protravs. Such Stata paralts, hovrrar, ara subjact to EPA
rarlaw. It Is charafora suggestad chat in tha casa of 316(a)
dataralnatlons aada by a Stata Diractor, aithar tha Olractor or
tha applicant kaaps tha. Ragional Adsdnlstracor informad at
critical scapa in tha procass to croid tha possibility of
ultlaata dlsapproral by EPA of a Stata parvlt or dataralnatlon
which could hara baan avoidad by bactar covmunicatlon chroughouc
tha procass.
-------
-14-
3. Th* applicant contacts th* appropriate Regional Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, representatives of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and of the States, to
determine if there are any threatened or endangered species
that may be affected by the proposed facility's discharge.
4. Th* applicant gathers existing literature and field data
from previous studies by th* company, resource agencies,
academic institutions, and other researchers.
5. Th* applicant determines whether or aot enough information
is available to summarize in. writing:
a» For each biotic category, whether or aot the
site is on* of low potential impact.
b» A. plan for any additional studies or wort
necessary to complete the demonstration.
If aor* information is necessary, the information should
be gathered through relatively brief "pilot" field
surveys.
6. Applicant submits the summaries to the Regional Administra-
tor/Director..
7. If th* Regional Administrator/Director determine* thac
that sit* is on* of low potential impact for all biotic
categories, th* applicant may choose the new "short
form" demonstration type, th* Low Potential Impact Type
III demonstration detailed in section 3.6; if aot, the
applicant chooses between Type II and Type III demonstra-
tions.
8. Thos* applicants eligible for the low potential impact
demonstrations gather any additional information necessary,
complete relatively brief biotic category rationales, and
susmmrii* them into on* "master" ecosystem rationale.
If that proposed discharge will a**t State water quality
standards, th* additional field studies necessary will
not b* extensive. Th* primary information that needs to
be g*n*rated is simply that which is enough to satisfy
th* biotic category, resource zone, and master rationale
criteria in section 3.8. On* year's qualitative "pilot"
field studies should be enough to generate enough
information to complete th* biotic category, resource
son*, and master rationale. The applicant can then
complete physical studies comparable to those in
section 3.5.3 and proceed directly to step 19 below.
-------
-13-
10. Applicants whose sites do noc qualify for the above
considerations will ordinarily select ch« Typa II
demonstration or a Type III demonstration of siailar
comprehensiveness. Applicants selecting a type III
demonstration should carefully read section 3.7 in order
to gain a general understanding of the detail necessary
for studies to be considered acceptable.
11. Those applicants selecting a Type II demonstration first
meet with the Regional Administrator/Director to discuss
selection of RIS and define che far field study area..
If the regulatory agency has reached any tentative
decisions regarding an allowable mixing zone (see
section 3.3.3), these decisions should be discussed and
understood by both parries. These decisions may be
reviewed following completion of the demonstration.
If the regulatory agency and the applicant reach an
early agreement about the selection of RIS and the
designation of the far field study area, the applicant
nay move on to the next step. If aot, the regulatory
agency aay request that the applicant assist in the
selection of RIS by doing studies and giving written
justification for che proposed far field study area.
12. The- Regional Administrator/Director checks with the
Regional Director of the FWS and rtpresentatives of the
*US and States to make sum the study plan includes
appropriate consideration of threatened or endangered
speclea as well as other fish and wildlife resources.
L3. The Regional Administrator/Director provides the applicant
with written recognition of the specific plan for
completing the demonstration, including delineations of
the US far field study area, and threatened or endangered
species.
14. Applicant completes field and literature work required
to finish blotic category rationales and writes the
rationales in accordance with section 3.5.1.
L5. Applicant completes literature and laboratory studies
necessary to generate information for the RIS rationale,
and develops the rationale as suggested in section
3.5.2.
-------
-16-
16. Applicant develops engineering and hydrological data
outlined in section 3.5.3.
17. Applicant combine* Che information on engineering and
bydrological data with Che RIS and biotic category
rationale* into on* "Master" Ecosystem Rationale, aa
described in section 3.5.4.
18. Applicant arranges the rationales and other information
in Che format suggested in section 3.5.5.
19. Applicant submits demonstration to the Regional
Administrator/Director.
20. The Regional Administrator/Director:
Review* che demonstration co see chat '
-------
-17-
23. The Regional Administrator/Director studies the
RIS information eo see if it supports ch« conclusions
in the Representative Important Species Rationale.
If ic does, the rationale is studied in relationship
to the decision criteria given in section 3.3.2.
If Che decision criteria are met, the Regional
Administrator/Director will proceed to the next
seep.
24. The- Regional Administrator/Director studies as a
composite the biocic category rationales, the
Representative Important Species Rationale, the
resource zones impacted, and the engineering and
hydrological data to see if they provide justifica-
tion for the conclusions reached in the aastar
rationale. If they do and chere is not strong
contrary evidence from other sources, the Regional
Administrator/Director will proceed co the next
step,
IS. The Regional Administrator/Director studies the
aaster rationale in relationship to all other
available data, considers the overall decision
criteria in section 3.3.3, and determines if the
316 (a) demonstration has. been successfully oade.
Following discussions with technical experts on
his staff as well as those, from the Fish and
Wildlife Service and other agencies required by
lav to be- consulted, the Regional Administrator/
Director oalces the. final decision.
If the Regional Administrator/Director concludes
that the suemtary rationale is convincing, it is
supported sufficiently by the other sections of
the demonseracion, and is not convincingly
negated by outside evidence, the applicant's
316(a) demonstretion is successful. The applicant
has demonstrated that the proposed thermal discharge
to navigable nmters will be acceptable under
PL 92-500 (for section 316(a) and effluent
guidelines).
-------
-18-
3.3 Biotic Category Determinations and Recommended
Earlj Screening Procedures by Industry
It it recommended that applicants conduct pilot field surveys
and literature searches before embarking upon tussive, comprehensive,
baseline, field sapling-. These, initial studies, vill often be sufficient
to determine whether or noc the site is one of low potential lapact for
individual biotic categories and to determine what additional studies
vill be required to develop biotic category rationales responsive co
the decision criteria, listed, in this section..
The applicant should first read this section, chen execute the
initial piloc field surveys and literature searches in. such a manner
that they identify those biotic categories for which the site aay b*
considered a lov potential impact area.
It should b* noted, here that section 3.5.6.1 provides a
discussion of why the data, requirements proposed in this section are
useful to regulatory agencies in the 316(a) decision-making process.
Identification of taxa in the various biotia categories should
be to che species level for the HIS organisms and no less than family
level for all others that are listed.
3.3.1 Phytoplankton
3.3.1.1 Decision Criteria.
The phytoplankton section of che 316(a) demonstration will
be judged successful if the applicant can show that the site is a
low potential impact area for phytoplankton. For other sices, che
phytoplankton section of che 316(a) demonstration will be judged
successful only if che applicant can demonstrate that:
1. A shift toward* nuisance species of phytoplankton
la not likely to occur;
2. There is little likelihood chat the discharge will
alter che indigenous community from a decrical to
a phytoplankton baaed system; and
3. Appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous popula-
tion is not likely to occur as a result of phyto-
plankton community changes caused by the heated
discharge.
3.3.1.2 Low Potential lapact Areas for Phytoplankcon (Open Ocean and
Most Riverine Ecosystems).
Areas of low potential impact for phytoplankton are defined
as open ocean areas or systems in which phytoplankton is not che food
chain base. Ecosystems in which the food web is based on decrical
-------
-19-
material, e.g., embaymencs bordered by mangrove swamps, sale marshes,
fresh water swamps, and taosc rivers and scream*, are in this category.
The area will noc be considered one of lov potential impact
if preliminary literature review and/or abbreviated "pilot" field
studies reveal chat:
1. The- phytoplankcon contribute a substantial amount of
the- primary phocoaynchecic activity supporting che
cocBualcy;
2. A shift toward* nuisance specie* nay be encouraged;
or
3. Operation of the discharge may altar che communicy
fro0 a decrlcal co a phycoplankcon based system.
3 .3 .1.3 Study Requirements for Areas ttoe Classified as Low
Pocencial Iapace (Some Lacustrine. Escuarina. and
Possibly Oeher Mater Body Types).
The applicant is noc requested specifically co conduce
detailed caxonomic scudie* of che phycoplankcon, buc inforaacion pro-
vided in che demonstration should be adequate to characterize the
presence, and abundance of pollution toleranc and nuisance fora* as
well a* co provide baaeline information abouc the phycoplankcon
community a* a whole. The parcicular power plane sice and aquatic
system plu* historical information will dictate the extent of
caxonomic work required. In some situations only a few specie* or
major caxonomic groups (e.g., specie* comprising >5S of total) will
have to be identified and counced, where** in other situations che
idencification and counting of several species or najor groups nay
be required.
The- experimencal design should be appropriate to determine
the general characteristics of the phycoplankcon communicy within
che ancire primary scudy are*. Sampling outsida che primary study
are* should be- done ac location* mo*c appropriate to generate data
typical of che far field scudy area. Sample replication should be
adequace eo decermine precision of che daca collected and to
conduce appropriate scaciacical cases.
Samtple* should be- taken wlch appropriate gear a* described
in eh* EPA Biologic*! Mmcnoda Manual.* Plankcon nets are of limited
value since many organism* pas* through them. In certain case* where
* Biological Field and Uboracory Slechoda (EPA-67Q/4-73-001) .
-------
-20-
extensive stapling is deemed accessary, it aay be possible co use
an indirect chemical method co assess seasonal or spatial phyto—
plankton fluctuation*.
la «o*t case* th« study should determine th« standing
crop of phytoplankton at periods ranging fro* seasonal to bi-monchly
depending on th« available information. Ac a ainlaum, che data
collected should include:
1. The standing crop* of organisms per volume of
utter;
2. Identification of numerically dominant :aza
(i.e., SZ or aore by auaber) and nuisance
organism; and
3. Delineation of the euphotic zone, preferably
vita a submersible photometer.
3.3.2. Zooplankton and Maroplankton
3.3.2.1 Decision Criteria.
The rooplankton and aeroplankton section of the 315(a)
demonstration vill be judged successful if the applicant can show
chat the site is a low potential, impact area for cheser organisms,
or that:
1. Changes) in the rooplankton and aeroplankton
community in the priaary study area that nay
b« caused by the heated discharge will not
result in appreciable harm to the balanced
indigenous fish and shellfish population.
2. The- heated discharge Ls not likely co alter the
standing crop, relative abundance, vith respect
to natural population fluctuations in the far
field study area from chose values typical of
the receiving water body segment prior co plant
operation.
3. The thermal plume does not constitute a lethal
barrier to the free movement (drift) of zoo-
plankton and meroplankton.
3.3.2.2 Lov Potential Impact Areas for Zooplankton and Meroolankton.
Areas of lov potential impact for zooplankton and aeroplankcon
are defined as chose characterized by lov concentrations of commercially
important species, rare and endangered species, and/or chose forms chac are
-------
-21-
Important components of che food veb or where ch* cheraal discharge
vlll affect a relatively small proportioa of ch« receiving water
body.
Nose estuarlne area* vlll not be conaidered area* of Lov
pocencial lapact for tooplankton and aeroplankton. However, where
a logarithmic gradient of zooplankton and meroplankton abundance
•rises, choae area* ac Che lowest level of abundance may be recog-
nized a* low potential Impact areas ac the discretion of the
Regional Administrator.
If preliminary 316(a) studies indicate that the area is
on* of Lov potential Impact, no further 316(a) studies are accessary.
la this case the applicant need provide only a narrative discussion
Justifying tha conclusion char che area is one of low potential
impact.
3 .3 .2 .3 Study Requirements for Other Areas.
For those facilities not sited in low potential impact
areas, the applicant should describe the qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of the zooplankton and oeroplankton populations. The
data should include:
1. Standing crop estimate*;
Z. Relative abundance* of the taxa present;.
3. S«a*onal variation* in the abundance and distributions
of che various taza encountered; and
4-. The dial, and tidal change* in the depth distribution.
The experimental design should be appropriate to determine
the general characteristics of zooplankton and oaroplankton within
che entire, primary study area. Sampling in the far field study area
should be done in locations oost appropriate to generate data typical
of the remainder of the far field study area. The AU Sourcebook*
provide* information related to the choice of sampling methods.
Sample replication should be adequate to determine precision of che
data collected and to conduce appropriate statistical tests.
If the applicant believes on the basis of the data collected
that the zooplankton and neroplankton criteria can be net, the conceptual
framework upon which the conclusion is based and corresponding data
analysis «ust be included in the zooplankton and aeroplankton rationale
of the 316(a) demonstration. For a further discussion of information
requirements for aeroplankton, see section 3.3.4.3.
Atomic Industrial Fonsi, Sourcebook: "Environmental Impact Monitoring
of Xucltar Power Plants," August 1974.
-------
-22-
3.3.3 Habicac Formers
3.3.3.1 Decision Crietria.
The habitat foraers section of a 315(a) demonstration
will be Judged successful if the applicant can show chat che
sic* is a low potential iapacc arta 'or habicat foraers. For
ocher sites, the section will be Judged successful if the applicant
can demonstrate chac:
1, The heated discharge will noc result in any
deterioration of the habicac foraers community
or chac no appreciable harts co che balanced
indigenous populacion will resulc froa such
decerloraclons.
2. the heated discharge will noc have an adverse
iapacc on chreacened or endangered species as
a resulc of iapacc upon habicac foraers.
Any probable thermal elimination of habicac foraers from
che astuarlne or aarine environaencs or cheir contiguous wetlands
constitutes a basis for denial. Similarly, a basis for denial
exlscs if important fish, shellfish, or wildlife are cheraslly
excluded fro* che use of the habicac.
3 .3.3.Z Low Potential Impact Areas.
la soa* situations, the; aquatic envlroomenc at che pro-
posed sice- will be devoid of habicac foraers. This condition oay
be caused by low levels of nucriencs, inadequate lighc penetration,
sedimentation, scouring screasi velocities, substrate character, or
toxic natarlals. Under such conditions che site nay be considered
a low potential impact ares. However, if there is sone possibility
che limiting factors (especially man-caused limictag factors) aay
be relieved and habitat Corners aay be established wichin che area,
che- applicant will be required co denonscrace chac che heaced
discharge would noc restrict re-escablisheienc. Those sices where
Cher* is a possibility chac che power plane will impact a
threatened, or endangered species through adverse impacts on
habitat toners will noc be considered low potential iapacc areas.
3 «3 .3 .3 Study Requirements for Other Areas Hoc Classified as
Potential Impact.
For areas chac do noc qualify as low potential lapact
areas, the applicant should provide the following information:
1. Regional, sice location map and a scaled aerial
map shoving the distribution of habitat fonaers
in the region near the proposed site. The
-------
-23-
aerial sap should include the primary and far field
study areas. Wh«n available, aerial map* shovlag
historical changes in the distribution of habitat
formers should be provided.
2. List of dominant spaciaa of habitac forming macro—
phytes, macroalgae, shellfish, corals, and sponges.
3. Standing crop estimate* of the dominant species in
cernj of dry weight of organic natter per unit area.
These estimate* should be aade at a alainum frequency
of quarterly for on* year.
4. Identification of chose species of fish which are
dominant species or threatened or endangered species
and are dependent upon the existence of the habitat
formers for protection or for use as feeding areas.
For such species (which are aot considered elsewhere
in the. 316(a) demonstration) , the applicant should
provide quantitative abundance estimates.
The experimental design should be appropriate to
determine the. general characteristics of the habitat
former community within the entire primary study area.
Sampling outside the primary study area should be
dona in locations most appropriate to generate data
typical of the remainder of the far field study area.
Sample replication should be adequate co determine
the precision of the data generated and to conduct
appropriate statistical tests.
3.3.4 Shellfiah/Mecroinvertebratea
3.3.4.1 Decision Criteria.
The- shellfish/macroinvertebrates section of a 316(a) demon-
stration vill be judged successful if the applicant can demonstrate
that no appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous population will
occur as a result of macroinvertebrate community changes caused by
the heated discharge:. For areas classified as ones of low potential
Impact for shellfish/macroinvertebrates, relatively little new field
work may be required. Decision criteria related to individual para-
meters are discussed as follow*:
1. Standing. Crop. Reductions in the standing crop of
shellfish and macroinvertebratea may be cause for
denial of a 316(a) waiver unless the applicant can
show that such reductions caused no appreciable
harm to balanced indigenous populations within che
water body segment.
-------
-24-
2. Coammnity Structure. Reductions in the components of
diversity may b« cause for che denial of a 316(a)
waiver unless che applicant can shov chac che critical
functions (defined la section 3.3.3.) of the macro in-
vertebrate fauna are being maintained in the water
body segment aa they existed prior to the introduction
of heat.
Generally, with the present state of knowledge it Is
impossible to state what effect a certain percentage
of change in the components of diversity will have on
functional integrity of the system, specifically the
maintenance of a balanced indigenous population.
From a generic standpoint, a aajor difficulty relates
to the- fact chac the species richness of che aacro—
inverrebrate fauna varies considerably in different
systems and that the effects of a given level or
percentage of change sight be a function of che level
of diversity extant prior to the introduction of heac
stress.
From a decision standpoint, actual or predicted
reductions in diversity could serve primarily as an
indication that the system is or will be stressed.
Because of che- difficulty in predicting changes with
any degree of accuracy, this parameter could serve as
a decision tool only in cases where the actual changes
resulting from plant operation can be enumerated and
reasonably applied to che- proposed site.
3. Drift. The discharge of cooling water equal to 30Z or
more of the 7-day, 10-year low flow of a river or
stream would be cause for concern and possible
rejection of a 316(a) waiver unless che applicant can
show that:
1) Invertebrates do not serve as a aajor forage
for til* fisheries,
2) Food is not a factor limiting fish production
in the. water body segment, or
3) Drifting invertebrate fauna is not haraed by
passage through the thermal plume.
4. Critical Functions (Estuaries). Areas which serve as
spawning and nursery sites for important shellfish
and/or macroinvertabrate fauna are considered as zero
allowable impact areas and will be excluded from
-------
-25-
consideration for the discharge of wa.sc* heat. Planes
sited in locations which would impact ch«s« critical
functions will aot be eligible for a 316(a) waiver.
Hose estuarine sitas will fall into this category.
3.3.4.2 Low Potantial lapace Araas for Shellfish/Macroiavartabratas.
A. low potential lapace area, for shellfish/macroinvertebrate
fauna is defined as an area which, within cha primary and far fiald
study araas, can meet cha following requirements:
1. ShalLfish/macroinvertebrate spacias of axiscing or
poeaneial commercial value do aoc occur at cha sita.
Ibis requirement can be met if cha applicant can
show that cha occurranca of such spacias is
marginal.
2. Shallfish/aacroinvartabratas do aoc serve as important
components of tha aquatic community at cha sita.
3. Thraatanad or andangarad spacias of shallfish/macro—
invartabracas do not occur at tha sita.
4-. Tha standing crop of shallf ish/macroinvartabratas at
thai tiaa of maximum abundanca is lasa than ona gran
asb-fraa dry weight par squara meter*
5. Tha- sita doas aot sarva as a spawning or aursary araa
for tha spacias in 1, 2, or 3 abova.
3 .3 .4.3 Study Raquiraaants for Othar Araas.
L. Saaoling Dasign. Tha arpariaantal dasign should ba
appropriate to dataralna tha ganaral characteristics
of. the shellfish/macroiavartabrata coaomnity within
the entire prlaary study araa. Sampling outside the
pria^ry study area should be done in locations most
appropriate to generate data typical of the remainder
of the far field study area. Saaple replication and
collection frequency should be adequate to determine
the precision, of the data generated and to conduct
appropriate statistical tests.
At a iiin^Jitai, samples should be taken quarterly for
one year. Hoverer, the actual periods selected
should be keyed to known information on the seasonal
occurrence of Important forage species, rare and
endangered species, and species of commercial
importance. Sampling for these speciss must occur
-------
-26-
when vulnerable life 9cages are in the area. If,
because of ch« cransicory nature of such species
and ch«ir various lift stages, it is not possible
co include ch«m in a quarterly program or, if Cher*
is a complex of species whose timing in the area, is
unknown, then the frequency of sampling will have
co be. increased. For che beachic coapoaenc of the
shellf ish/aacroinvertebrates, community sampling
stations should be- selected for each major substrate
type wichin che primary study ares.. Similar stations
should be- selected in che far field study area so
chat che relative importance of che two regions may
be compared. Where appropriate» chese stations
should also be used Cor sampling che aocile portion
of the shellfish/macroinvertebrate community.
Sampling Methods. The applicant should use trawls,
crapping, or aetting techniques which are standard
for che types and life stages of shellf is h/aacro—
invertebrates found in che study arcs,.
I of grata c ion Requirements . The applicant should
qualitatively enumerate as thoroughly as possible
eh* species of shellfish/macroinvertebrate* in-
habiting che impact area and adjacent environments.
For commercial species, important forage- species,
and threatened or endangered species information
should be provided on their status in the area.
(permanent or transient)r seasonal timing of
presence (if applicable), and che life stages
present including aaroplankton. In addition, che
applicant should describe che importance of che
area for che critical functions of reproduction
and early development. In cases where che dis-
charge will potentially impact a highly productive
shellfish/macroinvercebrata fauna, the applicant
should provide quantitative estimates of che
shellfish/macroinvertebrace standing crop. Such
sites include estuaries, shallow nonflactuating
reservoirs, salmoald rivers, and open coastal
sites which hare characteristics similar co
estuarlne sites. However, the applicant should
recognize chat the level of effort is based on
che area impacted and that sampling of che
benthic component of che shellfisb/aacroinvertebrate
-------
-27-
fauna would be minimal in the case of a sice having
sufficient depth chat che plume does aoc reach the
bottom. Many deep fluctuating reservoirs, as typified
by some in che TVA system, have depauperate benthic
fauna and will require a ••<«<«•«• amount of description
information to document chose characteristics. In ch*
case of shallow aoa-fluccoating reservoirs typified
by Lakes Marlon and Moultrle in South Carolina, which
have an abundant and diverse benthic fauna, che appli-
cant should conduct detailed studies.
Other parameters which should be evaluated in the
study include:
A. Standing crop. The standing crop of the various
species should be estimated in terms of numbers
and biomass per square aeter for both the
primary and far field study areas. The biomass
estimate should be expressed as grams ash-free
dry weight per square neter.
B. Community structure. The community structure
should be evaluated in terms of:
1) the. number of species per sample,
Z) the- lumber of individuals for each species
in. each sample,
3) th* total number of species in che study
areas, and, when appropriate,
4) the age structure of the species in each
sample.
Although it may be impossible to collect all
species in the study areas, the applicant should
maker a conscious effort to augment che quantitative
sample data with qualitative sampling adequate to
obtain a reasonably complete list of taxa.
C. Drift. If a riverine sice is being examined, che
applicant must estimate the quantity and composi-
tion of the shellfish/macrolnvertebrate biota which
drift past and will be entrained into the thermal
plume. The. applicant should estimate the number and
biomass of drift organisms per linear aeter of river
cross section. Sample replication and collection
frequency should be adequate co determine che precision
of the data generated and to conduct appropriate
statistical tests. In addition, the applicant should
enumerate chose species which represent five percent
-------
-28-
or sore of the total number or biomass of organisms
comprising che drift, where appropriate, che
applicant may conduct in sieu drift studies at
an existing facility to determine whether the
common indigenous macroinvertebrates can survive
passage through the plume. These data may be
useful for projecting the effects of che plume at
the proposed site.
4. Data Presentation. The applicant should provide a
scaled substata map which includes the primary and
far field study areas. At least one map should be
provided which shows che anticipated outer limlcs of
che thermal plume to che Z C isotherm. In addition,
the applicant should provide maps shoving che isotherms
as they will exist along the bottom for che conditions
of maximum and •ninlnHim ambient water temperatures,
In the case- of estuariss, the applicant should provide
maps showing the relationship of the predicted plume
to spawning areas, nursery areas, and migration routes
for che various life stages of commercial species,
threatened or endangered species, forage species, and
species that are otherwise important to che functioning
of the system.
The applicant, should thoroughly summarize the data
using summary tables and graphics and report the raw
data in a separate bound appendix. The applicant should
then provide a narrative evaluation and interpretation
of the data which explains why, in che judgment of che
applicant, the impacts are sufficiently inconsequential
that "the protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
in and on the body of water will be assured."
3.3.5 Fish
3.3.3.1 Decision Criteria.
The fish section of a 316(a) demonstration will be judged
successful if the applicant can, demonstrate that the site qualifies as
a low potential Impact area for fish. For other sites, the fish
section of a 316(a) demonstration will be judged successful if the
applicant can prove that fish communities will not suffer appreciable
harm from:
-------
-29-
1. Diricc or Indirtcc mortality from cold shocks;
2. Diricc or indirect mortality from excess heat;
3. Reduced reproductive success or growth as a
result of plane discharge*;
4. Exclusion from unaccsptably larje areas; or
5. Blockage of migration.
3.3.5.2 Low Potantisl lapsct Ares.
A discharge may be determined to be in a. lov potential iapacc
area for fishes within the primary and far field study areas if che
folloving conditions are satisfied:
1. The occurrence of sport and commercial species of fish
is marginal;
2. The discharge site is aot a spawning or nursery area;
3. The thermal plume (bounded by the 2°C isotherm) will
not occupy a large portion of the zone of passage which
would block, or hinder fish migration under the most
conservative environmental conditions (based on 7-day,
10-vear low flow or water level and TM»-<«H» vater
temperature);
4, The plume configuration will aot cause fish to become
vulnerable to cold shock or have an adverse impact on
threatened or endangered species.
3.3.3 .3 Study Requirements for Areas Xot Classified as Lov Potential
>act.
1. Methodology and Frequency. Appropriate sampling methods
and gear will be used to provide a basis for identifying
the Representative Important Species (HIS) of fish and
their respective life stages in various habitats and
strata within the study area. Methods of fish sampling
such as trawling, gill netting, seining, horizontal and
vertical ichthyoplankton tows, etc., are acceptable.
However, sampling methods will vary from one type of
water body to another; therefore, a rationale for the
choice of gear must be developed for each sampling
program. Unless stringent requirements for specialized
gear is apparent, the adoption of standardized gear is
recommended to permit comparisons with other studies. At
-------
-30-
no cime during the study should new gear or sampling
methods b« introduced unless ic can be demonstrated
that the comparative efficiencies of ch« old and a«v
g«ar and aethods *ra similar. A change in sampling
procedure* can only b« implemented after written
approval by the Regional. Administrator/Director.
For find studies, experimental design should be
appropriate to determine the general characteristics
of all life stage* of fishes inhabiting the primary
and far field study areas. The data collected should
allow for a comparison of the relative importance of
these cwo areas vlth respect to species composition,
numbers of each type* growth, and reproduction.
Samples shall be taken at monthly intervals to provide
data representing seasonal and life stage habits except
during and immediately following periods of spawning
when a more Intensive sampling effort should be
provided.
la northern latitudes, the monthly sampling requirement
is subject to weather conditions and ic may be- necessary
to provide the described data requirements from the
literature and relate such information to expected
discharge areas in a defendable rationale. Also,
rationale* could be developed from combinations of
field data and Literature sources.
It should be recognized that distribution of the various
life stages) of fish is dependent upon many factors
including season, water movement, light intensity,
density gradients, and food sources, as an example,
during the appropriate season, night sampling will
yield a more accurate estimation of the ichthyoplankton
population because of their migration pattern during
the dlel cycle.
In meet cases, sample replication and frequency must
be determined for individual sites and be based on
field studies to provide valid population estimates
using appropriate statistical treatments.
2. Information Requirements. The studies conducted should
provide the required information which will be used for
purpose* described above. Some of the fish information
may be required separately for 316(b) studies. The
applicant should meet with the Regional Administrator
to determine which of the following information require-
ments should be developed to satisfy 316(a) requirements
at the site:
-------
-31-
Species L«vel: For the RIS, ch« following information
aay be required:
A. Reproduction. A discussion on spawning habits and
fecundity characteristics of the principal species.
B. Life stage habitat utilization. A discussion on
habitat utilized at the various life stages and
seasonal timing of presence in. Che habicac types.
Migration activity, if applicable to the designated
species, should be addressed.
C. Condition factors. Comparative condition information
for the principal species occurring ia the priaary aad
far field study areas.
D, Disease and parasitism. Occurrence of disease aad
parasitism in the indigenous populations and species
susceptibility vithin the framework of expected
thermal regimes should be- discussed.
Z, Age and growth. Trends in age and growth normally
expected, in the species should be discussed.
Community Level;
A. RIS and their general abundance. Spatial and
temporal distribution information on the RIS in the
primary and far field study areas will provide
information on which species will be aost vulnerable
to intaka and/or discharge effects.
B. Relative abundance of various species. This infor-
mation can be calculated from the sampling data.
The relative abundance of a species is the value
determined by dividing total amber of all fishes
collected Into the utsibar of that species caugnt.
1C is often reported as percentage of the total catch.
Relative abundance can fluctuate seasonally and
diurnally; however, it should not be significantly
different from year to year. Significant shifts in
relative abundance over a period of tiae are
indicative of changes within the fish community.
C. Principal association. By appropriate data analyses
it is possible to identify principal associations.
The principal associations are- the groups of species
which are represented in samples in a consistent
manner. Presence or absence of a species directly
-------
-32-
or indirectly depends on che presence or absence
of other species in che sample. Significant
impact on one species, therefore, can result in
change* in principal Association*.
D. Map requirement. The applicant should provide asps
depicting portions of the receiving water body used
by the indigenous fish communities for such activities
as spawning, nursery, feeding, aigration, resting,
etc. The applicant should discuss and show on che
aap the- proportion of the total area used chat will
be influenced by che cheraal discharge co ch* Z°C
isotherm.
3.3.6 Other 7«rtebrate Wildlife
3.3.6.1 Decision Criteria.
The section of the demonstration dealing with other verte-
brates will be judged successful if che applicant can show the site is
one of low potential impact for other vertebrates. For other sites,
the- section of the demonstration dealing with other wildlife will be
Judged successful if the applicant can demonstrate, that other wildlife
cotnunlty components will noc suffer appreciable nan or will actually
benefit from th* heated, discharge. The ten "other vertebrate wild-
life" includes wildlife which are vertebrates (i.e., ducks, geese,
manatees, etc.) but not fish.
3.3.6.2 Low Potential Impact Areas for Other Vertebrate Wildlife.
Hose sites in the United States will be considered ones of
lav potential Impact for other vertebrate wildlife simply because the
projected thermal pliae will oot lapact large or unique populations
of wildlife. The main exceptions will be sites in cold areas (such
as North Central United States) which would be predicted to attract
ge«s« and ducks, and encourage- them to stay through the winter. These
would noc be considered Low potential impact areas unless they could
demonstrate that che wildlife would be protected through a wildlife
management plan or other method* from the potential sources of hara
icloned in the. next section.
Other exceptions: to sites classified as low potential
Impact would be those few sites where the discharge night affect
important (or threatened and endangered) wildlife such as aanatees.
For nose other sites, brief site inspections and literature
reviews would supply enough information to enable the applicant to
write a brief rationale about why the aite could be considered one
of low potential impact for other vertebrates.
-------
-33-
3.3.6.3 Study Requirements for Och«r Areas.
The applicant should undertake whatever investigation
and planning steps are necessary co be able co writ* * rationale
explaining what factor* (or wildlife management plans) will ensure
that other wildlife will noc suffer appreciable hara from:
1. Excess heat or cold shock;
2. Increased disease and parasitism;
3- Reduced grovth or reproductive success;
4. Exclusion from unique or Large habitat area*; or
5. Interference vith migratory pattern*•
In the rationale, the applicant should discuss the relation
of the effluent to the habits and habitats of any threatened or
endangered specie* or organism* of commercial or recreational importance.
3-4 Sow to Select the Most Appropriate
Demonstration Type
The baaic recommended step* for the applicant's use in choosing the
aost appropriate demonstration type are summarized in section 3.2.2, the
decision train narrative.
After completing Che initial screening; procedures and making
a. preliminary assessment of the- amount of additional work needed in
each blotic category, the applicant select* the demonstration type ao»c
appropriate for the site. If the site i* one of low potential impact for
all biotic categories, the applicant may choose, the relatively streamlined
low potential impact Type III demonstration outlined in section 3.6. If
not, the applicant should propose study plans based on. the Type II
guidance in section 3.3 or the Type III guidance in section 3.7.
It Is recommended that the Type II demonstration be used a* a
guide- for the. amount of detail required in aost 316(a) demonstration*.
The actual amount of detail required for as individual location will vary
from site to site, but section 3.3 should serve a* a useful starting
point for dlscu*slon* between the applicant and Regional Administrator/
Director on what study plan* are most appropriate for a particular sice.
Applicants not eligible for a low potential impact Type III
demonstration and aot desiring to do a Type II demonstration nay elect co
do an alternate (Type III) demonstration.
-------
-34-
If the sit* is on* of lov potential Impact for ao*c biotic
categories but act all, studies l*s« d*tail*d than choc* recommended is
section 3.5 may b* appropriate. For example, if the sit* is on* of lov
potential iapect for all biotic categories except shellfish, th* Regional
Administrator/Director mighc conclude that few additional field studies
(except for shellfish) would b* required and that th* only RIS chat
should b* selected should b* shellfish. This demonstration would b*
less- detailed than other Type II demonstration* and could b* referred to
as a Type III demonstration.
3.2 Type II Demonstrations (Representative
Important Species)
Th* Type- II demonstration should b* designed in such a aannar to
fully develop the chree key biological components: completion of the
Biotic Category Rationales (begun, during eerly screening procedures),
development of RIS rationales, and synthesis of all information into a
master rationale. This section provides a discussion of the recommended
components of the demonstration, a proposed format, and a discussion of
why th* data requirements are necessary for making 316(a) decisions.
3.5.1 Development of Biotic Category Rationales
During1 early screening procedures of literature surveys and pilot
field investigations th* applicant will develop some of the information
needed to develop th* Biotic Category Rationales. If the decision is
made to do a Type II demonstration following these early screening
procedures, the applicant should review sections 3.3 and 3.8.1, this
section, and th* data available, to determine what additional field
studies, if any, will b* necessary to complete the Biotic Category
Rationales. In some cas*s, relatively little additional work will be
necessary. la cases where additional work is required, the applicant
should complete th* studies as suggested in section 3.3 and then write
th* summary Biotic Category Rationales.
Each Biotic Category Rationale should provide a complete dis-
cussion as to why, in th* judgment of th* applicant, th* impacts are
sufficiently inconsequential that the protection and propagation of
th* balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in
and on th* body of water will b* assured. In the rationale, the
applicant should address each decision criteria for th* biotic category
in question. Th* discussion should include an evaluation of the impacts
of th* discharges into th* receiving water body.
-------
-35-
Th« conclusions drawn should be supported with «n analysis of
the data collected during the 316(a) studies and/or by ch« inclusion
of supportive reports, documents and citations to the scientific litera-
ture. The conclusions should represent a logical extension of the
information available and be scientifically dependable. Where citations
are used that are not readily available in scientific journals (i.e.,.
interim reports, various type* of agency documents, annual reports,
theses, etc.), the documents themselves should be provided.
If the iapacc of the discharge is projected using a mathematical
aodel, the applicant should provide a complete documentation of the
aodel thac is used. The documentation should include a discussion of
the merits and disadvantages of the aodel. The applicant should also
provide sensitivity analyses of the model and a verification study. In
addition, the statistical reliability of the model's predictions should
be included along with a justification of the nethods used in the
statistical evaluation.
3.5.2. Development of Representative laportanc Species Rationale
The RIS Rationale should summarize why the results of the
laboratory and literature studies specified in section 3.5.2.Z suggest
that the RIS will not suffer appreciable harm as a result of the heated
discharge.
The asetimptions in the concept of RIS are:
1. Ic is not possible to study in great detail every species
ac a site; there is not enough tiae, aoney or expertise.
2. Since all species cannot be studied in detail, some
smeller number will have to be chosen.
3. The species of concern are those casually related to
power plane impacts.
4. Some species will be economically important in their own
right, e.g., commercial and sports fishes or nuisance
species, and thus "important."
5. Some species, termed "representative," will be particu-
larly vulnerable or sensitive to power plant impacts or
have sensitivities of most other species and, if
protected, will reasonably assure protection of other
species ae the site.
-------
-36-
6. Wide-ranging species at che extremes of ch«ir ranges would
generally aoc be considered acceptable aa "particularly
vulnerable" or "sensitive" reprasencacive species but chey
could be considered as "importanc."
7. Often, all organisms that might be considered "laporcanc"
or "representative" cannot be studied in detail, and a
fuller list (e.g., greater than 1 but less than IS) may
hare to be selected as the "representative and important"
list.
3. Often, but aoc always, the most useful list 'would include
mostly sensitive fish, shellfish, or other species of
direct use to man or for structure or functioning of :he
ecosystem.
9. Officially listed "threatened or endangered species" are
automatically "iaportanc."
3.5.2.1 Selection of the Representative Important Species and
Par Field Study Area.
As previously discussed in the decision train (section
3.2.2, Seep 11)» applicants first meet vlth che Regional Adminis-
trator/Director to discuss selection of che RIS and define che
far field study area.
The amber of RIS selected for a particular sice may be
high (5-L5) if che plans for biotic category field studies are aoc
comprehensive, or lav (2-5) if plans for additional field studies
are extensive.
Somm of che criteria for selection of RIS are found in
che definition of the cerm (see section 4.0, Definitions and
Concepts) . Keeping in mind these criteria and che assumptions
given above, the Regional Administrator/Director selects RIS from
any combination of che following biocic categories: fish, shellfish,
or habitat formers.
L. Species Selection Where Information is Adequate.
Where information pertinent to species selection
is adequate, the Regional Administrator/Director
should promptly select RIS. The applicant may
suggest species for his consideration and may, as
a part of its demonstration, challenge any selection.
Other considerations are as follows:
-------
-37-
Applicable State tfater Quality Standards. If the
State's approved water quality standards designate
particular species as requiring protection, these
species should be designated, but alone say not
be sufficient for purposes of a Type II demonstra-
tion.
Consultation with Director and with Secretaries of
Commerce and Interior. In the cases of species
selection by the Regional Administrator, he oust
seek the advice and recommendation of the Director
as to which species should be selected. The
Regional Administrator must consider any tiaely
advice and recommendations supplied by the Director
and should include such recommendations unless he
believes that substantial reasons exist for
departure.
The Secretary of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries
Service) and the Secretary of the Interior (Fish
and Wildlife Service), or their designees, and
other appropriate persons (e.g., university
biologists with relevant expertise) , should also
be consulted and their timely recommendations
should be considered. The Director should also
consult with the agency exercising administration
of the wildlife resources of the State (see section
3.2.2, Decision Train, Step 12).
Threatened or Endangered Species. Species selection
should specifically consider any present threatened
or endangered species, at whatever biotic category
or trophic level, except that ao information should
be requested that would require field sampling
prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, 16 O.S.C.
L331 et seq. (see section 3.2.2, Decision Train,
Step 12}.
Thermally Sensitive Species. The aost thermally
sensitive species (and species group) in the local
area should be identified and their iaportance
should be given special consideration, since such
species (or species groups) might be aost readily
eliminated from the community if effluent limita-
tions allowed existing water temperatures to be
altered. Consideration of the aost sensitive
species will best involve a total aquatic
community viewpoint.
-------
-38-
Raduced tolerance co elevated temperature 3*7
also b« predicted, for example in species which
experience natural population reduccioa during
che summer. Species having the greacesc northern
range and lease southward dlscribucion may also
possess reduced thermal tolerance.
B. Commercially or tteereationally Valuable Species.
Selection of commercially or recreationally
valuable species should be based on a considera-
tion of the benefits of assuring their protection.
F. Far-Field and Indirect Effects. Consideration
should include the entire water body segment. For
example, an upstream cold water source, should aot
be warmed to an extenc that would adversely
affect downstream biota. The impact of additive
or synergistlc effects of heat combined with
other existing thermal or other pollutants in the
receiving waters should also be considered.
G. Species Necessary (e.g., in the Food Chain or
Habitat Formers) for che Well-Being of Species
Determined Above. In addition to the above
considerations, it is suggested that che
Regional Administrator/Director ask himself the
following questions before selecting the RIS:
1) Is the potential problem with this species
credible (documented, a problem elsewhere,
a good prediction)?
2) Is the problem likely to be significant?
3) Which species occur at the location?
4) Which species is likely to be closely
involved with the source or damage?
5) Does the problem species rank as "important'"*
6) Does the list of problem species fall in che
range 3—13 or 2-5 (see text above)?
-------
-39-
7) Are the identified problem species "repre-
sentative"?
3) Should other species aot clearly a problem b«
included as representative or important?
2. Species Selection Where Information la Inadequate.
Wher* the available information is aac adequate
ca enable, eh* Regional Administrator/Director to
select appropriate RIS, he nay request the applicant
accepting co aalui a TTP* II d«aonstracioa co
conduce such studies and furnish such cvidcnct as
aay b* necessary to eoable such selection. Where
species selection is based on information supplied
by the applicant, the appropriateness of the species
as representative and imp ore ant is an aspecc of cne
applicant's burden of proof.
3.5.2.2 Laboratory and Literature Studies.
The laboratory and literature studies to be done for
each RIS should be restricted to those which are necessary to fill
out sisraary Tables A and B and to develop (on the basis of the.
data svsamaries in those, tables) the &IS Rationale. Mot all of the
data listed in Tables A and B may be appropriate for * particular
site or taza. If che applicant feels that some are inappropriate
and should b* deleted, it should be discussed vlth the. Regional
Administrator/ Director ac the saae cime other discussions about
the RIS are taking place.
Assumptions for Tables A and B
1, The tables are a*rely aids to organizing biological
data believed to be useful and Important for aaklng
decision* regarding theraal discharge effects.
2. The species cable should be workable for any important
or representative species selected, whether ic is
•elected as a species for protection or avoidance
(e.g., nuisance species).
3. All theraal characteristics do not apply in a
similar context to all taxonovlc groups (taxa),
requiring sotui special definitions or omission of
a characteristic for a particular caxon.
-------
-40-
4. There will be aontheroal influences (e.g., chemicals,
scouring), often occurring simultaneously vich
thermal influences, chat art aoc included in chis
cable buc which should be considered in cheir own.
right.
5. There nay a°c b» differences between adults and
Juveniles of *\l caxa, or there may be more than
mo distinct sensitivity cac«gori«s. Oistlncclj
dlffartnt lif« stag* r«quir«a«nts should b* listed.
6. Data can b* collected by che applicant for chose
thermal characteristics of che IIS chat have aoc jet
been determined but for which standardized aethods are
readily available.
7. For certain parameters chat are still in che research
or development stage, as opposed co standardized
cesclng (e.g., gaaetogenesis requirements or predatioo.
on cheraall7 stressed oeroplankton), all available
published data would be useful but it would aoc be
accessary to develop new data for chis category.
8. If more r**n one set of data- are available for any
category, the several sets should be presented
(and referenced) and che- rationale presented co aid
in selecting one set for decision-making at che
site in question.
9. Dates for gametogenesis and spawning Imply appro-
priate- seasonal tlaes which will vary from area.
to area and year to year even without che influence
of che power plant. The important point is whether
these events would be- seasonally precluded.
10. In fishes, optimum temperatures for growth and
some performance factors (e.g., maximum swimming
spe«d, greatest metabolic scope, final temperature
preferendua, etc.) have been shown to be coincident
for enough fishes that this coincidence is acceptable
as a generalization. Exceptions could be important,
however, and should be identified.
-------
SAMPLE TABLE TO SUMMARIZE DATA FOR EACH
REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS)
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
THERMAL
EFFECTS
PARAMETER
TEMPERATURE
LIMIT OR
RANCH CC)
SOURCE
REFERENCE (ir
APPROPRIATE)
MEAN AND MAXIMUM
AREA UNAVAILABLE
FOR FUNCTION (w2)
MEAN AND MAXIMUM
TIME UNAVAILABLE
FOR FUNCTION (DATS),
IS EFFECT, IF ANT, EXPECTED
TO AFFECT THE POPULATION OF
THE RIS? (TES OR NO)
That area or tine under average and worst caae conditions that will not perait the epecific biological fttnction to
occur aatisfactorily.
SUMMARY CONCLUSION OF EFFECT OF HEAT ON THE REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS):
-------
TABLE 3
THERMAL EFFECTS PARAMETERS APPLICABLE
TO AQUATIC ORGANISMS POTENTIALLY SELECTED AS RIS
PARAMETERS
POSSIBLE METHODS FOR
DETERMINATION
POTEHTTAL TAIA
RIS
1. High Temperature Survival
Aquatic Adult
Juvenile (Immature)
TLjg, 24 hours
TL5Q, 24 hours
2. Thermal Shock Tolerance
(Heat and Cold)
Aquatic Adult
Juvenile (Inmature)
Early Developmental Stages
(incl. neroplankton)
thermal gradient including
worst case T
single shock eo sisolate
plant shutdown
double shock (up and down)
in traversing plune
3
3. Optimum Temperature for
Performance and Growth
Non-breeding Adult
Juvenile
length, weight changes;
productivity; DMA/SNA Ratioj
length, weight changes;
DNA/RMA Rati02
4. yy^i«iff» Teaperature
Regiae Allowing Early
Development Co«pletion
long-cer« temperature
exposure throughout development
to Juvenile3
5. Kormal Spawning Dates
and Te«peraeures
aonths; range for spawning
6. Special Temperature
Requirements for
Reproduction
As available in the literature only.
Indicated by final preferendua for fish.
Only for species readily reared or held in the laboratory.
-------
Narrative for Table B — Thermal Effects Parameters Applicable to
lc 0 nanisms Selected As Representative Imoortant Soaciea
Thermal effects studies applicable to major tax* or broad biotic
categories are summarized in Table 8. Applicable thermal affects data
should be obtained for each US selected. Remarks on study and notaa of
application of the results to make 316(a) and (b) declsiona are indicated
here.
1. High temperature survival for juveniles and adults:
Mathod; Determine TL_Q (e.g., 43-hr. - ultimata incipient lethal
temperature) for juveniles and non-breeding adults. Acclimation
temperature should approximate the highest temperature at which the
fish can be held. Expoae in1ms1 to elevated temperatures in an acute
(instantaneous) manner.
Application of Results; The TL.. value can be uaed for estimation
of the upper non-lethal limit for the life-history stage in queation
(24-hr. TL_. minus 2 C). The TL.. value also can be used to
estimate tne upper temperature limit for appreciable growth (24-hr.-TL5Q
mlnus optimum growth time).
2. Thermal shock tolerance of selected life-history stages:
a) For juveniles and adults, simulate winter plant shutdown
stress of plum* entrained fishes and motile macro-cmatacea.
Method; Expoae organism* to acute temperature drops equal to the
range of expected discharge t's, using maximum winter plume
temperature aa the acclimation temperature. Indicate temperature teat
regimes which produce equilibrium loss of 50Z of the sample within 4
hours and mortality after 24 hours.
Application of Results: Identified winter plume vs. ambient
temperature conditions which could result in thermal shock in
the event of plane shutdown, and an ensuing high loas of
organisms due to markedly increased susceptibility to predation.
b) For meroplankton, simulate temperature shock upon traversing
a thermal plume.
Method; Expoae eggs, embryos, and larvae to acute temperature
elevations, followed by an acute drop in temperature at a
series of exposure times and temperature gradients reflecting
-------
-44-
pU»e resident times and temperatures. Ace1.1aatlon temperature
should equal natural seasonal ambient condition*. Mariana test
temperature should rang* up to the TLjQ level for adults.
Indicate time-temperature regiae leading to daath of 50Z of
the sample.
Application of Resultst Lathai tiae-temperatura stress regime
minua 2 C can be used to estimate temperature Limits of aonsal
pray aroidanca bahavior. Incraaaad. taaparatura ra«ulta in highar
pradation pr««aura.
3. Estiaation of optimtai taorearatura for growth:
a) Fish and oacroinvartabratai — dataralna rata of grovth
(langch or waighc incraaaa) whan naintainad at a sarias of
alavatad tanparaturaa and at otharvlaa naar-opclatin
anTlronaantal conditions, with food providad ad libitun.
b) Fish — determinations of final behavioral temperature
preferendua will closely correspond to the temperature
which is optimal for many physiological processes,
including growth.
c) Hacrophytes — determine temperature producing; maximum
net photosynthesis for at least a 24-hour period, using
an appropriate pbotoperlod.
application of Results; Optional temperature for growth can be
combined with ultimate incipient lethal temperature limit for
acceptable growth (see #1 above).
4. Minimus optimum and msTlaiai temperatures allowing completion of
early development. Note: Studies to be conducted only for RIS
which are capable of being readily reared in the laboratory.
Method: Maintain fertilized eggs under a series of elevated
temperature regiaas to determine minimum, optimum and maximum
conditions permitting greater than 801 survival to completion of
development of juvenile (i.e., post-larval metamorphosis; In
fish, eo the point of successful initiation of feeding). Note
that diurnally cyclic temperature regimes with a 3°C total range
can be more adaptive for enhanced thermal tolerance than is a
constant, non—cyclic temperature regime.
-------
-45-
5. Normal spawning dates and temperatures:
Method; Cite range of dates (by month) and threshold temperatures
reported to initiate and Inhibit gametogenesis and spawning, as
reported la the literature for areas cloaely related to the water
body segment in question.
Application of Results; To provide background information to
evaluate seasonally the relative Impact of thermal discharge on
timing of reproductive activities.
6. Special temperature requirement for reproduction:
Method; Information should be provided as available in previously
published studies. Examples of relevant "special requirements"
Include:
a) Minimum of 10 C muse be experienced before gametogenesis
can be Initiated In two boreal barnacles; and
b) Winter chill required for successful development In yellow
perch.
-------
-46-
3.5.3 Engineering and Hydrological Data for Type II Demonstration
This section describes the engineering and hydrologic information
which should normally be included in 316(a) demonstrations. It also
suggests formats for presentation of such information. The Regional
Administrator/Director may request additional information or excuse the
applicant from preparation of portions of this information as the situation
warrants* The engineering and hydrologic information to be submitted
should consist of all information reasonably necessary for the analysis.
Where information listed in this chapter is not relevent co the particular
case, it should be excused.
The. engineering and hydrologic information and data supplied in
support of a 316(a) demonstration should be accompanied by adequate
deacriptlve material concerning its source. Data from scientific litera-
ture, field work, laboratory experiments, analytical modeling, infrared
surveys and hydraulic modeling will all be acceptable, assuming adequate
scientific justification for their uae is presented.
In addition to the results obtained from analytical hydraulic
models the applicant should present, under separate cover, the model
which was used. The model should contain a rationale explaining why this
particular model was used and explanations of *?J modifications to the
original work.
3.5.3.1 Plant Operating Data.
1. Cooling water flow. Complete Table C (indicate units)
and provide a descriptive flow diagram.
2. Submit a time-temperature profile graph indicating
temperature on the vertical and horizontal scale. The
graph should Indicate status of water camperature from
ambient conditions through the cooling system, and
finally the discharge plume out to the loC isotherm.
Worse case, anticipated average conditions, and ideal
(e.g., minimum time/temperature impact) conditions
should be illustrated (preferably on the same graph)
consistent with representative plume* illustrated.
3. The amount of chlorine used daily, monthly and annually,
the frequency and duration of chlortnation and the
maximum total chlorine reaidual ac the point of discharge
obtained during any clorlnation cycle. The chlorine
demand of the receiving water body. For existing
plants, a time-concentration graph of total chlorine
residual at the point of discharge during a chlorlnatlon
event.
-------
-47-
4. A list of any other chemicals, additives or other
discharges (with schematic diagrams) which discharge
into the cooling water system including generic name,
amount: (including frequency and duration of application
and the <•*»•«•»•• concentration obtained prior to
dilution), chemical composition and the reason for
discharge.
5. A map of existing dissolved oxygen levels including
vertical profiles in the plume and discharge vicinity
in 0.3 mg/1 increments for both average and worst
case conditions. Where stratification or the presence
of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) discharges will
possibly lead to depression of oxygen levels as a
result, of the thermal discharge, the extent of the
effect should be estimated.
6. A map of other contaminants within the plume caused
by other discharges and natural sources for both
average and worst case conditions.
3.j»3.2 Hydrologic Information
1. flow: Provide information called for below as
applicable to the location of the intake and discharge.
A. Rivers: flow—monthly means and minima (rolling
mean, 7-day, 10-year low flows) for each
month.
B. Estuaries: fresh water input, tidal flow volumes,
nee tidal flux—monthly means and «1n1ms for
each—circulation patterns from typical tidal
cycles*
C. Reservoirs: flow through time, release schedules—
monthly means ftH minima.
0. Ocean*: tidal heights and information on flushing
characteristics.
2. Currents: Provide th» information called for below,
as applicable to the site:
A. Rivers: I"**"", •**»•«<•"• 1Qd aean current speed
giving dally, monthly or seasonal fluctuations
and variations across cross-sections as appropriate
to describe hydro-dynamics of ths primary
study area. Include speeds at mean annual flow
to 7-day, 10-year low flow.
-------
-48-
B. Estuaries: tidal and seasonal changes in current
speed and direction. (Vertical profiles of current
are needed where density currents occur.)
C. Large lakes and oceans: offshore prevailing currents,
near shore currents/eddies; local tidal and seasonal
changes in current speed and direction.
3. Tabulate or illustrate monthly and seasonal gradients
for both thermal and salinity induced stratification
at representative locations in the study area (consistent
with the complexity of che study area conditions) . If
intake and discharge conditions are identical then so
state and provide only one tabulation or illustration.
4. Tabulate or illustrate ambient cemperature of che receiving
waters, giving monthly means and monthly extremes for che
preceding 10 years as data availability permits. If
comparable site waters are used, indicate the basis and
limits of comparablity. In addition, for biologically
critical periods, weekly means and extremes, frequency
distributions and daily variation should be provided.
Temperature data upon which these values are based should,
if possible, be obtained at least once hourly.
5. Indicate intake and receiving waters depth contours at 1 aeter
intervals and any changes which may occur due to sediment
movements, construction, etc. Indicate bottom cype.
Provide other significant features (e.g., thermal bar) and
characteristics needed to evaluate the hydrodynamics
of the primary and far field study area. Information
on water body size, surface area, volume, mean depth and
maximum depth.
3.5 .3.3 Meteorological Data
If energy budget computations are included as part of che
316(a) demonstration, provide the following daily average meteoro-
logical data for the plant site, giving both monthly means and
seasonal extremes. Indicate units:
L. Wet bulb air temperature.
2. Dry bulb air temperature (verified to site conditions).
3. Wind speed and direction.
4. Long wave (atmospheric) radiation (may be calculated).
-------
-49-
5. Short v*ve (solar) radiation (may be calculated).
6. Cloud cov«r.
7. Evapotranapiration (may be calculated).
3 .3.3.4 Outfall Configuration and Operation.
Provide the following information on outfall configuration
and operation, indicating units:
1. Length of discharge pip* or canal
2* Area and dimensions of discharge port(s)
3. Number of discharge port(s)
4. Spacing (on cantars) of discharge ports
5. Depth (mean and extremes)
6. Angla of discharge as a function of:
A. horizontal axis
3. vertical axis
C. current directions
3.5.3.5 Plume Data Requirements.
The applicant will furnish estimates baaed upon model
predictions and/or field data at existing plants of the folloving
plume data:
1. Utilizing the load information in Table C, wind rose
data and tidal/current data, a plume roee or locus of
plisMS shell be provided for each calendar aonth.
The plisies snail be bounded by the 2 C above
aBbient isotherm. This shall be done for both surface
isotherms and bottom isotherms whan contact with
benthic areas is made.
2. Representative plumes of the maximum size and aost
frequently occurring plumes shall be detailed shoving
instantaneous isotherms at the 2°C intervals co
within 1 C of ambient for conditions of variations
in tide, wind and currant.
-------
-50-
3.
A. Rivers: Plumes for average and 7-day, 10-year
low flow* should be provided.
B. Lakes and Reservoirs: Plumes for summer conditions,
winter conditions and after spring and fall
overturns should also be provided. For flood
control reservoirs, plumes for various water
levels should be provided.
For isotherm plots required in number 2 above,
vertical temperature profiles along the plume centerline
•»°r
extending to the bottom of the water body at
intervals to within 1°C of ambient.
3.5.6.2 Engineering and Hydrologieal Data.
The information required in this section, for the aost
part, consists of parameters which are necessary input to analytical
or physical predictive hydraulic or energy budget model*. More
information may be provided by the applicant for his particular
demonstration, but this example represents the degree of detail
which will be necessary in aost cases.
The following corresponds directly with the respective
paragraphs in section 3.6:
1. Plant Operating Data. Table C - The data required in
Table C are necessary because they are required for
predictive modeling. These numerical data also allow
the reviewer to observe water usage.
Time-Temperature Profile - The predicted tlae-temperature
profile should be included because it Illustrates
what a typical non-motile particle would be subject
to when entrapped and/or entrained in the cooling
wmter system. Certain biological effects could be
estimated with this type of input but the reviewer is
cautioned not to assume this to be totally representative
of stresses encountered on entrapped and/or entrained
organisms. This path is an idealized streamline
which, in all probability, would not occur due to
turbulence of cooling water flow.
Chlorine - Chlorine is a toxic element and if it is
to be used by the discharger to control the growth of
flora and fauna in the cooling water system, its
usage should be projected. In most power plants
chlorine la injected to the cooling water system for
-------
-51-
pariods ranging froa L5 ainucas to cvo hours p«r
applicacion. Tha auabar of applications is sic*
specific but usually cocals lass Chan cvo hours cocal
par day. Idaally, only axact aaouncs of chlorina ara
introducad so chac ic raaccs antiraly, laaviag oo
activa raaidual ac cha discharga. la pracciea chij is
difficult to achiara, and soaa chlorina coapounda ara
dlschargad. Cblorina raaccs vich disaolvad organic
aattar in tha cooling vacar to font various chlorinacad
organics which may ba harmful co cha balancad indiganoua
coaaunicy. Ic is charafora nacasaary co projacc cha
uaaga of chlorina and cooaidar cha rasulcs of ics
incaraccion vicb cha charmal coaponaac of cha discharga.
Tharmal Infraction - Saccion 316(a) spacifias chac
cha charmal cotiponanc of cha discharga ausc ba avaluacad
"... caking into account cha incaraccion of such
charaal componancs vich ochar pollutants...". Uhila
data on such synargiscic affaces ara lialcad, cartain
inforaacion will aaaisc cha Ragiooal Adainiacracor/
Oiraccor in aaaasaing pocancial haraful incaraccions.
Otfaar Chaaieals - Tha addition of haac may incraaaa
cha affact of ochar chamicals in cha wacar body.
Chaaical inforaacion is naadad co avaluaca poaaibla
affacca of this kind and co proparly intarprac biological
daca for charaal affacca alona.
Hydrological Inforaacion. This ancira saccion daals
vich conditions of tha racaiving watar. This inforaacion
should ba raquirad bacauaa ic is basic siting information,
•odaling inpuc data and nacaaaary for propar incarpracacion
of biological data.
Mataorological Data. This inforaacion should ba
includad vhara anargy budgat coaputaclona ara aada as
part of cha 316(a) daaonscracion. Ic is not incandad
that all dsauraatracions includa this data. Whan in
doubt tha applicant should discuss chis vich cba
Sagional Adalnlstrator/Piractor.
Outfall Configuration and Oparacion. Thasa aiaaarical
data daacribing tha gaoaacry and oriancaclon of cha
outfall ara aacaaaary input for all pradicciva pliaa
aodala.
-------
-52-
5. Plume Data Requirements. This data is the result of
the modeling effort. While the results may be presented
in many formats, these suggested plume configurations
yield a graphic portrayal of where the heat is going.
These maps are necessary for aaklag qualitative and
quantitative- assessaents of biological changes.
3.5.4 Synthesis of All Information Into "Master" Ecosystem Rationale
The Master Rationales of the deaonstratlon should summarize the
key findings in a concise manner and should fora a convincing argument
that the balanced, indigenous community will be protected. The rationale
should include a summary of an "overall picture" of the ecosystem as
projected by the six Biotlc Category Rationales, the resource zones
impacted, and a summary of why the information in the rationales, along
with the predictions in the RIS Rationale, the engineering and hydrologlcal
data, and other .key facts, suggest that the balanced indigenous community
will be protected.
3.5.5 Suggested Format for Type II Demonstration
CITTAHPLE) TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction (Brief)
II. Master Rationale for Demonstration (see Section 3.5.4 for
Content)
III. Representative Important Species Rationale (Section 3.5.2)
IV. Biotic Category Rationales (Section 3.5.1)
A. Phytoplankton
1. Decision Criteria
2* Rationale
B. Zooplankton
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
C. Habitat Formers
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
-------
COOUNG WATRR CHARACTERISTICS
% Capacity
40Z & Less
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
2 Tim* at
Fractional
Lnitd
Intake Velocity
. 1
Channel | „
Ent ranee j ;>rr
-------
-54-
D. Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
£. Fish
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
F. Other Vertebrate Wildlife
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
7. Brief Suaaary of Engineering and Hydrologic*! Data and Why
Che Data are Supportive of cbe Predictions in the Above
Rational**
VI. Demonstration Appendices
A. Infomation Supporting Master Rationale
B. Information Supporting Representative Important Species
Rationale
C. Information Supporting Biotic Category Rationales
D. Engineering and Bydrological Information
1. Baseline Data (see Section 4.1}
2. Discussion of Relationship of the Physical Data
to the Suemary Rationales and Choice of Models
or Other Predictive Methods
E. Supportive Reports, Documents, and Rav Data Hot From
the Open Scientific Literature
-------
-55-
3.5.6 Discussion of Why che Required Data are Necessary for Making
316(*) Determinations
3.5.6.1 Biological D«t>.
1. Phytoplankton. The organism* of the phytoplankton
eessusicy are « principal food soure* far seat
zooplankton and for some fish species. They may
also become important In relation to industrial
or recreational water use If blooms of carcaln
species occur, vfalch can have a variety of dais-
carl oua affaccs (e.g., clog filters and intake
pipes, impart castes and odors to water).
Many water bodies, such as the aajority of rivers
and streams, can be classified as "low potential
Impact areas" for puTCopiaaktoa, and relatival/
little information is necessary for a 316(a)
deaottstration. n«verch«lu«., aore detailed data
may be necessary in some instances if phyto-
plankton is a substantial component of food
chains supporting the balanced indigenous popu-
lation or if the thermal discharge is likely to
cause a shift towards nuisance species. Even
if fira prtdletions cannot be aade on Che basis
of the increased data, these data nay be
necessary as a base for comparison with post-
operational monitoring surveys to detect long-
term community shifts.
A. Standing Crop Estimates. Estimate* of
standing crop are useful in determining
the importance of phytoplankton in the
productivity of the impacted body of water.
Productivity i» a principal factor in
defining high and low impact areas.
B. Species Composition and Abundance. Taatonomic
information will characterize the phytoplankton
associated with the discharge area and will
provide baseline data for detecting any
shifts in species composition accompanying
thermal discharge. A change in composition
is often an indication, that a nuisance
condition «ay occur and that the food web
of the system is being altered.
-------
-56-
C. Delineation of Euehotic Zone. The euphotic
zone of a water column is the upper layer
inco which sufficient light penetrates to
permit photosynthesis. The comparison of
this zone to the configuration of the
discharge plume will indicate how ouch the
thermal discharge vlll affect the produc-
tivity of the lapacted body of water.
2. Zooolankton and Meroplankton. The zooplankton-
aeroplankton coamunlty is a key supportive
component of the aquatic system. It is a primary
food source for larval fish and shellfish and also
makes up a portion of the diets of some adult
species. Many important species of fish and wild-
life have planktonic life stages (termed aero—
plankton, to differentiate them from organisms
which are pLanktonic throughout their entire life
cycle). If a heated discharge kills or prevents
development of the meroplankton, fever adult fish and
shellfish will be produced each year. Estuarine
environments are especially critical because of their
high productivity and utilization as spawning and
nursery areas for species with meroplanktonic larvae.
Specific types of data are essential for the
following reasons:
A. Standing Crop Estimates. Information on
standing crop helps in defining the importance
of zooplankton and meroplankton in relation to
the productivity of the affected system. Any
significant change in standing crop becoming
evident during post-operational aonltoring aay
indicate an adverse impact resulting from the
heated discharge.
8. Species Composition and Abundance. These data
will identify dominant taza in the system and
provide baseline information for observing
changes accompanying thermal discharge. Any
appreciative alteration in the composition and
relative abundance of the zooplankton and mero-
plankton constitutes an imbalance in the
community and Indicates possible adverse impact.
Species data and related thermal tolerance
information are also useful in developing thermal
limits for the effluent.
-------
-37-
C. Seasonal Variations. This information is
essential for assessing impact because different
species, with different thermal tolerances,
become dominant at varying times of the year.
It will also show when the iaportant aaro-
plankters are present in the discharge area.
D. Dial and Tidal Distribution. Sampling to show
dial and tidal fluctuations in depth distribu-
tion arc necessary because zooplankton and
aaroplanktoQ organism daaonstrac* distinct
vertical mov«a«ncs which isay b« a fuaccion of
both light intensity and tidal stag*. Th«
organisms arc thus vulnerable to a discharge
plume in varying degrees at different times
of the day.
Habitat Formers. The role of habitat formers in an
aquatic system remains unquestionably unique and
essential to the propagation and well-being of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife. Furthermore, habitat
formers, particularly in the marine and estuarlne
environments, are a liaited resource, slov to re-
establish, and non-renewable in some cases. These
organisms are subject to damage by a discharge
plume in a number of ways. Sooted aquatic plants,
including kelp, may be damaged or destroyed by
excessive temperatures, velocities, turbidity, or
siltacion. Organisms may be damaged or destroyed
by chlorine or other biocides contained in sinking
plumes that flow along the bottom in winter.
Thermal discharges may affect the natural balance
of the bacteria and algae populations, favoring
the bacteria. This situation, in turn, could
reduce oxygen levels by increasing the amount of
decomposing materials and could adversely affect
habitat formers.
The proposed studies represent a mlnlaal data
base for the evaluation of the applicant's
eligibility for modification of thermal treataent
technology requirements. The data are necessary
for the following reasons:
4. Mapping. Aerial mapping is required for a
detailed depiction of the spatial distri-
bution of habitat formers in relation to
the projected and actual plume configuration.
-------
-58-
B. Species Composition. Species composition
information will identify the types of
habitat formers associated with the discharge
vicinity and provide a basis for determining
thermal tolerance level* for selected specie*.
Also, baseline information on diversity is
essential to determine any compositional
shifts in species with the addition of heat.
Species replacements are often the first
signs of an Impending nuisance condition
that ultimately leads to costly control and
eradication programs.
C. Standing Crop Estimates. Studies to deter-
mine seasonal increases in standing crop
biomass serve two purposes. First, a
measured increase in biomass (dry weight)
of primary producers over the grovlng
season represents a conservative estimate
of net production, which in turn represents a
general measure of the functional well-being
of the habitat formers and hence reflects
the potential well-being of the organisms
dependent on them for their success. Veri-
fication of this relationship requires
concomitant sampling of the habitat for
the presence or absence of the principal
associated species. A secondary purpose
for standing crop estimates is to identify
any accelerated growth of macrophytes with
increasing temperatures, which could lead
to nuisance conditions.
D. Identification of Threatened or Endangered
Species or Dominant Species of Fish Depend-
ent Dpott Habitat Formers. This information
is useful in assessing impact in the case
of adverse effects from heated discharge.
Potential indirect adverse impact might
otherwise be overlooked.
Shei, \ fish/Macroinvertebrates « Functionally the macro-
invertebrate fauna serves man in numerous ways. They
are an important component of aquatic food webs and
many invertebrates are directly important to man as
a source of high-quality protein and as bait for
sport and commercial fishermen. They modify and
condition aquatic substrates and also aid in the
-------
-59-
breakdown and decomposition of detritus, thus
contributing to detrital food chains, detrital
transport, and nutrient cycling. Estuarine
systems are particularly important because of
their high productivity and their role as nursery
areaa for benthic species.
A. thermal discharge may have a variety of effects
on macroinvertebrates. Aquatic insects having
aa emergent stage may enter the atmosphere early
as a result of artificial heating of the water.
The adults may emerge into cold air and die
because of exposure, because food items are not
in phase, or because normal egg laying conditions
do not exist. Larval forms of marine inverte-
brates may develop at such high metabolic rates
that the survival of individuals may be reduced
during settling or maturation. Thermal discharges
may stress ecosystems and cause shifts in community
structure such that although the total biomass
may not change significantly, desirable species
may be replaced by less desirable species not
involved directly in the food chain. The dis-
charge of heat may cause stratification, which
may diminish dissolved oxygen in the bottom
Layer and possibly eliminate benthic fauna.
Specific types of data are useful for the
following reasons:
A. Standing Crop Estimates. These estimates
are useful in determining the Importance
of macroiavertebrates to the productivity
of the river or stream being Impacted by
the discharge. As previously discussed,
the productivity of the affected portion
of the system is a key factor in defining
lav and high impact areas.
B. Community Structure. The total number of
species and the relative abundance of
individual species (both components of
diversity) in an aquatic system are a
function of the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the system.
Because diversity is sensitive to signif-
icant changes in the characteristics of
the system (such as introduced heat), it
-------
-60-
can be an indicator of environmental stress.
Additionally, a reduction in th« diversity of
a system frequently results in a diversion
of production into non-useful forma.
C. Drift. In floving waters, drift is an important
survival mechanism for aany species of macro in-
vertebrates. Since it is a passive function,
the drifting organisms are subject to lethal
temperatures occurring in a thermal plume.
Drift is a stepvise downstream phenomenon, and
aany aquatic insects have a concomitant upstream
movement of reproducing adults. The plume may
thus affect populations both upstream and
downstream from the area where mortality
actually occurs.
D. Mapping. Mapping is necessary for a detailed
representation of the distribution of substrates.
This graphic information is important in the
design of sampling studies, evaluating the
suitability of the system for various benthic
forms.
5. Fish. The discharge of waste heat can affect fish
populations in many ways. The various data required
are necessary in order to provide characterization
of the indigenous fish community for the development
of the R.IS concept, to identify habitat utilization
by the various populations, and to provide baseline
information for comparison with post-operational
studies.
Specific data parameters are related to possible
adverse impacts from thermal discharge:
A. Species Level. Information on the spawning
habits of individual species are necessary
for assessing impact because spawning times
may be shifted by thermal additions or
habitats may be altered by scour or by
changes in the habitat former community.
Habitat use by any life stage may similarly
be affected. Migration is an important
factor to consider because thermal discharges
can block upstream migration routes of
spawning adults and downstream movements
of small fish. Condition factors are
-------
useful in evaluation because heat additions
may cause a lots of condicion in certain
species, •specially in winter when their
metabolic rate is still high but food supply
is low.
The incidence of disease and parasitism may
increase with a rise in water temperature.
Age and growth data are helpful in comparing
affected and aoo-affacted areas, pre- and
poet-operational conditions.
3. Community Level. Data on species composition,
relative abundance, and principal associations
will define the dominant fish species at the
site. Any appreciable change in these parameters
signals an imbalance in the community and may
indicate an adverse Impact resulting from the
thermal discharge. Species information is also
necessary for developing thermal limit* for
the effluent.
C. Happing. Maps are required in order to represent
habitat areas (used for spawning» migration, etc.)
la relation to the configuration of the discharge
plume.
6. Other Vertebrate Wildlife. Data will be required in
relatively few cases for this biotic category. In
those cases where data is required, the type of data
needed is decided by the applicant. The data
selected should be the least amount of data necessary
to complete this section of the demonstration.
7. Representative Important Species. Making predictions
about "what will happen" are difficult without detailed
information on the environmental requirements of
communities or at least many populations and species.
is- mentioned in section 3.5.2, it is not economically
feasible to study each species in great detail at each
site. Therefore a few species are selected for
detailed laboratory and literature survey. The data
requirements of Tables A. and 8 (section 3.5.2.2) are
recommended as being helpful to those making 316(a)
decisions for the following reaaons:
-------
-62-
A. They allow an estiaation of the size of the
areas which will b« excluded for key biological
function* and the duration of the czclusioa.
B. Th*y provide the b**is for ac l«*Jt rough
prediction* of high temperature lurvival, heat
and cold shock., and effects on reproduction
and growth.
-------
-63-
3.6 Type *H ^°v Potential Impact Determinations
If th« Regional Administrator/Director determines, after early
screening studies, that the ait* is on* of lov potential impact for all
biotic categories, the applicant nay elect to do a "short fora" demon-
stration, the "Low Potential Impact Type III Demonstration." The basic
concept is that those applicants which have sites and proposed facilities
which obviously pose little potential threat to the balanced indigenous
population should be required to do less extensive (and expensive;
aquatic studies than other (more poorly sited or otherwise having acre
potential for adverse impact) applicants.
Type III demonstrations in general are essentially any alterna-
tive demonstration type agreed upon by the applicant and the Regional
Administrator/Director. The Low Potential Impact Type III demonstration
proposed here is simply a recommended "short fora" demonstration which
considers information from each biotic category. This ensures that no
major biotic category is ignored altogether and thus ensures that both
the regulatory agencies and the applicant have examined and mad*
judgments for each biotic category, but discourages collection of
excess or unneeded data-
After the preliminary screening studies and determinations that
all biotic categories are of low potential impact, the applicant
summarizes this Information (along with engineering and hydrological
data and any other pertinent information) in one master rationale and
submits the demonstration to the Regional Administrator/Director.
The format of the submittal should be similar to that suggested
in section 3.5.S except that the RIS sections should be deleted.
-------
-64-
3.7 Other Type IZI Demonstrations (Biological,
Engineering, and Oth«r Data)
Those applicants aoc qualifying for a Low Potential Impact demon-
stration and act desiring to do a Type II demonstration, may (with the
written concurrence of the Regional Administrator/Director) do a regular
Type III demonstration. A. Typ« III demonstration provides for th«
submit tal of any infomacion which tba Regional Administrator/Director
believes may ba necessary or appropriate to facilitate evaluation of a
particular discharge. This demonstration also provides for submittal of
any additional information which the applicant may wish to have considered.
Each Type III demonstration should consist of information and data
appropriate to the case.
Detailed definition of a generally applicable Type III demon-
stration is not possible because of the range of potentially relevant
information; the developing sophistication of information collection
and evaluation techniques and knowledge, and the case-specific nature
of the demonstration. Prior to undertaking any Type III demonstration,
the applicant should consult with and obtain the advice of che Regional
Adminiatrator/Director regarding a proposed specific plan of study and
demonstration. Decision guidance may also be suggested.
If the site is one of low potential impact for most biotic
categories and/or there are other factors (small size or volume of
water impacted, low percentage of cross section of receiving water
affected, etc.) suggesting low potential for aquatic impact, the demon-
stration may not Deed to be completed in much more detail than the Low
Potential Impact demonstration outlined in section 3.6. For most other
sites, the demonstration should reflect a degree of detail and degree
of proof comparable to the Type II demonstration (section 3.3). While
Type III information may be different in thrust and focus, proofs should
be generally as comprehensive as in Type II demonstrations and should
result in similar levels of assurance of biocic protection.
Each item of information or data submitted as a part of a Type
III demonstration should be accompanied by rationales comparable to
thos* outlined in sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.4. The format of the
demonstration should be similar to that outlined in section 3.5.5
except chat the US sections should be deleted.
-------
3.8 Decision Criteria
3.3.1 Biotic Categories
Decision criteria for each biocic category art given in section
3.3. The Regional Administrator/Director will compare the rationales
(and other data) for «ach biotic category vlch the decision criteria in
section 3.3 and determine if ch« decision criteria have been set.
3.8.2 Representative Important Species
The Regional Administrator/Director will find the Representative
Important Species Rationale and other RIS information co be unacceptable
if the information presented:
1. is too incomplete to allow a clear assessment; or
2. suggests (or does act provide a convincing argument
to the contrary) that the balanced indigenous popu-
lation may suffer appreciable harm because of:
A. high temperature survival factors;
B. heat or cold shock;
C. improper temperature for growth, development,
and reproduction; or
D. the exclusion of areas and volumes of water
from the above functions in critical combina-
tions, of time and space.
3.8.3 Resource Zones in Aquatic Systems
The strategies for reproduction, growth, and survival of the
indigenous biota of freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems are
keyed to spatial and temporal variations in the structure (physical and
chemical) of the environment. This structural variation in the environ-
ment, as it relates to the biota and to uses by man, has led to the
concept of resource or "value zones" for use in evaluating or predicting
the level of damage to aquatic systems from human activities. Since
such zones vary in location, size, season of utilization, and criticality
of function, their identification is also useful in planning purposes
such as the siting of nixing zones for heated discharges. Application
of this concept involves the identification and napping of resource
-------
-66-
zones and critical functions* so that airing zones can be sited in
areas having minimum adverse impact on aquatic resources. Basic precepts
necessary to application of the resource zoning concept include:
1. All discharges in the water body segment oust be
considered.
2. The acceptable area of damage is related to the
resource value of the impacted area.
3. In cases where the effects of the discharged waste
are transitory, the timing of sizing zone use is
related to seasonal utilization of the impacted
area.
4. The acceptable area of damage is related to the
total amount of equivalent area available in the
water body segment.
5. Areas supporting "critical functions" should be
avoided (note item 3 above).
6. Acceptable damage is related to species generation
time and/or fecundity.
7. For a given location, the smaller the damaged area
the better.
3.3.3.1 Typical Resource Value Zones.
The following annotated list includes resource value zones
which should be considered in the designation of sizing zones for
heated discharges:
1. Spawning Sites. Reproduction is obviously a
critical function in the survival of a species.
Two factors of importance in designating airing
zonee are the often limited area of habitat
suitable for the spawning of a species and the
limited time during which spawning occurs.
* A zone having a "critical function" is one that provides a major con-
tribution to primary productivity or is one that is limited in extent
and necessary for the propagation and survival of a species.
-------
-67-
If the availability of spawning sices for an impor-
tant species is Halted in extent, then such areas
can generally be avoided, and should aoc be designated
for che disposal of wast* heac. If ic is totally
impossible to avoid such sices, then Che use for
mixing should be timed co avoid the period of
spawning. Seasonal avoidance is only feasible if
Che effects of che discharge are transitory.
2. Pood-Producing Areas. The productivity of aquatic
systems is directly related to the inputs of
organic matter fro* green plants. The free-floacing,
relatively iamocile microscopic plants (phytoplankton)
are short-lived vith rapid turnover rates and thus
may not be critical in terms of mixing zones for
heated discharges. The rooted vascular plants and
macroalgae (macrophytes) which, with suitable
substrate, grow from the shoreline to the depth of
the photic zone (depth to which 1 percent of
incident light penetrates) are relatively long-
lived and perform a number of "critical functions"
including:
A. The production and export of vast quantities
of organic fuel in the form of detritus—
some are aaong the most productive plant
cocBunities known.
B. As a, result of an abundance of food and
cover, they serve as nursery areas for the
ismature stages of many finfish and shell-
fish.
C. The trapping and recycling of nutrients.
0. The stabilization and building of substrate.
Included in the category of food-producing areas are
che wetlands—the Interface between terrestrial and
aquatic environments—vhich, in addition to the
above enumerated functions, serve as freshwater
recharge areas that meter freshwater inputs to lakes,
rivers* and estuaries.
Because of the many Important and critical functions
performed, the wetlands and other areas of macrophyte
production in aquatic systems should be avoided when
planning and designating mixing zones for heated
discharges.
-------
-63-
3. Nurs«ry Areas. These *r« areas having an abundance
of food and cover for the growth and development
of che early lift stages of many fiafiah and shellfish.
sisee th« «srly lif« stages are the period* of mmslsvsB
growth rates and maximum vulnerability co predation,
the availability of suitable nursery areas may b« the
Halting factor d«c«rminlng chc *btmd«nc* of a species.
Thus, che soass of frsshvsesr, estuariae, and aariae
ecocysteaa identified aa aursery areaa have high
resource value asd should generally be avoided when
designating nixing zones.
4. Migratory Pathways. Included in this category are
routes utilised for sovsaaat co and froa spawning
grounds, feeding grounds, and nursery areas; thus,
che life stage involved say be adult, «gg, larval, or
juvenile. In sooe cases, chese pathways are very
circumscribed; and total blockage could result in
extermination of a population in che wmcer body
segment. Since cbese pathways serve a "critical
function," they have high resource value and should be
avoided when planning che discharge of waste beat.
In situations where che usage of pathways is seasonal
and che effects of the discharge are transitory,
deleterious effects may be avoided by proper timing
of disposal. In term* of power plants, this seasonal
usage is important in evaluating che feasibility of
seasonal mode operacion of cooling devices.
A consideration of zones critical co endangered species,
usage by waterfowl and wildlife, and shellfish beds are additional
resource values that must be considered when selecting tilling zones
for heated discharges.
3.8.3.2 Methodology.
ae discussed above, discharge sites should be selected
which "ill hare the least impact on important resource zones and
"critical functions." The application of this concept to the
selection of mixing zones is a stepwise procedure involving:
- A, definition of the water body segment.
- Selection and listing of R.IS in the water body segment
and an enumeration of their strategies for propagation
and survival.
-------
-69-
Preparation of a map of the water body segment shoving
zones of resource use, including areas supporting "critical
functions."
Assignment of a aiaerical value, per unit area* to each
resource use.
Superlapose predicted plumes on resource maps and select
sites having least adverse impact on resource values.
1. Water Body Segment. In lakes and estuaries having
discrete and easily definable physical boundaries,
the designation of the water body segment will be
a straightforward process. In large water bodies
such as the Great Lakes, open coastal sites, and
aajor river systems having ao definable and reasonably
sized physical boundaries, the selection of the water
body segment may pose a difficult problem. Where they
have been defined, the water body segments determined
by the State Continuing Planning Process under section
303(e) of the Act will apply.
The seasonal movements of important species of aquatic
life must be considered when defining a water body
segment. The spawning sites, nursery sites, and adult
habitat sites of aany freshwater and marine species
(examples include salaonids, shrimps, crabs, spot,
croaker, flounder, white bass, walleye, etc.) say
be widely separated and include physically different
water bodies. Seemingly slight impacts In the different
areas used by such species may result in effects
which, if considered cumulatively, would be intolerable.
To avoid the potentially disastrous consequences
of piecemeal consideration of adverse impacts, the
water body definition should be sufficient to consider
potential impacts throughout the contiguous range of
populations of Important species.
2. Representative Important Species. In general, this
should Include all species and communities of
species that are critical to the functioning and the
productivity of the aquatic system defined by the
water body segment. Specifically Included are
species or communities which are:
• Commercially and/or recreationally valuable.
- Threatened or endangered.
-------
-70-
- Primary producers— particularly those communities
supporting relatively long-lived, fixed-location
species that perform multiple services (fora tod
stabilize habitat, produce organic matter, provide
cover).
- Necessary (e.g., in the food chain) for the well-
being of specie* determined in 1 and 2 above.
Included here are the scavengers and decomposers
critical to the breakdown and utilization of
organic matter.
3. Map Preparation. Haps of the water body segment
should, as a mininurn, include depth contours, adjacent
wetlands, tributaries and, in estuarine situations,
the average salinity gradient and sadinity stratification
should be visually expressed in cross section. Resource
zones and areaa performing "critical functions" should
be superiaposed on the same or on a similarly scaled
aap. To avoid overlapping detail, it may sometimes be
desirable to prepare separate maps for selected
specie*.
4. Assignment of Values. Once the resource zone* and
zone* supporting "critical function*" have been
identified and mapped, then values per unit area
can be assigned. If the effect* of the discharge
are transitory and the use of che resource zone is
seasonal, the values may change throughout the year.
If the zone supporting a "critical function" is
limited in extent and is a function which limits
the abundance and/or survival of a species, then
that zone should be given a value of infinity and
thu* excluded from mixing zone use. Other zones may
be assigned value* according to their area and their
Importance in maintaining different species.
3.8.4 "Master" Rationale, Demonstration a* a Whole
The Regional Administrator/Director will find the demonstration
successful if:
1. It 1* found to be acceptable in all of the consideration*
outlined la step* 20-25 of the decision train (section
3.3.2).
2. There is no convincing evidence that there will be damage
co the balanced, indigenous community, or community com-
ponents, resulting in such phenomena a* chose identified
in the definition of appreciable harm.
-------
-71-
3. Receiving water temperatures outside any (State estab-
lished) mixing zone will not be in excess of the upper
temperature Units for survival, growth, and reproduction,
as applicable, of any RIS occurring In the receiving water.
4. The receiving waters are not of such quality that in
the absence of the proposed thermal discharge excessive
growths of nuisance organisms would taJca place.
5. A zone of passage will not be impaired to the extent
that it will not provide for the normal movement of
populations of RIS, dominant species of fish, and
economically (commercial or recreational) species of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
6. There will be no adverse Impact on threatened or
endangered species.
7. There will be no destruction of unique or rare habitat
without a detailed and convincing justification of why
the destruction should not constitute a basis for denial.
8. The applicant's rationales present convincing summaries
explaining why the planned use of biocides such as
chlorine will not result in appreciable ham to the
balanced indigenous population.
-------
-72-
3.9 Non-Predictive Demonstration* (Type I,
Absence of Prior Appreciable Harm)
411 of the demonstrations done for HRC under the Memorandum of
Understanding are prtdicciv*. Therefore, ch« prtdicciv* »«ccioo» of
this docuMnc vmr» co«pl«c«d fine. Th* EPA and och«r «g«nci*« B*J
d*cid« co oounc 4 »«p*r»c« effort co rcvis* chis *«ccion «c a. Lacar
d»c«. In the Masfrla*, ao»c of th« r*quir«a*ncs of section 3.2
(D«cision Train), 3.3 (Early Screening Procedure*), i.5
-------
-73-
4.0 Definitions and Concepts
The definitions and descriptions in this section pertain to a
number of terms and concepts which are pivotal to the development and
evaluation of 316(a) studies. These are developed for a general
case to aid the Regional Administrator/Director in delineating a set
of working definitions and concise endpoints requisite to a satisfactory
demonstration for a given discharge.
Adverse Environmental Impact
Adverse aquatic environmental impacts occur whenever there will be
damage as a result of thermal discharges. The critical question is the
magnitude of any adverse impact.
The magnitude of an adverse impact should be estimated both in terms
of short term and long term impact with reference to the following factors:
(1) Absolute damage (# of fish or percentage of larvae
thermally impacted on a monthly or yearly basis);
(2) Percentage damage (% of fish or larvae in existing
populations which will be thermally impacted,
respectively);
(3) Absolute and percentage damage to any endangered species:
(4) Absolute and percentage damage to any critical aquatic
organism
(5) Absolute and percentage damage to commercially valuable
and/or sport fisheries yield; or
(6) Whether the impact would endanger (jeopardize) the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish and fish in and on the body of water to which
the cooling water is discharged (long term impact).
Aquatic Macroinvertabrates
Aquatic macroinvertabrates are those invertabrates that are
large enougn to be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve (0.595-mm
openings) and generally can be seen by the unaided eye.
-------
-74-
Area of Potential Damage
The area of potential damage for RIS is defined as that area
of the thermal plume enclosed by the isotherm which coincides with the
appropriate (designated by the Regional Administrator/Director) water
quality criteria for that particular RIS. This area can be determined
from the plume rose data specified in section 3.5.3.
Balanced. Indigenous Community
The term "balanced, indigenous community" as defined here is
consistent with the term "balanced, indigenous population" in section
316(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 40 CFR section 122.9.
A balanced, indigenous community consists of desirable species of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, including the biota at other trophic levels
which are necessary as a part of the food chain or otherwise ecologically
important to the maintenance of the community. In keeping with the
objective of the Act, the community should be consistent with the restora-
tion and maintenance of the biological integrity of the water. (See
section 101(a).) However, it may also include species not historically
native to the area which:
1. Result from major modifications to the water body
(impoundments) or to the contiguous land area
(deforestation attributable to urban or agricultural
development) which cannot reasonably be prevented,
removed, or altered.
2. Result from management intent, such as deliberate intro-
duction in connection with a wildlife management program.
3. Are species or communities whose value is primarily
scientific or aesthetic.
For purposes of a 316(a) demonstration, distribution and composition of
the indigenous population should be defined in terms of the population
which would be impacted by the thermal discharge caused by the alternative
effluent limitation proposed under 316(a). A determination of the
indigenous population should take into account all impacts on the population
except the thermal discharge, then, the discrete impact of the thermal
discharge on the indigenous population may be estimated in the course of
a 316(a) demonstration. In order to determine the indigenous population
which will be subject to a thermal discharge under an alternative 316(a)
effluent limitation, it is necessary to account for all non-thermal impacts
on the population such as industrial pollution, commercial fishing, and the
entrapment and entrainment effects of any withdrawal of cooling water through
intake structures under the alternative 316(a) effluent limitation. The above
considerations will then make it possible to estimate the true impact of
the thermal discharge on the population.
-------
-75-
Balanced. Indigenous Population (31?)
Tor the purposes of 316(») demonstrations, the term "balanced,
indigenous population" is synonymous with the ctrm "balanced. Indigenous
community" as defined above.
Community
A community in general is any assemblage of populations living
in a prescribed area or physical habitat; it is an organized unit to che
extent chat it has characteristics additional to its individual and
population components, and functions as a unit through coupled aetabollc
transformations.
Critical Function Zone
A zone that provides a major contribution to primary productivity
or is one that is limited in extent and necessary for the propagation and
survival of a species.
Director
The Director of the State NPDES permit program in those Statts
which have been delegated the program by EPA.
Discharge Vicinity
The "discharge vicinity" is that area described by a radius
that is 1.5 times the maximum distance from point of discharge to
within 1°C of ambient. The area of the discharge vicinity is based
on a 30-501 variation in the predictive thermal plume modeling.
Dominant Species
Dominant species are defined as any species representing five
percent of the total number of organisms in the sample collected according
to recosBMnded sampling procedures.
Estuary
An estuary is defined as a semi-enclosed coestal body of water
which has a free connection with the open sea; it is thus strongly
affected by tidal action, and within it sea water is mixed (and usually
measurably diluted) with fresh water from land drainage. It may be
difficult to precisely delineate the boundary of estuarlne and river
-------
-76-
habitata in the upper reaches of a fresh water river discharging into
marine waters. The interface is generally a dynamic encicy varying
dally and seasonally in geographical location. In such cases, determina-
tion of habicac boundaries should be established by mutual agreement on
a case-by-case basis. Where boundary determination is not clearly
established, both estuary and riv«r habitat biological survey requirements
should be satisfied in a combined determination for environmental
effects and best available technology for minimizing adverse impact.
Par Field Effect
A far field effect Is any perturbation of the aquatic ecosystem
outside of the primary study area that is attributable to, or could be
expected, from the thermal discharge (taking into account the interaction
of the thermal component with other pollutants).
Far Field Study Area (7TSA)
The far field study area is that portion of the receiving
water body, exclusive of the primary study area, in which impacts of
the thermal discharge and its interaction with other pollutants are
likely to occur. The area shall include:
1. The zones where the habitats are comparable to
those existing in the primary study area, and
2. The zones inhabited by populations of organisms
that may encounter the thermal effluent during
their life history.
The actual boundary of the far field study area should be agreed
upon by th« Regional Administrator/Director.
Habitat Forgers
Habitat formers are any assemblage of plants and/or animals
characterized by a relatively sessile life stage with aggregated
distribution and functioning as:
1. A living and/or formerly living substrate for
the attachment of epiblota;
2. Either a direct or indirect food source for the
production of shellfish, fish, and wildlife;
-------
-77-
3. A biological mechanism for the stabilization and
•edification of sediments and concribucing Co
che development of soil;
4. A nutrient cycling path or trap; or
5. Specific ticca for spawning and providing nursery,
feeding, and cover araaa for fish and shellfish.
Macrolnvertabratas
For this docuaant, tha earn "ascroinvertebratea" may ba
considered synonynoua vich "aquatic aacroinvertebratea" as dafinad
above.
Meroplankton
For tha purpoaas of this docuaant, aeroplankton ara dafinad AS
planktonic life scagas (oftan aggs or larvae) of fish or invertebrates.
Migrant*
Migrants ara nonplanktonic organisaa chac ara not parmananc
raaidants of tha araa but paaa through tha discharga zona and watar
contiguous to it. Bzavplaa includa tba upatraaa algration of spawning
saloon and subaaquanc dovnatraaa migration of tha juvanile forma, or
organiaac that inhabit an araa only at certain times for feeding or
reproduction purpoaas.
Suisaaca Species
Any alcroblal, plane or aniaal speciea which indicates a hazard
co ecological balance or huvan health and welfare chat ia not naturally
a dominant featore of tha indigenoua coaannlty may be considered a
aulaaaca species.
Htilaance speciea of phytoplankton include chose algae taza
which in high concentration ara known to produce toxic, foul caating,
or odorifaroua compound* to a degree that the quality of water is
iapaired.
Other Vertebrate tflldlifa
The term "other vertebrate wildlife" includes wildlife which
are vertebrates (i.e., ducks, geeae, nanatees, etc.) but not fish.
-------
-78-
Phytoplankton
Plant microorganisms such as certain alga*, living uaaccached
in the water.
Plankton
Organism* of relatively small size, aostly nicroscoplc, chat
either have relatively snail powers of locomotion or drift in the
waters subject co the action of v*vea and currents.
Primary Study Area
The primary study area, is the entire geographic area bounded
annually by the locus of the 2°C above aabient surface Isotherm*
(determined in section 3.3.3.5) ae these isothenu are distributed
throughout an annual period. The reference ambient temperature shall
be recorded at a location agreed upon by the Regional Administrator/
Director.
Principal Maerobenthie Species
Principal macrobenthic species are those dominant macroin-
vertebrates and plants attached or resting on the bottom or living
In bottom sediments. Examples include, but are not limited to,
crustaceans, aolluska, polychaetea, certain macroalgae, rooted
macrophytes, and coral.
Regional Administrator (Director)
ThU term refers to the Regional Administrator of the U.S.
EPA except that In those States which have been delegated the NPDES
permit program, Che term refer* to the Director of the State NPDES
permit profram.
Representative. Important Species (RIS)
Representative, important species are those species which
are: representative, in term* of their biological requirements, of
a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
in the body of water into which the discharge is made. Specifically
included are those species which are:
-------
-79-
1. Commercially or recreationally valuable (i.e.,
within the cop ten species landed—by dollar
value);
2. Threatened or endangered;
3. Critical to Che structure and function of the
ecological system (e.g., habitat formers);
4. Potentially capable of becoming localized
nuisance species;
5. Necessary in the food chain for the well-being
of species determined in 1-4; or
6. Representative of the thermal requirements of
important species but which themselves may aot
be Important,
Shellfish
All moHusk* and crustaceans (such as oysters, clams, shrimp,
crayfish, and crabs) which, in the course of their life cycle, con-
stitute important components of the benthic, planktonic, or nektonlc
fauna in fresh and salt water.
Threatened or Endangered Species
A threatened or endangered species is any plant or animal
that haa been determined by the Secretary of Commerce or the
Secretary of the Interior to be a threatened or endangered species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Water Body Set»»"t
A water body segment is a portion of a basin the surface
water* of which hare common hydrologic characteristics (or flov
regulation patterns); common natural physical, chemical, and
biological proceeses, and which have common reactions to external
(true, e.g., discharge of pollutants. Where they hare been defined,
the water body segments determined by the State Continuing Planning
Process under section 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act apply.
Zooplankton
Animal microorganisms living unattached in water. They
Include small Crustacea such as daphnia and cyclops, and single-
celled animals such as protozoa, etc.
-------
GUIDANCE
FOR EVALUATING THE
ADVERSE IMPACT OF COOLING WATER
INTAKE STRUCTURES ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT:
SECTION 316(b) P.L. 92-500
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Enforcement
Permits Division
Industrial Permits Branch
Washington, B.C.
May 1, 7977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Statement of Problem 1
II. Introduction 4
III. Information Flow Chart 6
IV. Decision Criteria 11
V. Definitions and Concepts 15
VI. Study Format 23
VII. Detailed Study References 25
VIII. Site Description 26
1. Site location and layout
2. Meteorology
3. Additional stresses on water body segment
4. Cooling water intake structure
IX. Source Water Involvement 29
1. Hydraulic features
2. Probability of entrainment
X. Biological Survey Requirements - NEW INTAKES 33
1. Sampling design
2. Sampling methodology
3. Follow-up studies
XI. Monitoring Program - EXISTING INTAKES 39
1. Sampling program --Entrapment-Impingement
2. Sampling program ~ Entrainment
3. Follow-up studies
XII. Impact Assessment 45
1. Biostatistical analyses
2. Predictive biological models
3. Community response parameters
4. Biological value concept
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS continued
Page
XIII. Acknowledgements 55
XIV. Literature Cited 56
-------
-1-
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Figure
1 316(b) Flowchart
Existing Intakes
7
316(b) Flowchart 8
New Source Intakes
316(b) Flowchart 9
New Intakes (Not New Source)
-------
-11-
LIST OF TABLES
No. Table Page
1 Example Data Matrix 54
(Species I) Data Sheet
(Spatial Compartment [A])
-------
-1-
I. STATEMENT OF WORK
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) require cooling water intake structures to
reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact.
Copling water intakes can adversely impact aquatic organisms
basically in two ways. The first is entrainment, which is the taking
in of organisms with the cooling water. The organisms involved are
generally of small size, dependent on the screen mesh size, and
include phyto- and zooplankton, fish eggs and larvae, shellfish
larvae, and many other forms of aquatic life. As these entrained
organisms pass through the plant they are subjected to numerous
sources of damage. These include mechanical damage due to physically
contacting internal surfaces of pumps, pipes and condensers; pressure
damage due to passage through pumps; shear damage due to complex
water flows; thermal damage due to elevated temperatures in condenser
passage, and toxicity damage caused by the addition of biocides to
prevent condenser fouling and other corrosives. Those organisms
which survive plant passage potentially could experience delayed
mortality when returned to the receiving water.
The second way in which intakes adversely impact aquatic life
is through entrapment-impingement. This is the blocking of larger
entrained organisms that enter the cooling water intake by some
type of physical barrier. Most electric generating plants have
screening equipment (usually 3/8" mesh) installed in the cooling
water flow to protect downstream equipment such as pumps and
condensers from damage or clogging. Larger organisms, such as
fish which enter the system and cannot pas through the screens,
are trapped ahead of them. Eventually, if a fish cannot escape
or is not removed, it will tire and become impinged on the screens.
If impingement continues for a long time period the fish may
suffocate because the water current prevents gill covers from
opening. If the fish is impinged for a short period and removed,
it may survive; however, it may lose its protective slime and/or
scales through contact with screen surfaces or from the high
pressure water jets designed to remove debris from the screens.
Delayed mortality to many species of fish following impingement
may approach 100 percent. For some species of fish, the intake
represents a double jeopardy situation where the same population
will be subject to increased mortality through entrainment of eggs
and larvae and additional mortality to juveniles and adults through
impingement.
-------
-2-
The data presently available on the magnitude of entrainment
losses at existing electric generating stations, although just beginning
to accumulate, reveals very large numbers of fish passing through some
facilities. Results of one of these studies, conducted at the Detroit
Edison plant on Lake Erie near Monroe, Michigan, indicate that 400-800
million fish larv_ae may have passed through that plant during April-
August 1974. The fate of these larvae has not yet been determined
but the data from previous years indicate that some may have disinte-
grated during passage through the plant.
Other studies have shown that mortality ina^ be high among fish
larvae that pass through plant cooling systems ' due mainly to
mechanical damage or shearing forces. ' The circulating pump Jias
been identified as t^ most likely site for mechanical damage.
Coutant and Kedl in a simulation study have demonstrated that the
condenser tubes are an unlikely site for mechanical damage to occur.
A large amount of data are available on the magnitude of
entrapment-impingement losses at cooling water intakes. The data
available on fish losses at GrQeat lakes cooling water intakes have
been summarized by Edsall. He reported the following losses:
About 92,000 pounds of gizzard shad at the
Ontario Hydro Lambton plant on the St. Clair
River in 6 weeks during December 1971 -
January 1972; 82,187 pounds (nearly 1.1 million
individuals) at the Detroit Edison Company's
plant on Lake Erie near Monroe, Michigan between
April 1972 and march 1973, when the plant was
operating at less than maximum capacity; 36,631
pounds (584,687 fish) at the Consumers Power
Company's Palisades plant on Lake Michigan
between July 1972 and June 1973, when the plant
was operating at about 68 percent of its total
capacity (the plant is now closed cycle); an
estimated 1.2 million fish (no weight data given)
at Commonwealth Edison's Waukegan (Illinois)
plant on Lake Michigan between June 1972 and
June 1973; 150,000 pounds of fish at the Ontario
Hydro Pickering plant on Lake Ontario in April-
June 1973; 659,000 fish (weight unavailable) at
the Nine Mile Point plant generating unit number
one on Lake Ontario during intermittent sampling
from January-December 1973, representing an
estimated total of about 5 million fish at unit
one for that period; and about 67,950 pounds
(929,000 fish) at Commonwealth Edison's Zion
plant near Zion, Illinois, on Lake Michigan
-------
-3-
during September-December 1973 and March-June 1974,
when the monthlv cooling water flow averaged only
about * 5 percent of the maximum capacity.
Approxina tely 1^,000 fish of i4 species were impinged in 1^'-
.it the Northern States Power Prairie Island Plant on tin- Mississippi
3iver. The Conmonwealth Fidison Company's Quad Cities pl.int,
also on the Mississippi River, impinged an estimated l.H -lilli^n
fish during 1974. 2
The extent of fish losses of any given quantity needs to he
considered or a plant-by-plant basis, in that the language of se<-ti
316(b) of P.I.. 92-500 requires cooling water intakes to ""ininize
adverse environmental impact." Regulatory agencies should cle.irlv
recognize that some level of intake damage can be acceptable if t".i:
damage represents a minimization of environmental impact.
-------
-4-
II. INTRODUCTION
This guidance manual describes the studies needed to evaluate the
impact of Cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environment
and allow for determination of the best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact. The 1972 amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.I,. 92-500) require in section
316(b) that:
Any standard established pursuant to section 301
or sect ion 306 of this Act and applicable to a
point source shall require that the location, design,
construction and capacity of cooling water intake
structures reflect the best technology available
for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
Sections 301 and 306 of the Act refer to the development of effluent
limitations and dates for achievement of various standards of performance
for existing and new sources of waste discharges. The steam-electric
generating point source category is the largest user of cooling water
in the United States and this guidance manual is directed primarily at
this category. Other categories of point source dischargers such as iron
and steel and petrochemicals for which intakes withdraw a major portion for
cooling water would also require such a determination. This document is
intended for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State
water pollution control agencies, industry, and members of the public who
may wish to participate in such determinations.
The overall goal of conducting intake studies should be to obtain
sufficient information on environmental impact to aid in determining
whether the technology selected by the company is the best available to
minimize adverse environmental impact. In the case of existing plants,
this goal will be accomplished by providing reliable quantitative estimates
of the damage that is or may be occurring and projecting the long-range
effect of such damage to the extent reasonably possible. In the case of
proposed intakes, reliable estimates of any future damage are to be
obtained through the use of historical data, pre-operational models, and
the operating experience of other plants.
General guidance is provided for the development, conduct, and review
of surveys designed to determine and evaluate that portion of aquatic
biota potentially involved with and subject to adverse environmental
impact from cooling water intake structures. Guidance is also
supplied for the analytical methodology needed to determine the extent
and importance of aquatic environmental impacts. The environment-intake
interactions in question are highly site specific and the decision as
to best technology available for intake design, location, construction,
and capacity must be made on a case-by-case basis.
-------
-5-
Information is not provided on available intake technology. Such
information is contained in the "Development Document for Best Technology
Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling^
water Intake Structures, for Minimising Adverse Environmental Impact,"
which also contains additional references on intake impacts, miormation
is also not provided on non-aquatic impacts of cooling water intake
structures.
This document will be most useful in situations where siting and
intake design have not been finalized; however, procedures to determine
and evaluate the environmental impact of existing cooling water intakes
are included.
Readers are cautioned not to depend too heavily on this manual.
More specific advice as regards procedures and individual site evaluations
will be available from the agency staff responsible for decision making
and the biologists who best understand the area in question.
-------
-6-
III. INFORMATION FLOW CHART
The development of 316(b) programs is a new procedure for many regu-
latory agencies and user groups. To assist in an orderly processing of
data requirements for both existing and new cooling water intakes, flow
charts have been developed (Figures 1, 2, and 3).
The process for evaluating existing intakes (Figure 1) is intended
to be flexible so that the data requirements can be revised based on an
agency determination of the potential for adverse impact and the availa-
bility of data on the plant's intake. It is expected that for some
existing plants, sufficient data may already exist to make further studies
unnecessary for a decision regarding best technology available. The
process for new intakes (Figures 2 and 3) is more extensive because of
requirements for data acquisition and models prior to site review and
approval by the appropriate regulatory agency. Proper intake siting, in
many cases, is the only way of minimizing adverse environmental impact.
To obtain the necessary pre-siting perspective, the utilization of valid
historical data and local knowledge is essential. A one- to three-year
biological survey is required to obtain, in a preliminary fashion, the
necessary data for assessment of environmental impact. A one-year survey
is generally of limited value. However, in circumstances where substan-
tial valid historical data can be presented and the intake can be
represented as having low potential impact, a one-year survey may be
acceptable. A decision as to the appropriate number of years of pre-
operational data that are necessary will be made by the agency upon the
submission of proposed study plans and their justification (see flow
charts, Figures 2 and 3).
The type and extent of biological data appropriate in each case
will be determined by the actual or anticipated severity or adverse
environmental impact. Since the expected impact will vary, it is not
expected that each case will require the same level of study.
A decision will be made at the outset by the agency as to whether
the intake has high or low potential impact. Low potential impact
intakes are generally those in which the volume of water withdrawn
comprises a small percentage of the source water body segment and
are located in biologically unproductive areas, or that have historical
data shoving no effect, or which have other considerations indicating
reduced impact. High potential impact intakes will generally require
extensive field surveys or models to elucidate potential total water
body effects. New intakes will provisionally be considered high
impact until data is presented in support of an alternate finding.
-------
-7-
Figure 1.
316(b) FLOW CHART
EXISTING INTAKES
EXISTING INTAKE
Evaluated on basis
of existing data
\
/
i
t
Further field data unnecessary
OR HIGH IMPACT
More data
needed
for Best Technology Decision
HIGH IMPACT
; LOW IMPA
'Submit water
body plan for
agency review
and recognition
or alternate
,strategy
Submit intake study
plan and justification
for agency review and
recognition
Intake data collection!
;and status reports '
Water body data
colleet ion
act ivicy
^ Final Report
Best Technology
Decision
^Further study
Continue operation
under NPDES permit
and follov-up studies
-------
-8-
Figure 2. 316(b) FLOW CHART
NEW SOURCE INTAKES
New Source Intake Prior to Construction
'Submit pre-construction study plans and justification for
agency review and recognition _____
Decision made or appropriate number of years of pre-construction
baseline data (1-3) and whether intake is high or low potential
Impact
-IHigh Impact|
Low Impact
Submit
model
study plan
or alternate
strategy
Pre-construction data collection
and status reports
Begin construction
^[Pre-construction report
Agency renders preliminary Best
Technology Decision, approving
site and plans
>| Report pre-operation
[Program modification
Problem solution
Yes
No
Best Technology approval, begin
operation under NPDES pennit and
follow-up studies Including
verification of models used
-------
-9-
Figure 3. 316(b) FLOW CHART
NEW INTAKES (Not New Source)
New Intake Prior to Operation
Submit pre-operational study plans and Justification
for agency review and recognition
Decision made on appropriate number of years of pre-construction
baseline data (1-3) and whether intake Is high or
low potential impact
1
Low Impact
Submit
model study
plan or
alternate
strategy
Model
act ivitv
Pre-operation data collection
and status reports
I
Pre-operation report
Agency renders Best Technology
Decision, approving site and plans
(including study plans)
Best Technology
Approval, begin
operation under
NPDES permit and
follow-up studies
including
verification of
model used
Not Approved
Minor change
Problem solution
New site
or major
change in
plans
-------
-10-
The inclusion of several points In the flow chart for .iy,rnry
and approval will ensure that all parties .ire In agreement -is to tin-
scope and specific details of work planned .md will provide each party
with a set nf specific goals and schedules for completion. These review
points should also ensure that studies address the important environ-
mental and plant operational concerns of all parties, thereby resultinc
In timely and orderly completion. A further benefit fron such review
Is that studies conducted throughout a water body segment can be
coordinated so that methods utilized will result in a comparable dat.i
base. This uniform data base will allow for easier evaluation of any
subsequent cumulative effect from all Intakes operating on a water body.
-------
-11-
IV. DECISION CRITERIA
Adverse aquatic environmental impacts occur whenever there will be
entrainment or impingement damage as a result of the operation of a
specific cooling water intake structure. The critical question is the
magnitude of any adverse impact. The exact point at which adverse aquatic
impact occurs at any given plant site or water body segment is highly
speculative and can only be estimated on a case-by-case basis by considering
the species involved, magnitude of the losses, years of intake operation
remaining, ability to reduce losses, etc. The best guidance that can be
provided to agencies in this regard would be to involve professional
resource people in the decision-making process and to obtain the best
possible quantitative data base and assessment toojs for evaluation of such
impacts. The Development document for 316(b) is an essential reference
for guidance in these evaluations.
Some general guidance concerning the extent of adverse impacts can
be obtained by assessing the relative biological value of the source
water body zone of influence for selected species and determining the
potential for damage by the intake structure. For a given species, the
value of an area is based on the following considerations:
1. principal spawning (breeding) ground;
2. migratory pathways;
3. nursery or feeding areas;
4. numbers of individuals present; and
5. other functions critical during the life history.
A once-through system for a power plant utilizes substantially more
water from the source water body than a closed recirculating system for
a similar plant and thus would tend to have a higher potential impact.
A biological value-potential impact decision matrix for best intake
technology available could be:
-------
-12-
I COOLING
1 (Relative to Source
1
BIOLOGICAL I
VALUE | HIGH
1
1
High | No
1
i
Low | Questionable
1
WATER FLOW
• Water Body Segment)
LOW
Quest lonable
Yes
(1) An open system large volume intake in an area of high biological
value does not represent best technology available to minimize
adverse environmental impact and will generally result in
disapproval.
Exceptions to this may be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis
where, despite high biological value and high cooling water
flow, involvement of the biota is low or survival of those
involved is high, and subsequent reduction of populations is
minimal.
(2) Generally, the combination of low value and low flow most
likely is a reflection of best technology available in location,
design, and operation of the intake structure. Exceptions to
this could involve significantly affected rare and endangered
species.
(3) Other combinations of relative value-impact present the most
difficult problems. In such circumstances, the biological
survey and data analysis requires the greatest care and
insight in accomplishing the impact evaluation upon which the
judgment of best technology available is based. A case-by-
case study is required and local knowledge and informed
judgment are essential.
It is accepted that closed cycle cooling is not necessarily the best
technology available, despite the dramatic reduction in races of water
used. The appropriate technology is best determined after a careful
evaluation of the specific aspects at each site. A detailed discussion
of available intake technology is contained in the 316(b) Development
Document. 4'
-------
-13-
Biologicai survey requirements suggested in this manuai should
provide a sufficient daca base to provide insight as to the best
location, design, construction, and capacity characteristics appro-
priate for achieving minimai totai impact.
A stepwise thought process is recommended for cases where
adverse environmental impact from entrapment/impingement is occurring
and must be minimized by application of best technology available:
The first step should be to consider whe trier trie .1 averse
Impact will be minimized by the modification of trie ex.stint;
screening systems.
The second step should be to consider whether the adverse
impacc will be minimized by increasing the size of trie intake :>i
decrease high approach velocities.
The third step should be to consider whether to abandon the
existing intake and to replace it with a new intake at a different
location and to incorporate an appropriate design in order to
minimize adverse environmental impact.
Finally, if the above technologies would not minimize adverse
environmental impact, consideration should be given to :he
reduction of Intake capacity which may necessitate instal-
lation of a closed cycle cooling system with appropriate JeSi^n
modifications as necessary.
Where environmental impact from entrainment must be minimized,
reliance must be placed primarily on flow reduction and intake
relocation as remedial measures:
Reducing cooling water flow is generally an effective means
for minimizing potential entrainment impact. In fact, this may S<_-
the only feasible means to reduce impact of entrainment where po-
tentially involved organisms are in relatively large concentration
and uniformly distributed in the water column. Entrapment .ind
impingement may also be lessened with lower flow as proportionally-
fewer animals will be subject to contact with the Intake structure;
water velocities associated with the structure can be reduced,
enhancing probability of survival if impinged or of escape if
trapped. Reduction of flow is accomplished primarily by an
increase in condenser temperature rise or through recircuiating
cooling systems. When cooling water flow is reduced, however,
elevated temperature or the effects of an auxiliary cooling system
can increase the mortality rate of the organisms that are entrained,
-------
-14-
Site location measures may prove effective in areas of
discontinuous, temporal or spatial occurrence (patchlness)
of those species subject to entrainment (or entrapment/
Impingement) .
Enhancing survival of organisms once entrained In the cooling
water system generally appears to be the least effective means for
avoiding adverse impact; however, operational regimes have been
developed to decrease mortality of entrained species where heat,
chlorine or both exert the predominant Impact. Realistic laboratory
studies can Lead to optimal time-temperature regimes for survival.
The effects of biocldes can be reduced by Intermittent and "split-
stream" chlorination procedures. Mechanical methods for cleaning
cooling system components where feasible can eliminate or reduce
the need for biocides. The mechanical stress of entrainment Is, in
many cases, the critical factor in organism survival with the pump
the site of major damage. At present, little can be done to
minimize mechanical impact although potentially harmful effects
may possibly be reduced by pump redesign which incorporates low
RPM, low pressure and wide clearance characteristics. Reducing
velocity changes, pressure, and turbulence in the piping system
should prove helpful. Entrainment screening techniques such as
leaky dans may have application in some circumstances. Regardless
of beneficial measures taken, many fragile forms will not survive
entralnnent.
In summary, the location of a power plant, or other cooling water
use, coupled with the associated Intake structure design, construction,
and capacity results in a unique situation. While generalities may be
useful, the optimal combination of measures effectively minimizing
adverse Impact on the biota is site and plant specific. The best
technology available should be established on a case-by-case basis
making full use of the kinds of information suggested for acquisition
in this manual.
-------
-15-
V. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
Adverse Environmental Impact
Adverse aquatic environmental impacts occur whenever there will he
entrainment or impingement damage as a result of the operation of a
specific cooling water intake structure. The critical question is the
magnitude of any adverse impact.
The magnitude of an adverse impact should be estimated both in terms
of short term and long term impact with reference to the following factors:
(1) Absolute damage (# of fish impinged or percentage of
larvae entrained on a monthly or yearly basis);
(2) Percentage damage (% of fish or larvae in existing
populations which will be impinged or entrained,
respectively);
(3) Absolute and percentage damage to any endangered species;
(4) Absolute and percentage damage to any critical aquatic
organism;
(5) Absolute and percentage damage to commercially valuable
and/or sport fisheries yield; or
(6) Whether the impact would endanger (jeopardize) the
protectton and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish and fish in and on the body of water from which
the cooling water is withdrawn (long term impact).
This term refers to the Regional Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the Directors of those State
agencies authorized to issue NPDES permits.
Community
A community in general is any aseemblage of populations living in a
prescribed area or physical habitat; it is an organized unit to the extent
that it has characteristics in addition to its individual and population
components and functions as a unit through interacting metabolic trans-
formations.
Critical Aquatic Organisms
Adverse environmental impact may be felt by many species in all trophic
levels. A species need not be directly affected but nevertheless harmed
due to loss of food organisms or other associated organisms in some way
necessary for the well-being and continued survival of the population.
It is not practicable to study all species that may be directly or
indirectly harmed by Intake structure operations.
-------
-16-
The critical aquatic organisms concept is defined in the 316(b)
Development Document. Generally, 5 to 15 critical aquatic organisms
will be selected for consideration on a case-by-case basis. Relative
to environmental impact associated with intake structures, effects
on meroplankton organisms, macroinvertebrates, and juvenile and adult
fishes appear to be the first order problem. Accordingly, the selections
of species should include a relatively large proportion of organisms in
these categories that are directly impacted. Generally, because of
short life span and population regeneration capacity, the adverse impact
on phytoplankton and zooplankton species is less severe. It is suggested
that, in addition to study of the selected species, the total phytoplankton
and zooplankton communities be assessed to determine if the area under
study is unique and important qualitatively or quantitatively. If
preliminary sampling or prior data does not support special or unique
value of these organisms at the site, phytoplankton and zooplankton
species will generally not be selected.
The following guidelines are presented for selection of critical
aquatic organisms for consideration in intake studies:
A. Critical aquatic organisms to be selected are those species
which would be involved with the intake structure and are:
1. representative, in terms of their biological
requirements, of a balanced, indigenous community
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife;
2. commercially or recreationally valuable (e.g.,
among the top ten species landed ~ by dollar
value);
3. threatened or endangered;
4. critical to the structure and function of the
ecological system (e.g., habitat formers);
5. potentially capable of becoming localized
nuisance species;
6. necessary, in the food chain, for the well-being
of species determined in 1-4;
7. one of 1-6 and have high potential susceptibility
to entrapment-impingement and/or entrainment; and
8. critical aquatic organisms based on 1-7, are
suggested by the applicant, and are approved by
the appropriate regulatory agencies.
-------
-17-
8. Assumptions in the selection of critical aquatic organisms:
1. Since all species which are critical, representa-
tive, etc., cannot be stud led in detail, some
smaller number (e.g., 5 to 15) may have to be
selected.
2. The species of concern are those most likely to
be affected by intake structure, design, con-
struction, and operation.
3. Some species will be economically important in
their own right, e.g., commercial and sports
fishes.
4. Some of the species selected will be particularly
vulnerable or sensitive to intake structure impacts
or have sensitivities of most other species and,
if protected, will reasonably assure protection
of other species at the site.
5. Often, but not always, the most useful list would
include mostly sensitive fish, shellfish, or other
species of direct use to man, or to the structure or
functioning of the ecosystem.
6. Officially listed "threatened or endangered
species" are automatically considered "critical."
7. The species chosen may or may not be the same as
those appropriate for a 316(a) determination
dependent on the relative effects of the thermal
discharge or the intake in question.
Cooling Water Intake Structure
The coaling water intake structure is the total structure used to
direct water into the components of the cooling systems wherein the
cooling function is designated to take place, provided that the intended
use of the major portion of the water so directed is to absorb waste
heat rejected from the process or processes employed or from auxiliary
operations the premises, including air conditioning.
-------
-18-
Ent rainaent
The incorporation of organisms Into the cooling water flow is
entralnnent. There are two generally recognized cypcs of cnt r.i Inment :
pumped entralnment -- referring to chose organisms that enter tlio int ikr
and are pumped through the condenser, and plume entra Inment -- rel'i-rr inr,
to organisms that are Incorporated into the discharge plume hy the
dilution water. Plume entrainment is not covered by section 31Mb) hut
Is part of the thermal discharge effect to be considered in conjunction
with thernal effects demonstrations under section 31Ma).
Entrapment-Impingement
The physical blocking of larger organisms by a harrier, gcncr.illy
some type of screen system in the cooling water Intake. Entrapment
emphasizes the prevention of escape of organisms and Impingement
emphasizes the collision of an organism with a portion of the
struc cure .
F.stuary
An estuary is defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water wliir'i
has a free connection with the open sea; it is thus strongly aftertt>
-------
-19-
3. a biological mechanism for the stabilization and modifi-
cation of sediments and contributing to processes of
soi 1 bui Idings;
i. a nutrient cycling path or trap; or
5. specific sites for spawning, and providing nurserv,
feeding, and cover areas for fish and shellfish.
High Potential Impact Intakes
High potential impact intakes are those located in biolr>gic.i 1 1 ••
productive areas or where the volume of water withdrawn comprises a
large proportion of the source water body segment or for which histor-
ical data or other considerations indicate a broad impact.
Impingement
See Entrapment-Impingement.
Lake
Any naturally occurring large volume of standing water nccupvir-.e i
distinct basin and, for purposes of this document, reservoirs ind
impoundments.
Low Potential Impact Intakes
Low potential impact intakes are those located in biologically
unproductive areas and having low flow or having historical data showing
no effect or for which other considerations indicate low impact. Plants
with low capacity factors or with few remaining years of lifetime might
be considered "low impact" despite their historical impact.
Macroinvertebrates
For the purposes of this document, the term macroinvertebrates
may be considered synonymous with "aquatic macroinvertebrates" and
are those invertebrates that are large enough to be seen by the
unaided eye and can be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve
(0-595 mm. mesh opening).
-------
-20-
Meroplankton
For the purposes of this document, moroplankton are defined as
pianktontc life stages (often eggs or larvae) of fish or Invertebrates.
Oceans
The ocean habitat, for the purposes of this manual, is considered
marine waters other than those water bodies classified as estuaries. This
includes open coastal areas, embayments, fjords, and other semi-enclosed
bodies of water open to the sea and not -neasurably diluted with fresh
water from land drainage.
Two principal zones within the oceanic habitat potentially impacted
are: (1) littoral zone — from high tide level to low tide level, and
(2) meritic zone (near shore) — low tide level to the edge of the
continental shelf.
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton are the free-floating plants, usually microscopic
algae, that photosynthetically fix inorganic carbon and are, therefore,
primary producers in some aquatic environments.
Plankton
Plankton are essentially microscopic organisms, plant or animal,
suspended In water which exhibit near neutral buoyancy. Because of
their physical characteristics or size, most plankton organisms are
incapable of sustained nobility in directions against w.iter flow. Con-
sequently, plankton drift more or less passively in prevailing currents.
Population
A population Is generally considered to be comprised of Individuals
of the sane species In a geographic ares. Populations exhibit parameters
such *• Mortality, natality, fecundity, intrinsic rate of Increase,
density, etc.
Primary Study Area
This includes the segment of the water body Jetemlned to be the area
of potential damage. This concept is most pertinent t« organisms subject
to inner-plant passage, normally weakly motile or planktonic, and spatially
-------
-21-
subject to water body currents ratr.er than possessing the ability t •
Change location independent of water mass movements. Animals capable
large scale movements, i.e., migrant fishes, wili move into trus
per iodica1iy.
Rivers and Screams
A river or stream is a nacuraliy occurring body of
waCer, wich an unbroken, unidirectional flow, contained witnin .1 i. s
channel. Reservoirs and/or impoundments, for che purposes
wili generally be viewed as lakes.
Secondary SCudy Area
The area within the waCer body segment outside che primary study
area. Biota in this area directly affected by the intake structure m.r.
or may not be a significant component of the total population of indiee-1..^.;
species. For many species, particularly pelagic fishes, trie cota^ popula-
tion may be spread over a wide geographical area. This area could be
considered the secondary study area. However, other intake structures
associated with cooling water uses, e.g., power plants, may also be
impacting the population in these other areas. This may be considered
in two wa y s:
i. consider the total population throughout che geographical
range, estimate existing Impacts, and determine to what
extent the specific intake structure adversely impacts
that portion of the population not already adversely
stressed by sources outside the primary study area; or
2. consider only the population in the area of potential
involvement and adjacent areas of occurrence not
already Impacted by an existing source of stress.
For example, when a number of intake structures are located wic:-m
a water body such as Che Hudson River, Ohio River, Long Island Sound,
Western Basin of Lake Erie, Narragansett Bay, San Francisco Bay, etc.,
either of the two approaches may be taken to assess the impact of t'-.e
structure under consideration. The totai Impact of all existing stresses
may be weighed against the total population of biota studies and the
adverse effects of the new stress added to existing stresses and assessed
against impact to the total system. The alternative is to assign a se> .1 i •'•
of the water body not already impacted by other intake structures and
compare the segment of the community in the assigned area to the effect
of the single structure concerned.
-------
-22-
Threatencd or Endangered Species
A threatened or endangered species Is any plant or animal chat has
been determined by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the
Interior to be a threatened or endangered species pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Uater Body Segment
A water body segment Is a portion of a basin, the surface waters of
which have common hydraulic characteristics (or flow regulation patterns)
common natural physical, chemical, and biological processes, and which
have common reactions to external stress, e.g., discharge of pollutants.
Where they have been defined, the water body segments determined by tiic
State Continuing Planning Process under section 303(e) of P.L. 92-500
apply.
Zone of Potential Involvement
The zone of potential involvement Is considered the water mass
surrounding the Intake structure and likely to be drawn Into the structure
Itself or Into the associated cooling water system. This varies with time
and Is dependent on ambient water movements In the affected body of source
water aa modified by the Influx of cooling water at the intake structure.
It will be difficult to precisely define the limits of this zone of
influence because of temporal and spatial variables. The zone of potential
involvement always includes the primary study area and may include the
secondary study area.
Zooplankton
True zooplankton are free-floating animals which have little or no
ability for horizontal movement. They are thus carried passively along
with natural currents in the water body.
-------
-23-
VI. STUDY FORMAT
The studies submitted as support for a finding that the cooling water
intake represents best technology available for a minimization of adverse
environmental impact should be in the following format to facilitate
agency review. At least two copies should be submitted.
1. Title page (plant name, water body, company, permit information.
rate).
2. Table of contents.
3. An executive summary of 2-3 paragraphs (essence of material and
conclusions).
4. Detailed presentation of methods used in data collection,
analysis and/or interpretation when different from standard
references.
5. Supportive reports, documents, and raw data. Data from the
open literature need not be included so long as it is
readily available.
6. Bilbiographic citations to page number of cited text,
7. An interpretive, comprehensive narrative summary of the
studies which will serve, in part, as the basis for the
agency's decision. The summary should include a table
of contents and may include table figures. Sources of data
used in the summary should be cited to page number. The
summary should include a clear discussion stating why the
report shows (or does not show) that the water intake structure
in question minimizes impact on the water resources and
aquatic biota in the vicinity of the intake and throughout
the water body segment.
8. An appendix listing the agencies and consultants conducting
this or related work on the water body.
9. Reports generated in response to section 316(b) should be
recorded and forwarded to the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) for recording and announcement. The folder,
NTIS-PR-184, available from NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, explains the procedure in detail.
-------
-24-
It is the intention of the EPA to make the technical information
submitted by industries in accordance with 315(b) available for use
by other industries, scientists, and members of the public. This will
be done initially by placing copies in the responsible EPA Regional
Off Ice library. A similar approach is also suggested for State agencies.
In cases where demand for the demonstration materials exceeds the capa-
bility of an EPA or State agency library, the EPA Regional Administrator
may also submit the materials to the NTIS so that the reports are
available co the public in microfiche or hard copy form at the price of
duplication. In the meantime, EPA is developing lists of plants with
completed 316(b) demonstrations and will submit the plant name and an
abstract of each study to NTIS.
It is also noted chat the Atomic Industrial Forum has developed
INFORUM, a data system which will extract and index information from
reports submitted by utilities in accordance with sections 316(a) and
(b). Questions should be referred to INFORUM at 1747 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Washington, B.C. 20006, telephone 202-833-9234.
-------
-25-
VII. DETAILED STUDY REFERENCES
This document, of necessity, is generalized to provide an overall
framework of guidance and C9nceptual approach. Six references are
recommended which treat various aspects of the study requirements in more
specific detail:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
& Hazardous Materials. Water Planning Division,
September 30, 1974, Draft, 316(a) Technical Guidance
on Thermal Discharges. (Revised draft to be published
in 1976.)
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
6 Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines Division,
April 1976, Development Document for Best Technology
available for the Location, Design, Construction and
Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing
Adverse Environmental Impact.
3. Battelle Laboratories, Inc., Environmental Impact Monitoring
of Nuclear Power Plants - Source Book. Atomic Industrial
Forum, Inc. August 1974. 810 p.
4. Aquatic Ecological Surveys. American Nuclear Society,
F.W. Hinsdale, Illinois, Draft, October 1974.
5. Entrainment: Guide to steam electric power plant cooling
system siting, design and operation for controlling damage
to aquatic organisms. Amer. Nuc. Std. Publ. N18. - 1974.
Draft, July 1, 1974, 44 p. and appendices.
6. Entrapment/Impingement: Guide to steam electric power
plant cpoling system siting, design and operation for
controlling damage to aquatic organisms at water intake
structures. Amer. Nuc. Std. Publ. N18 - 1974. Draft,
September, 1974, 24 p. and appendix.
-------
-26-
VIII. SHE DESCRIPTION
The following information is generally needed to fully describe the
potential experiences of organisms which may be entrapped within intake
structures, impinged on parts of the structure and/or entrained in the
water mass taken in and circulated through the associated cooling water
system. It is necessary to describe the full range of resultant physical,
chemical, and biological parameters of these experiences which could be
encountered throughout the annual operation cycle. Information on daily
and seasonal fluctuations is of special importance in those waters
subject to wide variation in water quality at the specific site. Other
data pertinent to the evaluation of environmental impact of the location
or intake structure in question should be included even though not
specifically listed.
The following data are required for adequate description of sites
located on either fresh or marine water bodies:
1. Site location and layout
A. Location of additional Intake structures - Smaller scale,
map showing locations of intake structures, associated
cooling water systems, and other pertinent discharges
related to surrounding shore and water features in a
50-mile radius.
8. Site Plan - Larger scale map with topographic and
hydrographic data depicting specific location of
structure in the water body. Data required includes:
- Topographic details
- Hydrological features (see U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Ocean Survey Charts, where
available), including depth contours
- Water body boundaries
- Affected water body segment
- Location and description of other cooling water
intakes in water body segment
- Existing site with topographic and hydrological
features as changed by proposed intake structure
construction and operation (where applicable)
-------
-27-
2. Meteorology (when hydrodynamic modeling is performed)
- Air temperature, maximum, minimum, mean-monthly
_ Rainfall, monthly
- Solar radiation kcal/m2/day (average/month for
the annual cycle)
- Wind speed and direction, prevailing winds identi-
fied as to seasonal patterns
- Other relevant site specific data
3. Additional stresses on water body segment
- Location of existing or planned point sources of
potential adverse environmental impact
- Summary of impacts associated with existing or
future stresses (and citations to more extensive
analyses, such as 316(a) demonstrations, impact
statements, NPDES permits, etc.)
4. Cooling water intake structure
A. Structure
- Location with respect to cooling water system
- Location in water body, horizontal and vertical
(including skimmer walls)
- Configuration, including canals and channels;
detailed drawings
- Capacity
- Screening devices (behavioral and physical)
- Fish by-pass and handling facilities
- Average and maximum approach and thru-screen
water velocities, by depth
- Flow rates and frequency of occurrence correlated
with load characteristics
- Location, amount, and duration of recirculation
water for deicing or tempering
- Other relevant system-specific data
-------
-28-
B. Pumps
Design details (location in structure, configuration
of blades, and housing)
Revolutions per minute
Number, capacities, and planned operating schedule
Pressure regimes in water subjected to pumping
Velocity shear stresses in pumping
Sites of potential turbulence and physical impacts
C. Biocides
Location of introduction in system
Description and toxicity of blocide used
Timing and duration of use
Concentrations of biocide in various parts of
cooling water system and receiving waters
D. Thermal experience
Tabulation of annual ambient temperatures,
thermal addition to cooling water of various
operating capacities, and resultant time-
temperature experience of organisms subjected
to entrainment in cooling water system
F.. Other relevant data on cooling water circulation system
Dissolved gases
Suspended solids and turbidity
- Other wastes and chemicals added
Size of condenser tubes, heat exchanger com-
ponents, water piping, siphon pits, etc.
Maintenance procedures, use of heat treatment
or delcing procedures
5. Plant Data
Age and expected lifetime
Capacity factor and percent of time at fractional loads
History of Intake model
-------
-29-
IX. SOURCE WATER INVOLVEMENT
The physical interaction of the intake and the adjacent water body
forms a base for assessment of biological impact by relating the behavior
and motion of local organisms with the flow of water around the site and
into the intake structure. To determine this involvement with the intake,
it is desirable to identify the type or types of circulation which will
be dominant in the water body, and to establish a program of monitoring
currents and other relevant hydrological and physical parameters of the
system. Predictive tools, such as computer models, are useful in
assessment of impact, and for delineation of the area of potential damage.
The approach outlined here is suggested for new plants having high poten-
tial impact when sufficient model accuracy is obtainable. The approach
may be useful for other plants as well, as discussed in the impact assess-
ment section below. The modeling program should be discussed with the
agency in advance of application and should include sensitivity analyses.
1. Hydraulic Features
The dominant modes of circulation in the water body are
frequently identified in the literature and include channel
flow, tidal and wind-driven currents, estuary or gravitational
circulation, littoral drift, and others. The local currents
(or velocity structure) can be modified by bathymetry and
transient atmospheric conditions, and contain local features
such as eddies; their importance can he modified by their
effect on biological processes. It is also useful to identify
interface zones if several current regimes or physical pro-
cesses are evident. Large water withdrawals and discharges
can be sufficient to modify existing hydraulic patterns enough
to create new biological habitats.
A program of monitoring the currents and other relevant
physical parameters is desirable for the study of source
water involvement, Whenever possible, historical data should
be used to identify the expected circulations and guide in
the selection of instrument stations, although as data comes
in, a re-evaluation of the monitoring program is useful.
the relevant parameters are water current, speed and direction,
wind speed and direction, tides or local water levels, tem-
perature, and water density, Salinity data are important in
an estuarine environment.
The spatial distribution of instrument stations is usually
indicated by the circulation regime and local bathymetry,
but is best organized to provide input to and verification
data suitable for a predictive hydraulic model of the
currents. Vertical spacing of instruments should be
sufficient to identify any important depth variation in
the circulation.
-------
-30-
The use of a hydraulic model requires several other specific
inputs to provide realistic prediction of currents in the
area, typical parameters include:
1. boundary geometry;
2. bottom topography;
3. bottom friction coefficients;
4. latitude of the area;
5. tides or water levels at open boundaries;
6. river flows;
7. temperature and salinity;
8. wind stress;
9. power plant cooling water flow races; and
10. other point source flow rates.
A significant period of time (two weeks) night be chosen for
a continuous (burst sampling) monitoring sequence to sense
periodic variations in the circulation, and another program
to sample changes on an annual (or longer) cycle. Careful
recording of placement and start times is recommended.
The instruments chosen should be durable and resistant to
fouling. The accuracy may be influenced by the scale of the
parameters but for water level should generally be at least
± 0.01 ft. and, for current speed and direction, + .15 knots
and ± 5.0° respectively. For temperature and salinity
± 0.1°C and ± 0.1°/°° respectively can be expected.
Special instrumentation for water current sensing may be
necessary at threshold speeds.
An instrument calibration program is necessary to insure
accuracy. Redundant marking of station locations and
provision for recovery of unmarked instruments should be
made.
Computer models as predictive tools represent the best
available predictive tools and are useful in assessing
water use and biological impact. Mathematical models
solve the equations of water flow and are used to
predict currents in the water body. Another model (of
water quality) can he developed in tandem to solve the
equation of mass flow and used co predict mass or concen-
trations of organisms under influence of the currents.
-------
-31-
The selection of the appropriate model is guided by the circulation
regime and the geonorphology of the water body. A number of
mathenatical models of tidal flow are available, and these can be
extended to include channel flow. For example, the Leendertse 8,
9 type square-grid models for tidal currents and larvae transport
have been used. Finite-element models are being developed for
tidal circulation, and may have advantages in certain.areas.
For river-bay situations, the channel-junction model nay have
special advantages. Three-dimensional models such as those
described in references 12,13, and 14 may be appropriate. A
conprehensive summary of.available models has been compiled
by Cordon and Spaulding. The rationale for selection of the
particular set of models should be justified by either emphasizing
their suitability or by demonstrating a lack of other sufficient
models.
Verification of model output should be made for both current
and organism concentrations. Data from the monitoring survey
are useful for verifying the current model while the biological
sampling program may be used to verify the motion of organisms.
Dye studies may also be useful in model verification.
Means for delineating study area and source water involvement may
vary from intuitive judgments to highly sophisticated predictive
models. The most logical measures, consistent with the local
conditions should be determined.
2. Probability of Entralnment
The zone of potential involvement of the cooling water intake
varies with species of organisms and time but the core concept
is the determination of probability of entrainment. The
predictive models are useful for mapping probability isopleths.
This could be done by the simulation of drifters with the hydraulic
model, or the spread of mass from point sources into the intakes
with the concentration model. Drogue or dye studies could be
used for verification. Drifters, drogues, or dye may, however,
be poor analogs for the organisms in question. As a consequence,
any study of this nature must be accompanied by justification
that adequate adjustment Is being made for differences in
behavior between the organisms and their mechanical analogs.
-------
-32-
A map of probability of entrainnent would be useful in delineating
the outline of the area of potential involvement by a rational,
analytical method. For example, the computer hydraulic model for
currents could be used to simulate the flow of drogues in the
region. A simulated release of drogues (several per hour) woulj
be carried out until all drogues have either been entrnlned nr
have crossed the model boundaries and left the area. The ration
of entrained drogues to the total gives the probability of
entralnment. A repetition of this procedure for other release
points gives a field distribution of probability.
An alternate method is to simulate mass transport fron a field >-{
points, wherein the ratio of mass entrained to the total released
gives the probability. This method could be verified by the usu
of dye studies.
In environments likely to exhibit density stratification, or in
which the organisms stratify, it may be necessary to use multi-
level sampling for all parameters, and consider stratification in
the models chosen. Wind effects are more likely to be important
in shallow water. The spatial changes In parameters in stratified
systems are likely to be larger, so this must also be incorporated
in a sampling program.
Obviously, models are highly desirable and the probability isopleth
concept Is a powerful analytical tool. However, the time and costs
involved will not be Justifiable in many situations.
-------
-33-
X. BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS (NEW INTAKES)
The purpose of the biological survey is to provide a sufficient and
valid data base for rational assessment of environmental impact related
to the location, design, construction, and capacity of a cooling water
intake structure, prior to a final siting decision.
Due to the possibility of extreme fluctuations in overall abundance
of the species from year to year and shifts within a study area of its
centers of abundance, several years' study may be required. A term of
three years is suggested as permitting an "exceptional" year to be
detected and criticized on the grounds that events in so short a span
cannot be understood in the context of long term trends. A period of
15 to 25 years is one in which many cyclic biological phenomena become
evident, but a preliminary study of this length will be out of the
question except as it can be gleaned from historical data. A one-year
?re-operational study is generally of limited value but may be acceptable
or preliminary agency determinations in situations where substantial
historical data can be presented and the intake can be represented as
having low potential impact.
Data collected must be sufficient to permit analysis and reduction
to assessment criteria which will be useful in reaching a judgment on the
existence and extent of an adverse impact. Suggested measures for data
reduction and analysis, which are included in this manual, should
be reviewed prior to development a survey program.
Designation of species of the critical aquatic organisms to be
studied is the first step in a sequence of operations for the
subsequent biological survey. The species selected may or may not be
the same as the Representative Important Species designated in connec-
tion with demonstrations under section 316(a) of the Act. Differences
would depend on the grater or lesser effect on such species of
thermal discharges or intakes. Once species and source water involve-
ment are known, the sampling methodology, survey study areas, and
temporal characteristics of the survey can be determined to suit the
organism selected, location, and characteristics of the intake
structure. Each survey should be designed on a case-by-case basis
recognizing the uniqueness of biota-site-structure interrelationships.
Biological surveys should be designed and implemented to deter-
mine the spatial and temporal variability of each of the important
components of the biota that may be damaged by the intake. These
surveys could include studies of meroplankton, benthic fish, pelagic
fish, benthic macroinvertabrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic
infauna and boring and fouling communities where appropriate.
Generally, the majority of critical aquatic organisms will be fish
or macroinvertabrates.
-------
Once the occurrence and relative abundance of critical aquatic nr^i
at various life stages has been estimated, it is necessary tn determine
potential for actual involvenent with the intake structure. An nr>;.inls:n
spend only a portion of its life in the pelagic phase and he susceptible
entrainment. Migratory species may be In the vicinity of the intake for
short segment of the annual cycle. Some species are subjected to int.me
structure effects during life history stages. For example, winter
larvae are found In the ichthyoplanlcton during their pelagic larval pl.j.^e,
and are susceptible to being entrained. During later life stages, is
juveniles and adults, they are vulnerable to impingement. Both ent re
used .
- The number of sampling units in each sample.
The size of samples for a specified degree of prr-
clsion can often be calculated if there Is son*
preliminary sampling Information. If not, preli-
minary sampling should be executed before exten-
sive programs are developed.
The location of sampling units in the s
-------
-35-
The survey effort should be Intensive for at least the first
year after which, based on first year results and historical
data, lower effort progams could be justified. Survey data
are usually of a time-series nature and, therefore, averap.es
over time intervals within the series cannot be assumed Inde-
pendent. This situation limits the application of routine
statistical procedures, Bartlett and Quenoville.
Reference 19 is a recent example of the difficulties encoun-
tered when attempting to determine differences in portions of
a time-series. The development of more powerful statistical
methods for application to this type of data is necessary.
It appears that only catastrophic impacts will be revealed to
temporal comparisons of monitoring program data. Plant
Impact may be better revealed by spatial comparisons.
The discriminating power of surveys should be estimated prior
to implementation.
This can be done by design based on previously collected data
at the site, or by assuming the variability of the system based
on previous studies at similar sites. The expected discrimina-
ting power of the survey should be adequate for the purposes
for which the data are intended.
2. Sampling Methodology
Recommendations on specific sampling protocol and methodology
are beyond the scope of this document. The optimal -nethodology
is highly dependent on the individual species studied coupled
with site nnd structure characteristics. Some general guidelines
are provided here. More specific details are provided in
reference 20.
Ichthyoplankton-Meroplankton Sampling
Sampling gear used should have known performance characteristic.^
under the conditions in which it Is to be used, or It will be tested
In comparison with a standard gear (such as the 60 cm. "bongo" net
developed for purposes of Ichthyoplankton sampling by the
National Marine Fisheries Service MARMAP program).
When a new gear is Introduced, data should be included on its
efficiency relative to a standard gear. Gear should not be
changed In the course of long-term investigations unless the
comparative efficiencies of the old gear and the new can be
satisfactorily demonstrated.
It is recognized that no sampling Rear is, in practice,
strictly quantitative and equally efficient in retaining
different sizes of organisms.
A rationale for the choice of gear, mesh size, etc., should be
developed for each sampling program. In nost cases, lackinp
strong reasons to the contrary, adoption of a standard gear to
permit comparisons with other investigations is reconmencicd.
-------
-36-
In general, replicate tows Indicate that horizontal distribution
of fish eggs and larvae and other planktonic organisms is uneven
or patchy in character, and that vertical distribution not only
of actively swimminp, forms but of eggs commonly shows sonc
stratification. This typically varies over 24 hours due to
the Influence of water movement and changes in light Intensity.
Depth distribution of Individual species of fish eggs -lay char.f.e
during the course of development, and buoyancy may differ at
different periods of the spawning season.
Night tows frequently produce larger catches and may show less
variability than day tows for fish larvae in the sane .irea.
Both phenomena are related in part to differences in net
avoidance under conditions of light and darkness. However,
certain larvae may be altogether unavailable to the usual
plankton sampling gear at some time of a diel cycle; for example,
they may lie on or near the bottom by day, and migrate upwards
at night.
Night sampling must be considered in survey design as essential
for an accurate picture of the numbers of ichthyoplankton
actually present at a station, especially with regard to post-
larvae and young juveniles. Sampling over the entire diel
cycle should be conducted.
Characterization of the ichthyoplankton in a study area made
exclusively from single tows at a series of stations is
Inadequate. Replication sufficient to show the typical vari-
ation between tows will be necessary, and it must be borne in
mind that this may differ widely for different species, and
may change over the course of a season. In reasonably
homogeneous study areas, replicates can be taken at a subset
of stations and the results applied to the rest. In certain
circumstances, close to shore, or in the vicinity of the
proposed intake, more rigorous error analysis is advisable,
and this may require replication at each station. Determina-
tion of a suitable number of replicates will depend on
characteristics at each site, and must be based on field
studies. The most variable (patchy) of the critical species
of ichthyoplankton under study at a given season will
determine the number of replicates that are desirable.
Confidence limits for estimates of abundance must be based
not only upon variation between tows at a given station,
but must Incorporate other sources of error, which Include
subsampling error (when aliquots of large samples are taken
for lab analysis) and counting errors.
-------
-37-
Th e ichthyoplankton-meropiankton sampling will generally bt-
related to the impact of passing the organisms through the
intake structure and associated cooling water system, i.e.,
ent ralnment.
Fishes and Macroinvertebrates
Sampling of fish and macroinvertebrates will be generally
conducted in relation to the potential impact of entrapment
and impingement. An exception would be juvenile and small
fish of a size that would pass through intake screening
rather than be caught upon such screens.
As previously noted, specific sampling methodology is detailed
elsewhere.""
Some specimens taken from the screens may appear healthy;
however, species-specific experiments with controls to assess
the delayed mortality to these fish are required if less than
100 percent mortality is to be assumed.
Potential effects at proposed intake structures should make
maximum use of existing data at operating structures to
extrapolate involvement and mortality estimates to a new
intake. Attention should be given to experiments which have
statistically evaluated the effect of intake modifications
on impingement-entrapment losses.
In cases where preliminary surveys Indicate that the entrap-
ment and entrapment-impingement losses may be high, it will be
necessary to estimate the impact of these losses on the
populations that will be involved. For each life stage
susceptible to entrainment and/or entrapment-impingement,
parameters necessary to adequately predict losses caused by
power plant withdrawal Include life stage duration, fecundity,
growth and mortality rates, distribution, dispersal patterns,
and Intake vulnerability. These parameters can be either
measured In the field or obtained from available literature.
Estimates of equivalent adult stock loss on the basis of
entrainment losses of immature forms requires a measure of
natural mortality from Immature to adult. For many if not
most critical species, the natural mortality may be impossi-
ble to determine and the Impact may have to be based on a
reasonable Judgment. Other data are required to project the
long-term Impact of the Intake on the population and to include
the population size, its age structure, and fecundity and mortal-
ity rates. These data can best be synthesized using
mathematical models as discussed in section XII of this manual.
-------
-38-
Zooplankton
Zoopiankton sampling will generally be directed Cowards
determination of entralmnent impact. Zooplankton are
essentially microscopic animals suspended in water with
near neutral buoyancy. Because of their physical
characteristics, most are incapable of sustained
mobility in directions against water flow and drift
passively In the currents.
In most cases, intake effects are of relatively short
duration and confined to a relatively small portion of the
water body segment because of short life span and regenera
tive capacity. Zooplankton, however, should not be disr.
from consideration without a preliminary assessment of the
importance or uniqueness of the species' assemblage at the
site.
Phytoplankton
Phytopiankton are free-floating green plants, usually
microscopic in size, and are generally the main primary
producers in the aquatic food web. Again, the potential
cooling water intake structure impact on phytoplankton
would be through entrainment. The short life-cycle and
high reproductive capability of phytopiankters generally
provides a high degree of regenerative capacity. In most
cases, intake structure effects are of short duration
and confined to a relatively small portion of the water
body segment. Phytoplankton, however, should not be
dismissed from consideration without a preliminary assess-
ment of uniqueness or special importance of the species'
assemblage at any particular site.
3. Foiiov-up Studies
Post-operational studies at new intakes wili also be
necessary in order to determine if the design, iocation,
and operation, in fact, minimize adverse environmental
impact and whether the model predictions utiiized were
realistic. Some suggestions for follow-up studies are
avaiiable in section XI. However, the appropriate program
at a new plant sice shouid be determined in large part by
the need for consistency with pre-operationai study results.
-------
-39-
XI. MONITORING PROGRAM (EXISTING INTAKES)
The study requirements necessary to evaluate losses of aquatic
life at existing cooling water intakes can be considered in two separate
steps. The first is assessment of the magnitude of the problem at each
site through direct determination of the diel and seasonal variation in
numbers, sizes and weights of organisms involved with operation of the
intake. When losses appear to be serious, as a second step it may be
necessary to conduct studies in the source water body if there is a need
to evaluate such losses on a water-body-wide or local population basis.
However, before requiring such studies it should be realized that the
natural variability of biological systems, the difficulty of separating
other stresses on population size, and difficulties in obtaining accurate
and precise samples of the biota may mask the environmental impact from
C9olmg water system operation. The magnitude of sampling variation ^
high and may range from 20 to 300 percent of the probable numbers.
Thus, effects of the Intake structure often cannot be identified above
this "background noise" unless they are considerably greater, For
many species, adverse environmental impact may be occurring at levels
below that which can be "seen" with the standard survey and analytical
techniques. Such field studies therefore will be extensive and difficult
to conduct, and will generally require several years of data collection,
all without certainty of results. Such studies should not be required
unless absolutely necessary for the best technology available decision
and then only to address specific questions. Because of the above
difficulties, it may be necessary to base a determination of adverse
impact on professional judgment by experienced aquatic scientists.
In evaluating data from the following studies, it is often desirable
to assume "worst case" conditions where all organisms which pass through
the intake suffer 100 percent mortality. If the magnitude of the numbers
precludes such an analysis, specific mortality estimates may be necessary.
The following study requirements are based in part on the
recommendations contained in the reports of the Lake Michigan Cooljng
Water Studies Panel and Lake Michigan Cooling Water Intake Committee:
-------
-40-
1. Entrapment-Impingement
The objective of this sampling program is to document the
magnitude of losses of fish life at operating cooling water
intakes. Since it is possible to obtain a complete daily
count of fish which are impinged by collecting the intake
screen backwash material, this intensity of collection
should be considered for application through one calendar
year. The data which result will most accurately reflect
the total annual loss by species. This approach does ignore
possible delayed mortality to organisms involved with the
intake structure but not impinged on the screens long enough
to be killed. If total entrapment-impingement mortality is
estimated by sampling from the screens, the sampling scheme
must consider day-night and seasonal differences.
If a less than complete dally count over a year is utilized,
dally sampling once every four days for one year is suggested
as the lowest effort which will be acceptable from the stand-
point of allowing for reliable loss project tons reflective of
the plant's operation. Both more and less intensive sampling
approaches may also be justifiable based on apparent impact,
intake data, spawning periods, and other site specific and
seasonal considerations. The 4-day interval for sampling is
based on observed variability in daily impingement losses.
For example, in a study of the Central Illinois Light Company's
E.D. Edwards Plant on the Illinois River, numbers of fish
impinged varied from 7,000 on July 18 to 500 on July 19. On
August 23, 1,500 fish were impinged versus 30,000 fish on August
26. Not all plants exhibit such wide variations in numbers
of fish impinged; however, until intensive sampling is completed
at a site, total loss figures will be subject to question.
Collection of the samples can usually be accomplished by
inserting collection baskets in the screen backwash sluiceway.
These baskets should have a mesh size equal to or smaller than
the intake screen mesh.
The following data should be collected during the sampling
period:
A. Plant operating data required:
1. Flow rate;
2. Temperature (Intake and discharge);
-------
_/, 1-
3. Tine started, duration, and anount of warm water ri-L:r._-:-
lated for intake delcing and thermal defouiing;
4, Total residual chlorine contained in recirculated w.iter
during condenser chlorlnation;
3. Current velocity at intake(s) over the range of w.acer
volumes used in plant operation (representative neasurv-
ments or calculated values may suffice);
6. Number of times screens are operated between sar,p i ;-.i:
intervals;
7. Tidal stage (where appropriate) and flow;
8. Salinity (where appropriate); and
9. Dissolved oxygen if intake withdraws water from an
area (or strata) of potentially low oxygen content;
8. Data required from biological collections:
1. Species, number, length, weight, and age group (young of
the year, yearlings, or adults) collected from the
screens or representative subsamples when numbers of
individual species collected are very large. Subsamp „.:-..
approaches should be approved in advance by the Agency;
2. Representative samples of each species for determination
of sex and breeding condition;
3. Numbers of naturally occurring dead fish in the area
ahead of the intake screening system should be estimated;
and
4. Periodically conduct a teat to determine the recovery
rate of fish impinged on the screen. This can be done
by spiking the screen with tagged dead fish and deter-
mining the proportion that are recovered in the screen
backwash sluiceway.
2. Sampling Program - Entralnment
The following section describes investigations necessary to
determine effects of entrainment of phytopiankton, zoopiankton,
benthos, fish , and shellfish at existing cooling water intakes.
Such studies should generally concentrate on fish and shellfish
unless the phytopiankton, zoopiankton, or benthos are uniquely
important at the site in question.
-------
-42-
Fish and Meroplankton
The potential for damage to fish or shellfish populations bv
entrainment depends on the number of organisms that pass through
the condenser system and on conditions experienced during passage.
Overall objectives of the study are to determine the species
and numbers of fish and shellfish eggs and larvae drawn intc
and discharged from the cooling systems and, if necessary,
determine the Immediate and delayed effects of cooling system
passage on these organisms.
A pump system is acceptable as the primary sampling method,
provided it does not damage fragile organisms, and pumps are
easier to automate and quantify than systems in which sampling
is done with nets suspended In the cooling water flow.
Diel sampling is recommended because the numbers of organisms,
even in areas known to be good spawning and nursery areas,
typically have low concentrations, and their distribution in time
and space is usually either changing rapidly or patchy as a result
of natural conditions. Therefore, adequate representation of these
organisms can usually only be obtained with continuous sampling
throughout a diel cycle.
The actual volume of water to be pumped to provide an adequate
sample is dependent on the densities of fish eggs and larvae in
the water surrounding the cooling system intake structure. The
sample volume should therefore be determined based on the least
dense species of concern. If no a priori source water density
data exists, then as large a sample volume as can be handled will
be necessary. Once information is developed on the least
detectibie density for species of concern, sample volumes may be
adjusted accordingly. This point is extremely critical to
acceptance of the resulting data. If the sample volume is too
small the study will be biased and show fewer organisms Involved
with the structure than actually exist.
Sample locations in the intake system should be located immediately
ahead of the Intake screens and, when less than 100 percent mortality
!• aaauaed, at a suitable point in the discharge system. When
less than 100 percent is assumed, samples at intake and discharge
should be from the same water mass. At each location one sampling
point should be located near the surface, one near the bottom, and
one at mid-depth. If uniform organism distribution can be demonstra-
ted, one sampling depth may suffice.
Sampling should normally be conducted continuously at a frequency
(e.g., every fourth day of plant operation) allowing the estimation
of annual numbers of organisms with a 95 percent confidence interval
which Is + 501. More frequent sampling may be desirable during
-------
-43-
peak spawning seasons. Sampling should
-------
-uu-
/ooplankton
Znoplanktnn sampling will generally be directed towards detcr-
ninati.'in of entralnment inpact by an int.ike structure. ^no-
plankton .ire essentially .iiic roscop tc animals suspended in w.-i t e r
with ne.ir-ncMit ra 1 buoyancy. Kccauso of tlielr physical cii.ir ir-
teristics, most arc Incapable of sustained mobility in J i rrc t ion-,
against water flow and drift passively In the rurrciits.
[n most cases, intake effects are of relatively short dur.it inn
and confined to a relatively sm;i I 1 portion of the water body
segment because of short life span and regenerative capacity.
Zooplankton, however, should not be dismissed fron cnns i icr.it L.TI
without a preliminary assessment of the importance or uniqueness
of the species' assemblage at the site.
3. Follov-up Studies
A follow-up monitoring program is also necessary at existing
plants to determine whether the approved intake in fact
minimizes environmental impact. In cases where an existing
Intake has been approved, it would be expected that the monitor-
ing program could be on a reduced level fron that noted above.
However, wliere significant changes in intake location, design,
construction, capacity, or operation have taken place, .1 program
comparable to the pre-operational one should be followed.
-------
-45-
XII. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The goal of impact assessment is to analyze and reduce biological
survey data to a form easily conceptualized and understood in the con-
text of best available technology to minimize adverse environmental
impact of intake structure location, design, construction, and capacity.
The following approaches are suggested for use, although their applica-
tion will not be appropriate in each case:
1. Biostatistical Analyses
In general, the minimum reduced raw sample data should include
the arithmetic mean, the standard error (or the standard
deviation), and the sample size from which these calculations
were made.
If a large number of measurements or counts of a variable
(e.g., species) are made, the data may be summarized as a
frequency distribution. The form or pattern of a frequency
distribution is given by the distribution in numerical
form (as in a frequency table). However, the data is more
clearly evident in a diagram such as a histogram (i.e., a
graph in which the frequency in each class is represented
by a vertical bar). The shape of a histogram describes the
underlying sampling distribution. Known mathematical fre-
quency distributions may be used as models for the populations
sampled in the study, and the frequency distributions from
samples may be compared with expected frequencies from known
models.
The spatial distribution of individuals in a population
can be described in quantitative terms. In general, three
basic types of spatial distribution have been described.
They are: a random distribution, a regular or uniform
distribution, and a contiguous or aggregated distribution.
The spatial dispersion of a population may be determined
by the relationship between the variance and the mean, as
well as by other methods. In a random distribution, the
variance is equal to the mean. The variance is less than
the mean in a uniform distribution, and it is greater than
the mean in a contiguous distribution. In general, a
Ppisson distribution is a suitable model for a random
distribution, a positive binomial is an approximate
model for a uniform distribution, and a negative binomial
is probably the most often used, among possible models, for
a contiguous distribution.
Temporal and spatial changes in density can be compared
statistically. Significance tests for comparisons of
groups of data may be parametric when the distributions of
the parent populations are known to be normal, or nearly
normal, from previous experience or by deduction from the
samples. Often, non-normal data may be transformed into
data suitable for such testing. Otherwise, non-parametric
tests for significance should be applied.
-------
-46-
2. Predictive Biological Models
Models used to simulate currents (circulation models) and the
dispersion of constituents (concentration models) are becoming
more available for use in assessing impact. These models,
when soundly-based conceptually, can usually be verified against
hydrpgraphic data and, therefore, represent an important tool for
considering the influence of a power plant on its surroundings.
Diverse population and community models can be developed, but
the assumptions on which they are based are difficult to test
and the parameters difficult to estimate. Some important
parameters depend on long time series of data (tens of years)
and no level of effort can offset the requirement of time.
These problems with biological models can sometimes be overcome
by making "worse case" assumptions and estimates, but this
course may tend to produce a plethora of models indicating
potential disaster. Nevertheless, models are a means of
integrating the available information and the subjective
underlying assumptions about a problem in order to produce
the most rational answer based on the inputs. In this regard,
some models way serve an important rule in assessing impact.
As previously noted, hydrodynamic models in theory can he used
to predict the source of water drawn through a power plant
intake structure. This is done by simulating the movement of
drifters or the dispersion of a constituent originating at a
particular point in the area modeled. The simulation is carried
nut for sufficient time for most of the material to be transported
to the point of the assumed intake structure where it is con-
sidered entrained, or for the material to be transported suffi-
ciently far away from the intake structure so that it has little
chance of future entrainment. This procedure must be repeated
(or performed simultaneously) for numerous constituent origins
and for numerous initial flow or tidal conditions. These
results will provide isopleths of entrainment probabilities
surrounding a proposed intake structure. The isopleths can
be compared with the biological value zone to assure that the
plant will not draw a high percentage of entrainable organisms
from highly productive areas. Various intake locations may be
considered to minimize impact. In practice, it might be very
expensive to calculate the probability of entrainment isopleths
(source area) of an intake structure because a large area may
have to be modeled and considerable computer time expended.
-------
-w-
Kor a given critical aquatic organism, It may be possible to use
hydrodynamlc models to estimate the pero nt reduction in annual
recruitment resulting from entralnment ot pelagic early life
stages. When the source of pelagic eggs and/or larvae is known,
the dispersion of this biological material around the study area
and the consumption by a plant intake may be simulated, indicating
the reduction in recruitment that will result. In this procedure,
entrainraent mortality is separated from natural mortality. If
natural mortality Is density dependent, tne Impact of power plant
entrainment will be overestimated or underestimated when entrain-
ment mortality Is estimated separately from natural mortality.
The method described above for estimating the reduction in
recruitment resulting from entrainraent can only be applied, as
stated, for closed systems. For the more common situation where
some larvae are dispersed out of the modeled study area (area
for which circulation and dispersion is simulated) additional
assumptions are required. [f it is reasonable to assume that
once organisms have been transported out of the modeled study
area they have a low probability of contributing to support of
the adult population of the study area. Then the dispersion
of organisms around the study area for a period of time equal
to the length of the species' vulnerable pelagic phase can be
simulated with and without the entralrunent impact of a simulated
power plant. By comparing the number of organisms remaining
in the area, the reduction in recruitment to iater stages of
the life cycle may be estimated. This approach was used in
reference 24. The approach ignores the possible impact of a
reduction in the number of organisms dispersed outside the
modeled study area and other supporting populations.
For open systems where pelagic entrainabie organisms are dispersed
out of a modeled study area, it is often necessary to consider the
effect of a plant on biological material transported across the
model boundaries and Into the system. If sufficient Information
is available, Che concentration of organisms .it the boundaries may
be input to the model aa boundary conditions. Again, the situa-
tion with and without a plant Intake could be simulated and the
number or organisms remaining in the modeled study area could be
compared in order to derive an estimate of the reduction in re-
cruitment. The reduction in recruitment will change as the
population of the modeled study area is reduced and becomes more
dependent on the input of biological material across the boundaries,
Hydrodynamlc models are of little value for predicting the
entrapment-impingement mortality rate suffered by populations.
In the case of separate but similar intakes, this rate can be
estimated after one Is operational. Results may then be
extrapolated to estimate the Impact of additional Intakes.
Predictive models for entrapment-impingement .ire under develop-
ment but have not yet been validated.
-------
-t.H-
When the reduction in recruitment because of erera innrnt
and the Imp Inge-neat -mrtallty rates have been estim.ucu lo
a critical aquatic oriidnisr, it is useful en .issess Cut1
long-term Impact on tlic local population, '.'tie dyn.r.iirs ,i|"
the population can be siniilated by a corap.irtmcnt r-iortcl witi
organisms distributed into cnnpartments according to ai;e.
Hach conpartnent is assumed to suffer non-power ,r)l.nit ro
mortality. A^lng is simulated by advancing or^an l:>i,is to I'.i-
next older compartment. A^e-spccific fccunuity re conpartnent s. Coriputer
simulations of the future dynamics of t'ie population bjsed i-i-
the conpartment nodcl witu and without the plant r.in be
conpared.
Such simulations require knowledge of the life tdblo tor tlie
species being considered. Life cable information for some
species may be based on the literature. It .nay be possible
to supplement this information with knowledge gained fron
field studies. The age-(or length-) fecundity function
and the CRP, production-recruitment relationship nust also
be knovn. The latter may be of three forms: (1) recruitment
as a line.ir function of egg production, (2) recruitment as
a density dependent function of egg production, ' or (3)
recruitment independent of egg production. The choice of tin-
appropriate egg production-recruitment relat lonsliip and
estimation of parameters must be based on Che available
historical information on the species. At least twenty years
of data Is probably required to nake such a decision. In tiie
absence of enough data, the assumption of a linear eg# pro-
duction-recruitment relationship is appropriate. Note that for
a linear egg production-recruitment model, there is only a
single equilibrium condition, and any plant related mortal-
ity la likely to disturb this equilibrium.
If the population Is not isolated, exchange with other
populations may be modeled. The results of mark and recapture
experiments may be useful for estimating exchange rates.
-------
Tho met hods for assessing impart described in this section
are useful but of unknown validity, 'lost assessments base;.
on biological models have yet to be field verified. Develop-
ment of predictive models for assessing Impact should be
encouraged but only after full consideration of the diffi-
culties involved, the expense- compared to the reliability of
results, and die dangers of .1 "worse case" analysis.
3 . Community Response Parameters
The populations of all species in a given area or volume
are defined as n community. Although the term "community"
Is considered a useful concept in delineating the group of
interacting species in an area, it Is believed to be a
subjective entity. Thus, for specific studies .inc tests
of hypothesis, the composition of tho community must be
strictly def tncd .
Community response parameters, such .is chanp.es in structure,
have sometimes been studied and estimated by certain rmilct-
variate classification techniques. Various measures of
species diversity or association coefficients have also
been employed to measure community response to perturbations
In estimating community diversity, the most widely used
indices .ire those based on information theory. When the
sample of species' abundances may be considered randomly t.ilv
from an ecological community or subconmunity, the Shannon
index (also referred to as the Shannon-Wiener or Shannon
Weaver Index) may be used. If the sample may not be
considered a randon set of species' abundances taken from ,1
larger species' aggregation of interest, then the Nrillouin
Index should be used. Rlther index may be computed with
computational ease and, in either case, the logarithmic
base used must be stated.
The shortcomings of all exist in;; indices of species' diver-
sity and the biological phenomena which may influence
these values should be recognized. References 2H, 29, and
30 should be consulted for further explanation of diver-
sity indices and their utility.
For the purposes at hand, the phrase "classification of
communities" is utilized for processes that sort species
Into groups, and it includes both discrimination and
clustering. In general, discrimination techniques
begin with a priori conceptual distinctions or with data
-------
-50-
divided Into a priori groups. Then one should proceed to
develop rules which separate data into these a priori categories.
Clustering techniques, on the other hand, use a priori selection
of a measure of similarity, a criterion, and a class description
to find Inherent empirical structure in data, i.e., clusters.
Clustering does not use an externally supplied label and involves
finding derived data groups which are internally similar. A
good review and summary of various discrimination and clustering
procedures is provided in reference 31.
The aquatic environment can often be stratified in some way,
such as by depth, substrate composition, etc. It is suggested
that such stratification be done and that tables showing the
frequency, or density, of each species at each environmental
stratum be complied. These tables are analogous to the distri-
bution curves made in a gradient analysis, *" and are consi-
dered a natural and useful description for species association
data. It is suggested that these tables be the basis for
certain multivarlate methods of data analysis for spatial
and temporal variability, such as cononlcal variate analysis
described In reference 33. In addition, for these data which
now contain a priori groupings, the linear discriminant function
may also be successfully utilized for testing the differences
among environmental strata using multiple measurement or counting
data.
Biological Value Concept
The concept of establishing relative biological value zones
In the water body segment Impacted by a cooling water Intake
structure could be a useful approach in determining best
technology available for intake design, location, and operation
to minimize adverse environmental Impact. The principal use
of this concept is In delineating the optimal location within
the water body for minimum Impact on the biota potentially
Involved with the specific intake structure.
The essence of this concept is in establishing biological value
of various zones for the water body segment (or other defined
area) within which the intake structure is to be located. A
judgment of value is made for the representative important
species considering type of Involvement with the intake (entrap-
ment, impingement, entrainment) and the numbers of each which
are adversely impacted. Results are summed up by species,
seasonally or annually, and represented by graphical means to
depict areas of the water body highly important to the species
and, conversely, areas of low relative value, thus potentially
favorable intake structures.
-------
-51-
Methodology. The following -nethodo Ln^y for using the biil--ic.il
value concept is based on :iet!mds develop «.•<•) and utilized ;n
connnnity planning studies js described in reference 3<« .
I'se of the biological value concept would require acccp t jru:i_ i-t
the reasonableness of sever.il basic prenises:
1. Then- are areas of Jlffercnt concent r at tons of represent.11 LV<,-
Important species within die water body segment conprisLnr.
potential sites for an intake structure.
2. -\reas of biological concent r.J t ions can be expressed ;-i
of relative value to perpetuation of representative in
species populations In the water body sop,.T>ent.
). The area of zone of least biological value, expressed in
relative terns of population densities, would be trie optrn.il
location for an intake structure in order to reduce adverse
environmental impact.
This Is not a precise method bec<:-ise of Inexactness of differen-
tiating relative value between species and difficulties in
comparing importance of loss between et;f>s, larvae, and adults.
Also, It Is assumed that the adverse Impact on the populations
of critical aquatic orRan isms is significant to sone decree .ind
therefore, it is desirable to minimize this impact, thus ;; ivinr.
importance, to best available intake locations.
If one can determine that one species is nore Important than
another, one can wei^h it in some way. If not, least concentra-
tions of critical aquatic organisms in any one location In^ic.ite
its intrinsic suitability for intake structure location.
A step-by-step procedure could include:
1. Select critical aquatic organisms; and
2. Divide water body segment into spatial compartments (use
hydrologlcal model).
For each species and spatial compartment:
1. Determine life stages potentially involved with intake
and type of Involvement (entrapnent, impingement, entrain-
ment);
2. F.stlmate nunbcrs of organisms Involved at representative
times durinp, the annual operation cycle;
-------
-52-
j. K.stlmatc numbers of those involved tnjt are l>>st (detcr-i-.c
percent survival or .lortality of those entrained or inp t-if.iv.)
on an annual basis;
i*. Kstimate conversion ratios to express ep^s jiui l.irvjc lost
in terns of mnber of adults (this is a value judgment .~inii
assumes the loss of one egx is not as important to surviv.ii
of the species as the Loss of an .idult).;
5. Develop the data matrix for construction of the biologic.il
value level overlay charts (Table 1);
6. Construct transparent overlays for each species on ch.irt of
water body segment. Areas of different impact in terns of
organisms lost due to involvement with the intake structuri'
could be color-coded; e.p,., areas of -lost value could bu J.irK
gray; areas of least value, clear. f.cnerally, three levels
of value will suffice;
7. Superimpose overlays for all representative important species
on chart to obtain compositive value, indicated by relative
color, for all spatial compartments in the water body
segment; and
8. Analyze graphic display of relative value and identify
light-toned areas as most favorable intake sites, heavy
areas as lease favorable.
The methodology is intended to be flexible. Various snades
of different colors could indicate comparative value between
selected species or variations In density with depth. The
value grades could be expressed In terms of their relation
to populations of critical aquatic organisms In the overall water
body to provide inslp.ht on importance of the specific segment
studies to the whole system.
The biological value concept for analyzing survey data in the
determlnacIon of best technology available to nlnimlze adverse
environmental Impact appears to have the principal application in
selection of the minimal imact zones for locating the int.tkf
structure. The usability of the concept is, of course, d.it.i-
dependent. As noted, it Is not precise, but at least integrates
multiple factors and presents a defined indication of suitability
for location of an Intake structure In the affected water body
segment.
Three-dimensional computer graphic techniques can also be
applied to portray spatial and temporal distribution of biological
data. 10t"
-------
-53-
Tloe-series graphs can be useful in depicting the dynamic
nature of occurrence and abundance of a designated species
during the annual operating cycle of the intake structure.
The principal application would appear to be in the deter-
mination of the optimal location of the intake structure.
Also, graphic representations of the biologically predicted
mathematical model output could assist in more clearly
depicting intake structure impact on populations of Repre-
sentative Important Species (RIS).
-------
-54-
TABI.K 1
EXAMPLE DATA MATRIX
(SPECIES 1)
DATA SHEET
(SPATIAL COMPARTMENT (A))
TYPE
OF
INVOLVEMENT
Entrapment
Impingement
Kntra Inoent
Total Effect
Organism Involved
ERRS
Larvae
Adult
1
Z Lost
(If assuned other
than 100 2)
Eggs
Larvae
Adult
Numbers
Lost
c. •
L.
A
Calculated Equiva-
lent Adul t Loss
E.
L.
A.
Total
Value
Cr.ide
I. II, III
-------
-55-
XIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The concept of a 316(b) Technical Guidance Manual was initiated
by an interagency working group comprised of James Truchan, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources; Howard McCormick and Alan Beck, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and Phillip Cota, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The first draft of the Manual was completed
in December 1975, followed by a revised version in April 1976.
The Manual in its present form is the product of the following
individuals who provided comments and assistance: James Truchan and
Robert Courchalne. Michigan Department of Natural Resources;
W. Lawrence Ramsey, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Allan
Reck, Alan Seers, William Brungs, Stephen Bugbee, William Jordan,
Tom Larsen, Harvey Lunenfeld, Howard McCormick, Gary Milburn, Eric
Schneider, and Lee Tebo, U.S. Environmental Protectinn Agency;
Thomas Cain, Phillip Coca, Bennett Harless, and Michael Masnik,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency; Phillip Goodyear, Mark Maher,
and Roy Irwin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; William Anderson II,
Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson; J. Roy Spradley, Jr., National
Association of Electric Companies, Charles Coutant; Oak Ridge National
Laboratories; Rajendra Sharma, Argonne Laboratories, Saul Saila,
University of Rhode Island, George Mathiessen, Marine Research Inc.;
and Gerald Zar, Northern Illinois University.
Special acknowledgment goes to Howard Zar, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, who was responsible for reviewing and incorporating
comments received into this Manual.
Overall coordination and preparation of this Manual was done
by the Industrial Permits Branch, Permits Division, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
-------
-56-
XIV. LITERATURE CITED
1. Schubel, J..R. 1975. Some comments on the thermal effects of
power plants on fish eggs and larvae. In: Proceedings, Fisheries
and Energy Production, A Symposium. Saul B. Saila, Ed. D.C.
Health & Co. Lexington, Massachusetts. 300 p.
2. Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1973. Vulnerability and survival of young
Connecticut River fish entrained at a nuclear power plant.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30(8): 1195-1203.
3. Carpenter, E.J., B.S. Peck, and S.J. Anderson. 1974. Survival
of copepods passing through a nuclear power station on north-
eastern Long Island Sound, U.S.A. Mar. Biol. (NY). 24: 49-55
4. Beck, A.D. and D.C. Miller. 1974. Analysis of inner plant
passage of estuarine biota. Proc. ASCE Power Div. Specialty
Conf., Boulder, Colorado. August 12-14, 1974. 199-226.
5. Beck, A.D. and N.F. Lackey. 1974. Effects of passing marine
animals through power plant cooling water systems. (Presented
at Symposium on Effects of Nuclear Power Plants on the Marine
Ecosystem. American Fisheries Society annual meeting Honolulu,
Hawaii, September 7-11, 1974.) U.S.E.P.A. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
6. Odem, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia. 574 p.
7. Anon. 1971. A Symposium on the Biological Significance of
Estuaries. P.A. Douglas, R.H. Stroud, Eds. Sport Fishing
Institute. March 1971. Ill p.
8. Leendertse, J.J. 1967. Aspects of a computational model for
long-period water-wave propagation. Rand Corp., Santa Monica,
California, Memorandum RM-5294-PR. 165 p.
9. A water-quality simulation model for well-mixed estuaries and
coastal seas: Volume 1, Principles of computation. 1970.
Rand Corp., Memorandum RM-6230-RC. 71 p.
10. Conner, J.J. and Wang, J.D. 1975. Mathematical modeling of
Near-shore Circulation. MIT Sea Grant Report No. 75-13. 272 p.
11. Callaway, R.J., K.V. Byram and G.F. Ditsworth. 1969. Mathematical
model of the Columbia River from the Pacific Ocean to Bonneville
Dam: Part 1. Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon.
12. Leendertse, J.J., R.C. Alexander, and S.K. Liu. 1973. A three-
dimensional model for estuaries and coastal seas: Volume 1,
Principles of computation. Rand Corp. Memorandum R-1417-OWRR.
57 p.
-------
-57-
13. Hess, K.W. 1976, A three-dimensional numerical model of
steady gravitation, circulation and salinity distribution in
Narragansett Bay. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 4; 325-338.
14. Laevastu, T. 1974. A multi-layer hydrodynamical-numerical
model (W. Hansen type). Environmental Prediction Research
Facility, U.S. Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, California.
Technical Note No. 2-74.
15. Gordon, R. and M. Spaulding. 1974. A bibliography of numerical
models for tidal rivers, estuaries and coastaY waters. University
of Rhode Island, Department of Ocean Engineering. Publ. P-376.
55 PP.
16. Cochren, W.G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. (2nd Ed.) J. Wiley &
Sons, New York. 413 p.
17. Bartlett, M.S. 1935. Some aspects of the time correlation
problem. Royal Stat. Soc. J. (Ser. A). 98 (3): 536-543.
18. Quenoyille, Y.H. 1952, Associated Measurements. Butterworth
Scientific, London. 242 p.
19. Sissenwine, M.P. and S.B. Saila. 1974. Rhode Island Sound
dredge spoil disposal and trends in the floating trap Industry.
Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 103 (3): 498-506.
20. Environmental Impact monitoring of nuclear power plants ~
Source book. 1974. Prepared by Battelle Laboratories.
Atomic Industrial Forum Inc., Columbus, Ohio. August 1974.
810 p.
21. Edwards, R.L. 1968. Fishery resources of the North Atlantic
area. In: Gilbert, D.W. The Future of the Fishing Industry
in the United States. University of Washington Publ. in
Fisheries.
22. Holmes, R.W. and T.H. Widrig. 1956. The enumeration and
collection of marine phytoplankton. J. Cons., Cons. Int.
Explor. Mer. 22: 21-32.
23. Conuver, W.J. 1971. Practical Non-parametric Statistics. Wiley &
Sons, New York.
24. Hess, K.W., H.P. Sissenwine and S.B. Saila. 1975. Simulating
the impact of the entrainment of winter flounder larvae. In:
Fisheries and Energy Production - A Symposium. Saul B. Saila,
Ed. Heath & Co., Lexington, Massachusetts. 300 p.
25. Ricker, W.E. 1958. Handbook of Computations for Biological
Statistics of Fish Populations. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
Bulletin 119: 1-300.
-------
-58-
26. Shannon, C.F. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory
of Communication. University of Illinois Press, 1'rbana,
Illinois. 117 p.
27. Hutcheson, K. 1970. A Test for Comparing Diversities Based
on the Shannon Formula. J. Theor. Biol. 2_9: 151-154.
28. Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity:
A critique and alternative parameters. F.colngy. 52(4):
577-586.
29. Fager, F..W. 1972. Diversity: A Sampling Study. Am. Nat.
_10_6(6): 293-310.
30. DeBenedictis, P.A. 1973. On the Correlations Between
Certain Diversity Indices. Am. Nat. 107(4): 295-302.
31. Nagy, G. 1968. State of the Art in Pattern Recognition.
Proceedings of the IEF.F.. 5£(5): 836-862.
32. Whittaker, R.H. 1967. Gradient Analysis in Vegetation.
Blol. Rev. Cambridge Philoa. Soc. £2: 207-264.
33. Plelou, E.G. 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology.
Wlley-Interscience, New York. 286 p.
34. McHarg, I.L. 1969. Design with Nature. The Falcon Press,
Philadelphia. 197 p.
35. Brown, n.J. and L.L. Low. 1974. Three-Dimensional Computer
Graphics In Fisheries Science. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
3J.U2): 1927-1935.
36. McFrlean, A.J., C. Kerby and R.C. Swartz. 1972. Discussion
of che Status of Knowledge Concerning Sampling Variation,
Physiological Tolerances and Possible Change Criteria for
Bay OrganlsBS. Chesapeake Scl. JJ (Supplement/12): S42-S54.
37. Nelson, D.D. and R.A. Cole. 1975. The Distribution and
Abundance of Larval Fishes Along the Western Shore of Lake
Erie at Monroe, Michigan. Thermal Discharge Series. Michigan
State University. Technical Report 32.4. Institute of Water
Reserve. 66 p.
38. Clark, J. and W. Brovnell. 1973. F.lectric Power Plants In
the Coastal Zone: Environmental Issues. American Littoral
Society Special Publication No. 7. 80 p.
-------
-59-
39. Coutant, C.C. and R.J. Kedl. 1975. Survival of Larval
Striped Bass Exposed to Fluid-Induced and Thermal Stresses in
a Simulated Condenser Tube. Environmental Sciences Division
Publication No. 637. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. 37 p.
40. Edsall, T.A. Electric Power Generation and Its Influence on
Great Lakes Fish. (Presented at Second ICMSE Conference on
the Great Lakes. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,
Illinois. March 25, 1975.)
41. Andersen, R.A. 1974. Fish Study, Impingement of Fishes and
Other Organisms on the Prairie Island Plant Intake Traveling
Screens. Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies
Program, 1974 Annual Report, Volume 2 for the Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Northern
States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 755-824b.
42. Latvlatis, B. , H.F. Bernhard, D.B. McDonald. 1976. Impingement
Studies at Quad-Cities Station, Mississippi River. (Presented
at the Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement.
New York. )
43. Fish Impingement Studies at the E. D. Edwards Power Plant,
July 1974 - June 1975. {Submitted to Central Illinois Light
Company. Peoria, Illinois.) Wapora, Inc.
44. Meyers, C.D. and K.E. Bremer. 1975. Statement of Concerns
and Suggested Ecological Research, Report No. 1 of the Lake
Michigan Cooling Water Studies Panel. EPA 905/3-75/001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. November 1975.
387 p.
45. Lake Michigan Cooling Water Intake Technical Committee. Lake
Michigan Intakes: Report on the Best Technology Available.
1973. Chicago, Illinois. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. August 19, 1973. 148 p.
46. Lloyd, M. , J.H. Zar and J.R. Karr. 1968. On the Calculation
of Information - Theoretical Measures of Diversity. Am. Midi.
Nat. (2): 257-272.
47. Developnent Document for Best Technology Available for the
Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water
Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April 1976. 263 p.
------- |