IK] r.KAGEwCY
316(a) ThCHi'ICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL
AND
GUIDE FOR THERMAL EFFECTS SECTIONS
OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
ENVIPONMEKTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
A
FIRST STEP TOWARDS
STANDARDIZING DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EPA/NRC
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING _
ironmental Protection Agency
ce of Water Enforcement
Permits Division
Industrial Permits Branch
Washington, D.C.
September 30, 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa&e
1.0 Acknowledgements 1
2.0 Introduction 3
2.1 Background Information 3
2.2 Suggested Uses of this Technical Manual By 8
3.0 Predictive 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-
1.0 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 aress.
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, D.C.
John Christian, Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey Goodman, Washington, D.C.
Delbert Hicks, Athens, Georgia
J. William Jordan, Washington, D.C.
J. H. McCormick, Duluth, Minnesota
Donald Miller, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Donald Mount; Duluth, Minnesota
Diane Olsson, Washington, D.C.
Mark Pisano, Washington, D.C.
Jan Prager, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Ronald Preston, Wheeling, West Virginia
Ronald Raschke, Athens, Georgia
Robert Schaffer, Washington, D.C.
Eric Schneider, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Lee Tebo, 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
-------
U.S. Fish and Wlldlife Service
John Boreman, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Thomas Edsall, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Phillip Goodyear, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Roy Irwin, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Glen Kinser, Washington, D.C.
Mark Maher, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Charles Coutant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Jack Mattice, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
Heyward Hamilton, Washington, D.C.
W. R. Taylor, Gennantown, Maryland
Argonne National Laboratory
Rajendra Sharma, Argonne, Illinois
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Carlos Fetterolf, Jr., Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
-3-
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 requires 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 and 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-
In summary, CEQ suggested that AEC and EPA:
(1) 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 neet 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 respective responsibilities under NEPA and 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 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, Paragraph 1(c).
-------
-5-
6. Specified that EPA and NRC will consider the feasibility
of holding combined or concurrent hearings on-£PA's
proposed section 402 permits and NRC's proposed issuance
of construction permits or other activities where
appropriate.
7. Rescinded the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Implementation of Certain Complementary Responsibilities
under the FWPCA and dated January 15, 19, and 22, 1973
(38 FR 2713).
As a first step towards implementing the objectives of the
Memorandum, a series of meetings between EPA and NRC took place in late
November 1974. At these meetings it was decided that one of the most
difficult tasks to be 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 NRC. Technical experts
representing the two agencies in the field of aquatic biology held a
series of meetings in December 1974, formulated many tentative agree-
ments, 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 eight working groups met 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 the last day of the meeting and final
summaries by early March 1975.
The long process of piecing the products of the eight working
groups together into one cohesive technical manual was slowed by key
personnel changes within the agencies and heavy schedules of other
individuals on the working groups. In spite of the numerous setbacks,
a December 11, 1975, draft was completed and reviewed by key working
group members during January 1976 in Athens, Georgia. At this meeting
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 manual is the
result of these efforts.
-------
-6-
2.1.2 A Shift of Emphasis
In the course of the development of this draft, it became
apparent to many working group members that early screening procedures
by industry or their consultants could sometimes reveal those types
of information which would not be necessary to gather in great detail
at some sites. If initial pilot field surveys and literature surveys
revealed that the site was one of low potential impact for phytoplankton
for example, it would be unnecessary to conduct detailed studies to
give the taxonomic identification of every species of phytoplankton
in the vicinity.
2.1-3' Public Availability of 316(a) Demonstrations
It is the intention of EPA to make the technical information
submitted by industries in accordance with 316(a) available for use
by other industries, scientists, and members of the public. This
will be done initially by placing copies of the demonstration and
supporting documents into the collection of the responsible EPA Regional
Office 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 National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) so that the reports are available to the public in
microfiche or hard copy form at the price of duplication. The EPA
Regional librarian will be able to provide detailed information regarding
input and access to the NTIS system.
It is also noted that the Atomic Industrial Forum, Environmental
Studies Project, has developed INFORUM, a data system which will extract
information from reports submitted by utilities in accordance with
sections 316(a) and (b). Questions should be referred to the Project at
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone 202-833-9234.
The September 30, 1974, draft of the EPA 316(a) Technical Guidance
Manual suggests two possibilities for predictive demonstrations: Type II
demonstrations (with specific data requirements for RIS and biotic communities)
and Type III demonstrations (an alternative plan following written concurrences
from EPA). The NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2*, on the other hand, gives general
guidance and includes mention of studying a wide spectrum of trophic
levels which might be adversely affected by the power plant's operations.
The net result of this combination of situations is that power companies
have often embarked, without the benefit of appropriate screening or pilot
studies, on large-scale, expensive, inappropriate studies which supply
massive amounts of raw data but are not necessarily helpful to regulatory
agencies in decision-making.
* NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Stations. July 1976, Revision #2^ 102 p.
-------
-7-
The decision train suggested by this manual encourages the
utility to conduct preliminary pilot or screening procedures to determine
how detailed the baseline biotic community studies should Ee and to
initiate the"appropriate selection of Type II, Type III, or low potential
impact Type III demonstrations.
This procedure, plus an increased focus on comparing rationales
developed by the applicant with decision criteria given in this draft,
represents a shift of emphasis which will hopefully result in studies,
demonstrations, and environmental reports which make more sense and are
easier to interpret.
In developing this version of the manual, an emphasis has
been placed upon identifying those types of information most relevant
for decision making and for deleting data requirements which have been found
to be of little use in past 316(a) decisions. By identifying such
information needs by water body type (river, estuary, lake, ocean) and
by defining which areas need less detailed studies, this version of the
manual attempts to discourage the collection of masses of costly,
unnecessary data which may actually confuse the issue by diverting
attention from more important information.
In this regard, it is interesting to note the balance of general
ecosystem (baseline, field work) data versus the RIS (laboratory and
literature search) data proposed by this version of the manual. Past
experience suggests that neither baseline field surveys nor RIS laboratory
studies alone were sufficient for predictive demonstrations; some
mixture of the two is desirable. General ecosystem field work is
necessary to characterize the.environment impacted, to have a basis of
comparison for post operational studies, and to counter possible arguments
that the entire ecosystem has not Seen examined. Laboratory studies on
RIS are helpful because they offer increased predictive capabilities,
such as how much of the thermal plume area will preclude reproduction or
migration.
-------
-8-
2.2 Suggested Uses of this
Technical Manual by:
2.2.1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This version of the guidance manual, after in-house review
within EPA, will replace the September 30, 1974, draft of the EPA
316(a) Technical Guidance Manual. The manual describes the information
which should be developed and evaluated in connection with making
technical determinations under section 316(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1326(a), and 40
CFR Part 122.
Most of the "first round" of NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permits for thermal discharges will have already
been issued (or at least study plans will have been agreed upon by the
applicant and the Regional Administrator), by the time this edition of
the technical manual is issued. The determinations or study plans
finalized to date have been made on the basis of case-by-case 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 not be negated or otherwise
adversely affected by the issuance of this newer version of the 316(a)
technical manual.
The primary use seen for this version of the technical manual
will be for new sources and for the "second round" of 316(a) deter-
minations which will come when the first round of permits expir-..
The manual is intended to be used as general guidance and as
a starting point for discussions between industry and the Regional
Administrators. For individual situations the Regional Administrator
may fequest that the applicant follow the suggestions in the technical
manual closely, or may specify an alternative plan.
The applicant should be aware that in general one or more
Regional EPA permit program staff have been designated as 316 coor-
dinators. It is suggested that applicants considering 316(a)
demonstrations contact these individuals at an early date to discuss
potential problems and available data.
2.2.2 States
Those States which have been delegated the administration of
the NPDES permit program by EPA have the lead role for making 316(a)
decisions within the State. The EPA retains what amounts to a veto
-------
-in-
capability through the requirement that they continue to sign all
permits before they are issued.
Since those States which have the permit program ha£e
essentially the same responsibilities as EPA, it follows that these
States may find this technical manual useful in the same manner that
the Regional Administrators of EPA find it useful. On the other
hand, just as the Reg-lonal Administrators are not rigidly bound by the
contents of this document, neither are the State Directors. It is suggested
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 be 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
future 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* artd documents to be generated by the NRC coordinated State/Federal
Siting Working Group.
2.2.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is mandated by the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661, et seq.), the Endangered 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 FWS, EPA, NRC, and other agencies involved in
* NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for
Nuclear Power Stations. November 1975, Revision #2: 32 p.
-------
-10-
the 316(a) review process by representing a common understanding of
the decision criteria agreed upon which the 316(a) variance will be
based and, therefore, upon which the appropriate regulator 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,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of
Commerce has similar concerns and responsibilities as the FWS in the
Federal regulatory review process. The NMFS was originally the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries which, together with the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now FWS), constituted the old Fish and
Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior (as referred to in the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). Reorganization Plan No. A, which
transferred the Bureau of Commericial Fisheries to the Department of
Commerce, also transferred all associated responsibilities. Principle
concerns of NMFS 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 with the
lead NPDES Permit Program Agency (either the EPA Regional Administrator
or the State Director) to determine the applicability of the manual's
recommendations to that site. This document will serve as a starting
point for discussions 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 92-500 and the aquatic ecology
sections of NEPA.
-------
-11-
3.0 PREDICTIVE DEMONSTRATIONS
3.1 Introduction
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 which have not been discharging heated
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
A. 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 AO CFR Part 122)
published by EPA provided for two possible types of predictive 316(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 Flow Chart
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:
-------
FIGURE 1. DECISION TRAIN FLOW CHART
[Predictive demonstrations!
>
¦ .
Applicant g
literature
athers existing
and field data
Is enough Information available
to suitmarlzc in writing:
1) For each biotic category,
whether or not the 6itc is one
of law potential impact.
2) A plan for any additional
studies or work necessary to
complete the demonstration.
Gather more
information
-r
jApplicant submits the summaries
I to the PA or Director.
jr •
RA or Director determines that the
site is one of low potential impact
areas for all-blotlc categories.
Applicant chooses
Type II, Type III,
or Low Potential
Impact Type III,
| Type Il|
Applicant meets with RA
or Director to discuss
selection of RIS and FFSA.
RA or Director provides applicant
with written recognition cf the
specific plan for completing the
demonstration, including delineations
of RIS and FFSA.
Literature and
lab studies.
JL
Is more field or literature
work necessary to complete
Blotlc Category Rationales?
Applicant writes
RIS Rationale.
\y
Additional work
comnlotcd.
Applicant writes Biotic Category
Rationales.
Applicant combines the information in the RIS and Biotic
Category Rationales in one "Master" Ecosystem Rationale.
Applicant chooses
Type II or Type III.
Type III
k~
Written concurrence
of RA. or Director on
specific plan.
Data components
decided Individually
31
Applicant 6umni.irises
entire demonstrntion
in one "Master"
Ecosystem Rationale.
Low Potential Tnspact
Tvp? TIT
^__j
Applicant gathers any
additional information
necessary, completes
relatively brief Plotlc
Cntepory Rofrlonale.i, and
Bin":narizes ihc'c inn or.c
"Master" Ecosystem
Rationale,
1
^ Applicant submits demonstration.
"T~
RA. or Director compares the rationales with
their respective decision criteria.
JL
Final decision.
-------
-13-
Applleant
Industrial Representative
Applying for EPA and NRC
Permits and Licenses
Director
•Director of the State NPDES
Permit Program
FFSA-
Far Field Study Area
RA-
•Regional Administrator, EPA
RIS-
•Representative Important
Species
3.2.2 Decision Train Narrative
The decision train (sequence of events leading to a decision)
listed here is designed as general guidance for both the applicant and
the regulatory agencies:
1. Before designing aquatic ecology studies, the applicant
consult8( with the Regional Administrator/Director to
verify the applicability of this technical manual for
satisfying thermal plume effects (316(a) and effluent
guidelines) requirements under PL 92-500. If the
Regional Administrator/Director specifies an alternative
or modified version of this manual, the applicant should
utilize it. If the Regional Administrator specifies
using this technical manual as a guide, the applicant
goes to the next step.
2. The applicant reads section 3.3 of this manual to
determine what biological data requirements are necessary
for early screening determinations such as defining low
potential impact areas.
3. The applicant contacts the 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.
A. The applicant gathers existing literature and field data
from previous studies by the company, resource agencies,
academic institutions, and other researchers.
5.
The applicant determines whether or not enough information
is available to summarize in writing:
-------
-14-
a. For each biotic category, whether or not the
site is one of low potential impact.
b. A plan for any additional studies or work
necessary to complete the demonstration.
If more information is necessary, the information should
be gathered through relatively brief "pilot" field
surveys.
Applicant submits the summaries to the Regional Administra
tor/Director.
If the Regional Administrator/Director determines that
the site is one of low potential impact for all biotic
categories, the applicant may choose the new "short
form" demonstration type, the Low Potential Impact Type
III demonstration detailed in section 3.6; if not, the
applicant chooses between Type II and Type III demonstra-
tions.
Those applicants eligible for the low potential impact
demonstrations gather any additional information necessary
complete relatively brief biotic category rationales, and .
summarize them into one "master" ecosystem rationale.
If the proposed discharge will meet State water quality
standards, the additional field studies necessary will
not be extensive. The primary information that needs to
be generated is simply that which is enough to sat:' ify
the biotic category, resource zone, and master rationale
criteria in section 3.8. One year's qualitative "pilot"
field studies should be enough to generate enough
information to complete the biotic category, resource
zone, 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.
If the applicant determines that the site is classified
as a low potential impact area for most of the biotic
categories but not all, a logical step might be to
discuss (with the Regional Administrator/Director) the
possibility of a Type III demonstration which would not
be as detailed as a Type II demonstration and yet not as
abbreviated as a Low Potential Impact Type III demonstra-
tion. After such discussions it should be possible to
develop a mutually acceptable comprehensive Type III
study plan. Regardless of the type of demonstration
chosen, it is suggested that the applicant summarize the
results in biotic category and "master" ecosystem
rationales to facilitate their comparison with the
decision criteria.
-------
-15-
10. Applicants whose sites do not qualify for the above
considerations will ordinarily select the Type II
demonstration or a Type III demonstration of similar
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 the far field study area.
If the regulatory agency has reached any tentative
decisions regarding an allowable mixing zone (see
section 3.8.3), these decisions should be discussed and
understood by both parties. 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
may move on to the next step. If not, the regulatory
agency may request that the applicant assist in the
selection of RIS by doing studies and giving written
justification for the proposed far field study area.
12. The Regional Administrator/Director checks with the
Regional Director of the FWS and representatives of the
NMFS and States to make sure the study plan includes
appropriate consideration of threatened or endangered
species as well as outer fish and wildlife resources.
13. The Regional Administrator/Director provides the applicant
with written recognition of the specific plan for
completing the demonstration, including delineations of
the RIS far field study area, and threatened or endangered
species.
14. Applicant completes field and literature work required
to finish biotic category rationales and writes the
rationales in accordance with section 3.5.1.
15. 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. Applicant develops engineering and hydrological data
outlined in section 3.5.3.
17. Applicant combines the information on engineering and
hydrological data with the RIS and biotic category
rationales into one "Master" Ecosystem Rationale, as
described in section 3.5.4.
18. Applicant arranges the rationales and other information
in the format suggested in seption 3.5.5.
19. Applicant submits demonstration to the Regional
Administrator/Director.
20. The Regional Administrator/Director:
Reviews the demonstration to see that key evidence is
properly summarized in the "rationale" sections, that
all of the required data has been submitted, and that
the format in general follows that given in section
3.5.5 or an alternative format previously approved of
by the Regional Administrator/Director.
a. If the report is unacceptable due to improper
format or omissions, the Regional Administrator/
Director will return the demonstration to the
applicant with an explanation of why it was
deemed unacceptable.
b. If the report is in an acceptable format and is
complete, the Regional Administrator/Director
will proceed to the next step.
21. The Regional Administrator/Director studies the data
presented in the submittal to see if it justifies the
conclusions reached in the biotic category rationales.
If so, and if there is no conflicting evidence from
other sources, the Regional Administrator/Director
will proceed to the next step.
22. The Regional Administrator/Director studies each of
the biotic category rationales to see if they support
the 316(a) test of protection and propagation of the
balanced indigenous population. If any of the five
rationales fail to meet the tests (as detailed in
the decision criteria sections), the demonstration
is not successful. If all five meet the tests and
there is not strong contrary evidence from other
sources, the Regional Administrator/Director will
proceed to the next step.
-------
-17-
23. The Regional Administrator/Director studies the
RIS information to see if it supports the conclusions
in the Representative Important Species Rationale.
If it does, the rationale is studied in relationship
"to the decision criteria given in section 3.8.2.
If the decision criteria are met, the Regional
Administrator/Director will proceed to the next
step.
24. The Regional Administrator/Director studies as a
composite the biotic 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 master
rationale. If they do and there is not strong
contrary evidence from other sources, the Regional
Administrator/Director will proceed to the next
6tep.
25. The Regional Administrator/Director studies the
master rationale in relationship to all other
available data, considers the overall decision
criteria in section 3.8.3, and determines if the
316(a) demonstration has been successfully made.
Following discussions with technical experts on
his staff as well as those from the Fish and
Wildlife Service and other agencies required by
law to be consulted, the Regional Administrator/
Director makes the final decision.
If the Regional Administrator/Director concludes
that the summary rationale is convincing, it is
supported sufficiently by the other sections of
the demonstration, and is not convincingly
negated by outside evidence, the applicant's
316(a) demonstration is successful. The applicant
has demonstrated that the proposed thermal discharge
to navigable waters will be acceptable under
PL 92-500 (for section 316(a) and effluent
guidelines).
-------
-18-
3.3 Biotic Category Determinations and Recommended
Early Screening Procedures by Industry
It is recommended that applicants conduct pilot field surveys
and literature searches before embarking upon massive, comprehensive,
baseline, field sampling. These initial studies will often be sufficient
to determine whether or not the site is one of low potential impact for
individual biotic categories and to determine what additional studies
will be required to develop biotic category rationales responsive to
the decision criteria listed in this section.
The applicant should first read this section, then execute the
initial pilot field surveys and literature searches In such a manner
that they identify those biotic categories for which the site may be
considered a low potential impact area.
It should be 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.
3.3.1 Phytoplankton
3.3.1.1 Decision Criteria.
The phytoplankton section of the 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 sites, the
phytoplankton section of the 316(a) demonstration will be judged
successful only if the applicant can demonstrate that:
1. A shift towards nuisance species of phytoplankton
is not likely to occur;
2. There is little likelihood that the discharge will
alter the indigenous community from a detrital to
a phytoplankton based 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 Impact Areas for Phytoplankton (Open Ocean and
Host Riverine Ecosystems).
Areas of low potential impact for phytoplankton are defined
as open ocean areas or systems in which phytoplankton is not the food
chain base. Ecosystems in which the food web is based on detrital
-------
--i-
material, e.g., ernbayments bordered by mangrove swamps, salt marshes,
fresh water swamps, and most rivers and streams, are in this category.
The area will not be considered one of low potential impact
if preliminary literature review and/or abbreviated "pilot" field
studies reveal that:
1. The phytoplankton contribute a substantial amount of
the primary photosynthetic activity supporting the
community;
2. A shift towards nuisance species may be encouraged;
or
3. Operation of the discharge may alter the: community
from a detrital to a phytoplankton based system.
3.3.1.3 Study Requirements for Areas Not Classified as Low
Potential Impact (Some Lacustrine, Estuarine, and
Possibly Other Water Body Types).
The applicant is not requested specifically to conduct
detailed taxonomic studies of the phytoplankton, but information pro-
vided in the demonstration should be adequate to characterize the
presence and abundance of pollution toierant and nuisance forms as
well as to provide baseline information about the phytoplankton
community as a whole. The particular power plant site and aquatic
system plus historical information will dictate the extent of
taxonomic work required. In some situations only a few species or
major taxonomic groups (e.g., species comprising >5% of total) will
have to be identified and counfed, whereas in other situations the
identification and cqunting of several species or major groups may
be required.
The experimental design should be appropriate to determine
the* general characteristics of the phytoplankton community within
the entire primary study area. Sampling outside the primary study
area should be done at locations most appropriate to generate data
typical of the far field study area. Sample replication should be
adequate to determine precision of the data collected and to
conduct appropriate statistical tests.
Samples should be taken with appropriate gear as described
in the EPA Biological Methods Manual.* Plankton nets are of limited
value since many organisms pass through them. In certain cases where
* Biological Field and Laboratory Methods (EPA-670/4-73-001).
-------
extensive sampling is decried necessary, it may be possible to use
an indirect chemical method to assess seasonal or spatial phyto-
plankton fluctuations.
In most cases the study should determine the standing
crop of phytoplankton at periods ranging from seasonal To bi-monthly
depending on the available information. At a minimum, the data
collected should include:
1. The standing crops of organisms per volume of
water;
2. Identification of numerically dominant taxa
(i.e., 5% or more by number) and nuisance
organisms; and
3. Delineation of the euphotic zone, preferably
with a submersible photometer.
.3.2 Zooplankton and hleroplankton
3.3.2.1 Decision Criteria.
The zooplankton section of the 316(a) demonstration will
be judged successful if the applicant can show that the site is a
low potential impact area for zooplankton, or that:
1. Changes in the zooplankton community in the
primary study area that may be caused by the
heated discharge will not result in appreciable
harm to the balanced indigenous fish and shell-
fish population.
2, The heated discharge is not likely to alter the
standing crop, relative abundance, with respect
to natural population fluctuations in the far
field study area from those values typical of
the receiving water body segment prior to 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 Low Potential Impact Areas for Zooplankton.
Areas of low potential impact for zooplankton are defined
as those characterized by low concentrations of commercially important
species, rare and endangered species, and/or those forms that are
-------
~ :ILL: 1676693 rBorrower: ACK sReqDates 19990615 :NeedBefore: 19990621
sStatus: SHIPPED sRecDate: :RenewalReq:
:OCLC: 18549380 :Source: OCLCILL :DueDate: 19990715 :NewDueDate:
:Lender: *ESA ^
t :CALLNO: I
t -.TITLE: Standardizing data requirements for EPA/NRC memorandum of
understanding : draft, f
^ :EDITION: any 5
~ :IMPRINT: Washington, D.C. : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. fl
^ -.ARTICLE: Interagency 316(A) Technical guidance manual and guide for thermal fl
t :V0L: :N0: :DATE: May 1977 :PAGES: 88p f
~ '.VERIFIED: OCLC fl
^ :PATRON: GeokustA3274 fl
~ :SHIP TO: Southern Company Services/Corporate Research Library/42 Inverness
Center Parkway Bin B217/Birmingham, AL/35242 1
t :BILL TO: SAME f
} :SHIP VIA: we need immediatelyMAXCOST: $0.00 :MAXCOST: $0.00
:COPYRT COMPLIANCE: CCG 1
^ :FAX: 205-992-6927 if possible 1
~ :E-MAIL: ahhines@southernco.com 1
^ :BORROWING NOTES: SoLine Member thanks 1;) f
~ :LENDING CHARGES: none '.SHIPPED: 19990615 :SHIP INSURANCE: 1
^ :LENDING RESTRICTIONS: fl
y LENDING NOTES: 1
y :RETURN TO: Interlibrary Loans/U.S. EPA Library OMP-104/1200 6th/Seattle, WA
98101 f
~ :RETURN VIA: fl
UJ. ENVIROMKNTAL PROTKCTIOII MOICf
REGION 10 LIBRARY, OMM04
1200 6th AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA M101
-------
-21-
important components of the food web or where the thermal discharge
will affect a relatively small proportion of the receiving water
body.
Most estuarine areas will not be considered areas of low
potential impact for zooplankton and meroplankton. However, where
a logarithmic gradient of zooplankton abundance exists,"those areas
at the lowest level of abundance may be recognized as low potential
impact areas at the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
If preliminary 316(a) studies indicate that the area is
one of low potential impact for zooplankton, no further 316(a)
studies are necessary. In this case the applicant need provide
only a narrative discussion justifying the conclusion that the 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 meroplankton populations. The
data should include:
1. Standing crop estimates;
*»
2. Relative abundances of the taxa present;
3. Seasonal variations in the abundance and distributions
of the various taxa encountered; and
4. The diel and tidal changes in the depth distribution.
The experimental design should be appropriate to determine
the general characteristics of zooplankton and meroplankton within
the entire primary study area. Sampling in the far field study area
should be done in locations most appropriate to generate data typical
of^the remainder of the far field study area. The AIF Sourcebook*
provides information related to the choice of sampling methods.
Sample replication should be adequate to determine precision of the
data collected and to conduct appropriate statistical tests.
If the applicant believes on the basis of the data collected
that the zooplankton criteria can be met, the conceptual framework upon
which the conclusion is based and corresponding data analysis must be
included in the zooplankton rationale of the 316(a) demonstration. For
a further discussion of information requirements for meroplankton, see
section 3.3.4*3.
* Atomic Industrial Forum, Sourcebook: "Environmental Impact Monitoring
of Nuclear Power Plants," August 1974.
-------
3.3.3 Habitat Formers
3.3.3.1 Decision Criteria.
The habitat formers section of a 316(a) demonstration
will be judged successful if the applicant can show that the
site is a low potential impact area for habitat formers For
other sites, the section will be judged successful if ttie applicant
can demonstrate that:
1. The heated discharge will not result in any
deterioration of the habitat formers community
or that no appreciable harm to the balanced
indigenous population will result from such
deteriorations.
2. The heated discharge will not have an adverse
Impact on threatened or endangered species as
a result of impact upon habitat formers.
Any probable thermal elimination of habitat formers from
the estuarine or marine environments or their contiguous wetlands
constitutes a basis for denial. Similarly, a basis for denial
exists if important fish, shellfish, or wildlife are thermally
excluded from the use of the habitat.
3.3.3.2 Low Potential Impact Areas.
In some situations, the aquatic environment at the pro-
posed site will be devoid of habitat formers. This condition may
be caused by low levels of nutrients, inadequate light penetration,
sedimentation, scouring stream velocities, substrate character, or
toxic materials. Under such conditions the site may be considered
a low potential impact area. However, if there is some possibility
the limiting factors (especially man-caused limiting factors) may
be relieved and habitat formers may be established within the area,
tbfe applicant will be required to demonstrate that the heated
discharge would not restrict re-establishment. Those sites where
there is a possibility that the power plant will impact a
threatened or endangered species through adverse impacts on
habitat formers will not be considered low potential impact areas.
3.3.3.3 Study Requirements for Other Areas Mot Classified as
Low Potential Impact.
For areas that do not qualify as low potential impact
areas, the applicant should provide the following information:
1. Regional site location map and a scaled aerial
map showing the distribution of habitat formers
in the region near the proposed site. The
-------
-23-
aerial map should Include the primary and far field
study areas. When available, aerial maps showing
historical changes in the distribution of habitat
formers should be provided.
2. List of dominant species of habitat forming macro-
phytes, macroalgae, shellfish, corals, and sponges.
3. Standing crop estimates of the dominant species in
terms of dry weight of organic matter per unit area.
These estimates should be made at a minimum frequency
of quarterly for one year.
A. Identification of those species of fish which are
dominant species or threatened or endangered species
and are dependent upon the existence of the habitat
formers. For such species (which are not 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
done in locations most appropriate to generate data
typical of the remainder of the far field study area.
Sample replication should be adequate to determine
the precision of the data generated and to conduct
appropriate statistical tests.
3.3.A Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates
3?3.4.1 Decision Criteria.
The shellfish/macroinvertebrates section of a 316(a) demon-
stration will 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 follows:
I
1. Standing Crop. Reductions in the standing crop of
shellfish and macroinvertebrates 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 the
water body segment.
-------
-24-
Community Structure. Reductions in the components of
diversity may be cause for the denial of a 316(a)
waiver unless the applicant can show that the critical
functions (defined in section 3.8.3.) of the macroin-
vertebrate fauna are being maintained in""the water
body segment as 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 major difficulty relates
to the fact that the species richness of the macro-
invertebrate fauna varies considerably in different
systems and that the effects of a given level or
percentage of change might be £ function of the level
of diversity extant prior to the introduction of heat
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 the 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 the proposed site.
3. Drift. The discharge of cooling water equal to 30% 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 the applicant can
show that:
1) Invertebrates do not serve as a major forage
for the fisheries,
2) Food is not a factor limiting fish production
in the water body segment, or
3) Drifting invertebrate fauna is not harmed by
passage through the thermal plume.
A. Critical Functions (Estuaries). Areas which serve as
spawning and nursery sites for important shellfish
and/or macroinvertebrate fauna are considered as aero
allowable impact areas and will be excluded from
-------
-25-
consideration for the discharge of waste heat. Plants
sited in locations which would impact these critical
functions will not be eligible for a 316(a) waiver.
Most estuarine sites will fall into this «ategory.
3.3. .2 Low Potential Impact Areas for Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates.
A low potential impact area for shellfish/macroinvertebrate
fauna is defined as an area which, within the primary and far field
study areas, can meet the following requirements:
1. Shellfish/macroinvertebrate species of existing or
potential commercial value do not occur at the site.
This requirement can be met if the applicant can
show that the occurrence of such species is
marginal.
2. Shellfish/macroinvertebrates do not serve as important
components of the aquatic community at the site.
3. Threatened or endangered species of shellfish/macro-
invertebrates do not occur at the site.
4. The standing crop of shellfish/macroinvertebrates at
the time of maximum abundance is less than one gram
ash-fcee dry weight per square meter.
5. The site does not serve as a spawning or nursery area
for the species in 1, 2, or 3 above.
3.3.4.3 Study Requirements for Other Areas.
1. Sampling Design. The experimental design should be
appropriate to determine the general characteristics
of the shellfish/macroinvertebrate community within
the entire primary study area. Sampling outside the
primary study area should be done in locations most
appropriate to generate data typical of the remainder
of the far field study area. Sample replication and
collection frequency should be adequate to determine
the precision of the data generated and to conduct
appropriate statistical tests.
At a minimum, samples should be taken quarterly for
one year. However, 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 species must occur
-------
-26-
when vulnerable life stages are in the area. If,
because of the transitory nature of such species
and their various life stages, it is not possible
to include them in a quarterly program oj£ if there
is a complex of species whose timing in the area is
unknown, then the frequency of sampling will have
to be increased. For the benthic component of the
shellfish/macroinvertebrates, community sampling
stations should be selected for each major substrate
type within the primary study area. Similar stations
should be selected in the far field study area so
that the relative importance of the two regions may
be compared. Where appropriate, these stations
should also be used for sampling the motile portion
of the shellfish/macroinvertebrate community.
2. Sampling Methods. The applicant should use trawls,
trapping, or netting techniques which are standard
for the types and life stages of shellf ish/raacro-
invertebrates found in the study area.
3. Information Requirements. The applicant should
qualitatively enumerate as thoroughly as possible
the species of shellfish/macroinvertebrates in-
habiting the 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), seasonal timing of
presence (if applicable), and the life stages
present including meroplankton. In addition, the
applicant should describe the importance of the
area for the critical functions of reproduction
and early development. In cases where the dis-
charge will potentially impact a highly productive
shellfish/macroinvertebrate fauna, the applicant
should provide <|uantitative estimates of the
shellfish/macroinvertebrate standing crop. Such
sites include estuaries, shallow nonfluctuating
reservoirs, salmonid rivers, and open coastal
sites which have characteristics similar to
estuarine sites. However, the applicant should
recognize that the level of effort is based on
the area impacted and that sampling of the
benthic component of the shellfish/macroinvertebrate
-------
fauns would be minimal in the case of a site having
sufficient depth that the plume does not reach the
bottom. Many deep fluctuating reservoirs, as typified
by some in the TVA system, have depauperate benthic
fauna and will require a minimum amount of description
information to document those characteristics. In the
case of shallow non-fluctuating reservoirs, typified
by Lakes Marion and Moultrie in South Carolina, which
have an abundant and diverse benthic fauna, the 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 meter for both the
primary and far field study areas. The biomass
estimate should be expressed as grams ash-free
dry weight per square meter.
B. Community structure. The community structure
should be evaluated in terms of:
1) the number of species per sample,
2) the number of individuals for each species
in each sample,
3) the total number of species in the study
areas, and, when appropriate,
A) 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
make a conscious effort to augment the quantitative
sample data with qualitative sampling adequate to
obtain a reasonably complete list of taxa.
C. Drift. If a riverine site is being examined, the
applicant must estimate the quantity and composi-
tion of the shellfish/macroinvertebrate 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 meter of river
cross section. Sample replication and collection
frequency should be adequate to determine the precision
of the data generated and to conduct appropriate
statistical tests. In addition, the applicant should
enumerate those species which represent five percent
-------
or more of the total number or biomass of organisms
comprising the drift. Where appropriate, the
applicant may conduct in situ 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 "the plume at
the proposed site.
4. Data Presentation. The applicant should provide a
scaled substate map which includes the primary and
far fie]d study areas. At least one map should be
provided which shows the anticipated outer limits of
the thermal plume to the 2 C isotherm. In addition,
the applicant should provide maps showing the isotherms
as they will exist along the bottom for the conditions
of maximum and minimum ambient water temperatures.
In the case of estuaries, the applicant should provide
maps showing the relationship of the predicted plume
to spawning areas, nursery areas, and migration routes
for the various life stages of commercial species,
threatened or endangered species, forage species, and
6pecies that are otherwise important to the 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 whi h explains why, in the judgment of the
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
3.3.5.1 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. Direct or indirect mortality from cold shocks;
2. Direct or indirect mortality from excess heat;
3. Reduced reproductive success or growth as a
result of plant discharges;
4. Exclusion from unacceptably large areas; or
5. Blockage of migration.
3.3.5.2 Low Potential Impact Area.
A discharge may be determined to be in a low potential impact
area for fishes within the primary and far field study areas if the
following conditions are satisfied:
1. The occurrence of sport and commercial species of fish
is marginal;
2. The discharge site is not 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-year low flow or water level and maximum water
temperature);
4 The plume confjuration will not cause fish to become
* vulnerable to cold shock or have an adverse impact on
threatened or endangered species.
3.3.5.3 Rpfluireme,nfg f»r Areas Mot Classified as Low Potential
T mn 0/*f* .
Impact
1.
Methodology and Frequency. Appropriate sampling methods
and gear will be used to provide a basis for identifying
the Representative Important Species (RIS) 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. A
-------
-30-
no time during the study should new gear or sampling
methods be introduced unless it can be demonstrated
that the comparative efficiencies of the old and new
gear and methods are similar. A change in sampling
procedures can only be implemented aftertwritten
approval by the Regional Administrator/Director.
For field studies, experimental design should be
appropriate to determine the general characteristics
of all life stages of fishes inhabiting the primary
and far field'study areas. The data collected should
allow for a comparison of the relative importance of
these two areas with 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.
In northern latitudes, the monthly sampling requirement
is subject to weather conditions and it 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,
rationales 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 diel cycle.
In most 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
purposes 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 Level; For the RIS, the following information
may 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 arid
seasonal timing of presence in the habitat types.
Migration activity, if applicable to the designated
species, should be addressed.
C. Condition factors. Comparative condition information
for the principal species occurring in the primary and
far field study areas.
D. Disease and parasitism. Occurrence of disease and
parasitism in the indigenous population and species
susceptibility within the framework of expected
thermal regimes should be discussed.
E. 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 most vulnerable
to intake ai.J/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 number of all fishes
collected into the number of that species caught.
It 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 time 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 the presence or absence
of other species in the sample. Significant
impact on one species, therefore, can result in
changes in principal associations.
D. Map requirement. The applicant should provide maps
depicting portions of the receiving water body used
by the indigenous fish communities for such activities
as spawning, nursery, feeding, migration, resting,
etc. The applicant should discuss and show on the
map the proportion of the total area used that will
be influenced by the thermal discharge to the 2 C
isotherm.
3.3.6 Other Vertebrate Wildlife
3.3.6 .1 Decision Criteria.
The section of the "demonstration dealing with other verte-
brates will be judged successful if the 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
community components will not suffer appreciable harm or will actually
benefit from the heated discharge. The term "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.
Most sites in the United States will be considered ones of
low potential impact for other vertebrate wildlife simply because the
projected thermal plume will not impact large or unique populations
df wildlife. The main exceptions will be sites in cold areas (such
as North Central United States) which would be predicted to attract
geese and ducks, and encourage them to stay through the winter. These
would not be considered low potential impact areas unless they could
demonstrate that the wildlife would be protected through a wildlife
management plan or other methods from the potential sources of harm
mentioned in the next section.
Other exceptions to sites classified as low potential
Impact would be those few sites where the discharge might affect
important (or threatened and endangered) wildlife such as manatees.
For most other sites, brief site inspections and literature
reviews would supply enough information to enable the applicant to
write a brief rationale about why the site could be considered one
of low potential impact for other vertebrates.
-------
-33-
3 .3.6 .3 Study Requirements for Other Areas.
The applicant should undertake whatever investigation and
planning steps are necessary to be able to write a rationale explaining
what factors (or wildlife management plans) will ensure"that other
wildlife will not suffer appreciable harm from:
1. Excess heat or cold shock;
2. Increased disease and parasitism;
3. Reduced growth or reproductive success;
4. Exclusion from unique or large habitat areas; or
5. Interference with migratory patterns.
In the rationale, the applicant should discuss the relation
of the effluent to the habits and habitats of any threatened or
endangered species or organisms of commercial or recreational importance.
3.4 How to Select the Most Appropriate
Demonstration Type
The basic recommended steps for the applicant's use in choosing the
most appropriate demonstration type are summarized in section 3.2.2, the
decision train narrative.
After completing the initial screening procedures and making a
preliminary assessment of the amount of additional work needed in each
biotic category, the applicant selects the demonstration type most appro-
priate^ for the site. If the site is 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 3.5 or the Type III guidance in section 3.7.
It is recommended that the Type II demonstration be used as a guide
for the amount of detail required in most 316(a) demonstrations. The actual
amount of detail required for an individual location will vary from site to
site, but section 3.5 should serve as a useful starting point for discusssions
between the applicant aftd Regional Administrator/Director on what study
plans are most appropriate for a particular site.
Applicants not eligible for a low potential impact Type III demon-
stration and not desiring to do a Type II demonstration may elect to do an
alternate (Type III) demonstration.
-------
-34-
If the site is one of low potential impact for most biotic
categories but not all, studies less detailed than those recommended in
section 3.5 may be appropriate. For example, if the site is_one of low
potential impact for all biotic categories except shellfish,-the Regional
Administrator/Director might conclude that few additional field studies
(except for shellfish) would be required and that the only RIS that
should be selected should be shellfish. This demonstration would be
less detailed than other Type II demonstrations and could be referred to
as a Type III demonstration.
3.5 Type II Demonstrations (Representative
Important Species)
The Type II demonstration should be designed in such a manner to
fully develop the three key biological components: completion of the
Biotic Category Rationales (begun during early 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 the data requirements are necessary for making 316(a) decisions.
3.5.1 Development of Biotic Category Rationales
During early screening procedures of literature surveys and pilot
field investigations the applicant will develop some of the information
needed to develop the Biotic Category Rationales. If the decision is
made ^o do a Type II demonstration following these early screening
procedures, the applicant should review sections 3.3 and 3.8.1, this
section, and the data available, to determine what additional field
studies, if any, will be necessary to complete the Biotic Category
Rationales. In some cases, relatively little additional work will be
necessary. In cases where additional work is required, the applicant
should complete the studies as suggested in section 3.3 and then write
the summary Biotic Category Rationales.
Each Biotic Category Rationale should provide a complete dis-
cussion as to why, in the judgment of the applicant, the impacts are
sufficiently inconsequential that the protection and propagation of
the balanced Indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in
and on the body of water will be assured. In the rationale, the
applicant should address each decision criteria for the biotic category
in question. The discussion should include an evaluation of the impacts
of the discharges into the receiving water body.
-------
-35-
. The conclusions drawn should be supported with an analysis of
the data collected during the 316(a) studies and/or by the 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 defendable. Wffere citations
are used that are not readily available in scientific journals (i.e.,
interim reports, various types of agency documents, annual reports,
theses, etc.), the documents themselves should be provided.
If the impact of the discharge is projected using a mathematical
model, the applicant should provide a complete documentation of the
model that is used. The documentation should include a discussion of
the merits and disadvantages of the model. 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 methods used in the
statistical evaluation.
3.5.2 Development of Representative Important Species Rationale
The RIS Rationale should summarize why the results of the
laboratory and literature studies specified in section 3.5.2.2 suggest
that the RIS will not suffer appreciable harm as a result of the heated
discharge.
The assumptions in the concept of RIS are:
1. It is not possible to study in great detail every species
at a site; there is not enough time, money or expertise.
2. Since all species cannot be studies in detail, some
smaller number will have to be chosen.
3. The species of concern are those casually related to
power plant 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 at the site.
-------
-36-
6. Wide-ranging species at the extremes of their ranges would
generally not be considered acceptable as "particularly
vulnerable" or "sensitive" representative species but they
could be considered as "important."
7. Often, all organisms that might be considered "important"
or "representative" cannot be studied in detail, and a
smaller list (e.g., greater than 1 but less than 15) may
have to be selected as the "representative and important"
list.
8. Often, but not 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 the
ecosystem.
9. Officially listed "threatened or endangered species" are
automatically "important."
3.5.2.1 Selection of the Representative Important Species and
Far Field Studv Area.
As previously discussed in the decision train (section
3.2.2, Step 11), applicants first meet with the Regional Adminis-
trator/Director to discuss selection of the RIS and define the
far field study area.
The number of RIS selected for a particular site may be
high (5-15) if the plans for biotic category field studies are not
comprehensive, or low (2-5) if plans for additional field studies
are extensive.
Some of the criteria for selection of RIS are found in
ttffe definition of the term (see section 4.0, Definitions and
Concepts). Keeping in mind these criteria and the assumptions
given above, the Regional Administrator/Director selects RIS from
any combination of the following biotic categories: fish, shellfish,
or habitat formers.
1. 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:
-------
-J/-
A. Applicable State Wrter Quality Standards. If the
State's approved water quality standards designate
particular species as requiring protection, these
species should be designated, but alone may not
be sufficient for purposes of a Type-II demonstra-
tion.
B. Consultation with Director and with Secretaries of
Commerce and Interior. In the cases of species
selection by the Regional Administrator, he must
seek the advice and recommendation of the Director
as to which species should be selected. The
Regional Administrator must consider any timely
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).
C. Threatened t Endangered Species. Species selection
should specifically consider any present threatened
or endangered species, at whatever biotic category
or trophic level, except that no information should
be requested that would require field sampling
prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq. (see section 3.2.2, Decision Train,
Step 12).
D. Thermally Sensitive Species. The most thermally
sensitive species (and species group) in the local
area should be identified and their importance
should be given special consideration, since such
species (or species groups) might be most readily
eliminated from the community if effluent limita-
tions allowed existing water temperatures to be
altered. Consideration of the most sensitive
species will best involve a total aquatic
community viewpoint.
-------
-38-
Reduced tolerance to elevated temperature may
also be predicted, for example in species which
experience natural population reduction during
the summer. Species having the greatest northern
range and least southward distribution may also
possess reduced thermal tolerance.
E. Commercially or Recreationally 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 not
be warmed to an extent that would adversely
affect downstream biota. The impact of additive
or synergistic 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 the Well-Being of Species
Determined Above. In addition to the above
considerations, it is suggested that the
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 the
range 5-15 or 2-5 (see text above)?
-------
-39-
7) Are the identified problem species "repre-
sentative"?
8) Should other species not clearly a problem be
included-as representative or important?
2. Species Selection Where Information is Inadequate.
Where the available information is not adequate
to enable the Regional Administrator/Director to
select appropriate RIS, he may request the applicant
attempting to make a Type II demonstration to
conduct such studies and furnish such evidence as
may be necessary to enable such selection. Where
species selection is based on information supplied
by the applicant, the appropriateness of the species
as representative and important is an aspect of the
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 summary Tables A and B and to develop (on the basis of the
data summaries in those tables) the RIS Rationale. Mot all of the
data listed in Tables A and B may be appropriate at a particular
site. If the applicant feels that some are inappropriate and should
be deleted, it should be discussed with the Regional Administrator/
Director at the same time other discussions about the RIS are taking
place.
Assumptions for Tables A and B
1. The tables are merely aids to organizing biological
data believed to be useful and important for making
decisions regarding thermal discharge effects.
2. The species table should be workable for any important
or representative species selected, whether it is
selected as a species for protection or avoidance
(e.g., nuisance species).
3. All thermal characteristics do not apply in a
similar context to all taxonomic groups (taxa),
requiring some special definitions or omission of
a characteristic for a particular taxon.
-------
-40-
4. There will be nonthermal influences (e.g., chemicals,
scouring), often occurring simultaneously with
thermal influences, that are not included in this
table but which should be considered in their own
right.
5. There may not be differences between adults and
juveniles of all taxa, or there may be more than
two distinct sensitivity categories. Distinctly
different life stage requirements should be listed.
6. Data can be collected by the applicant for those
thermal characteristics of the RIS that have not yet
been determined but for which standardized methods are
readily available.
7. For certain parameters that are still in the research
or development stage, as opposed to standardized
testing (e.g., gametogenesis requirements or predation
on thermally stressed meroplankton), all available
published data would be useful but it would not be
necessary to develop new data for this category.
8. If more than one set of data are available for any
category, the several sets should be presented
(and referenced) and the rationale presented to aid
in selecting one set for decision-making at the
site in question.
9. Dates for gametogenesis and spawning imply appro-
priate seasonal time which will vary from area
to area and year to year even without the influence
of the 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
speed, greatest metabolic scope, final temperature
preferendum, 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.
-------
TABLE A
SAMPLE TABLE TO SUMMARIZE DATA FOR EACH
REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS)
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
THERMAL
EFFECTS
PARAMETER
1
TEMPERATURE
LIMIT OR
RANGE (°C)
SOURCE
REFERENCE (IF
APPROPRIATE)
MEAN AND MAXIMUM
AREA UNAVAILABLE
FOR FUNCTION (m2)„
a
MEAN AND MAXIMUM
TIME UNAVAILABLE
FOR FUNCTION (DAYS)a
IS EFFECT, IF ANY, EXPECTED
TO AFFECT THE POPULATION OF
THE RIS? (YES OR NO)
a
That area or time under average and worst case conditions that will not permit the specific biological function to
occur satisfactorily.
SUMMARY CONCLUSION OF EFFECT OF HEAT ON THE REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS):
-------
-42-
TABLE B
THERMAL EFFECTS PARAMETERS APPLICABLE
TO AQUATIC ORGANISMS POTENTIALLY SELECTED AS R1S
THERMAL EFFECTS
PARAMETERS
POSSIBLE METHODS FOR
DETERMINATION
POTENTIAL TAXA FOR
RIS
1. High Temperature Survival
Aquatic Adult
Juvenile (Immature)
TLcjg, 24 hours
TL5Q, 24 hours
2. Thermal Shock Tolerance
(Heat and Cold)
Aquatic Adult
Juvenile (Immature)
Early Developmental Stages
(incl. meroplankton)
thermal gradient including
worst case T
single shock to simulate
plant shutdown
double shock (up and down)
in traversing plume
3
3. Optimum Temperature for
Performance and Growth
Non-breeding Adult
Juvenile
length, weight changes;
productivity; DNA/RNA RatiO£
length, weight changes;
DNA/RNA Ratio2
4. Maximum Temperature
Regir.e Allowing Early
Development Completion
long-term temperature
exposure throughout development
to juvenilej
5. Normal Spawning Dates
and Temperatures
months; range for spawning
6. Special Temperature
Requirements for
Reproduction
1
^ As available in the literature only.
2 Indicated by final ^referendum for fish.
^ Only for species readily reared or ;
-------
-43-
Narrative for Table B — Thermal Effects Parameters Applicable to
Aquatic Organisms Selected As Representative Important Species
Thermal effects studies applicable to major taxa or-broad biotic
categories are summarized in Table B. Applicable thermal effects data
should be obtained for each RIS selected. Remarks on study and notes of
application of the results to make 316(a) and (b) decisions are indicated
here.
1. High temperature survival for juveniles and adults:
Method: Determine TL^q (e.g., 48-hr. = ultimate incipient lethal
temperature) for juveniles and non-breeding adults. Acclimation
temperature should approximate the highest temperature at which the
fish can be held. Expose animal to elevated temperatures in an acute
(instantaneous) manner.
Application of Results: The TL,-~ value can be used for permits
estimation of the upper non-letnal limit for the life-history stage
in question (24-hr. minus 2 C). The TL value also can be
used to estimate the upper temperature limit for appreciable growth
(24-hr."TL^q minus optimum growth time).
2. Thermal shock tolerance of selected life-history stages:
a) For juveniles and adults, simulate winter plant shutdown
stress of plume entrained fishes and motile macro-crustacea.
Method: Expose organisms to acute temperature drops equal to the
range of expected discharge A t's, using maximum winter plume
temperature as the acclimation temperature. Indicate temperature test
regimes which produce equilibrium loss of 50% 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 plant shutdown, and an ensuing high loss of
organisms due to markedly increased susceptibility to predation.
b) For meroplankton, simulate temperature shock upon traversing
a thermal plume.
Method: Expose 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-
plume resident times and temperatures. Acclimation temperature
should equal natural seasonal ambient conditions. Maximum test
temperature should range up to the TL5Q level for adults.
Indicate time-temperature regime leading to death of 50% of
the sample.
Application of Results; Lethal time-temperature stress regime
minus 2 C can be used to estimate temperature limits of normal
prey avoidance behavior. Increased temperature results in higher
predation pressure.
Estimation of optimum temperature for growth:
a) Fish and macroinvertebrates — determine rate of growth
(length or weight increase) when maintained at a series of
elevated temperatures and at otherwise near-optimum
environmental conditions, with food provided ad libitum.
b) Fish — determinations of final behavioral temperature
preferendum will closely correspond to the temperature
which is optimal for many physiological processes,
including growth.
c) Macrophytes — determine temperature producing maximum
net photosynthesis for at least a 24-hour period, using
an appropriate photoperiod.
Application of Results: Optimum temperature for growth can be
combined with ultimate incipient lethal temperature limit for
acceptable growth (see #1 above).
Minimum optimum and maximum temperatures allowing completion of
early development. Note: Studies to be conducted only for RIS
wljich are capable of being readily reared in the laboratory.
*
Method: Maintain fertilized eggs under a series of elevated
temperature regimes to determine minimum, optimum and maximum
conditions permitting greater than 80% survival to completion of
development of juvenile (i.e., post-larval metamorphosis; in
fish, to the point of successful initiation of feeding). Note
that diurnally cyclic temperature regimes with a 5 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 in the literature for areas closely 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 must 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) demonstrationsT 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
relevant to 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
descriptive material concerning its source. Data from scientific
literature, field work, labvoratory experiments, analytical modeling,
infrared surveys and hydraulic modeling will all be acceptable, assuming
adequate scientific justification for their use 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 all modifications
to the original work.
3.5.3.1 Plant Operating Data.
1. Cooling water flow. Complete Table C (indicate
units) and pr.vide 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 temperature
from ambient conditions through the cooling System,
and finally the discharge plume out to the 1 C
isotherm. Worst case, anticipated average conditions,
and ideal (e.g., minimum time/temperature impact)
conditions should be illustrated (preferably on the
same graph) consistent with representative plumes
illustrated.
3. The amount of chlorine used daily, monthly and annually,
the frequency and duration of chlorination and the
maximum total chlorine residual at the point of
discharge obtained during any chlorination 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 chlorination 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 maximum 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 0.5 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.
3.5 .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,
net tidal flux—monthly means and minima for
each—circulation patterns from typical tidal
cycles.
C. Reservoirs: flow through time, release schedules—
monthly means and minima.
D. Oceans: tidal heights and information on flushing
characteristics.
2. Currents: Provide the information called for below,
as applicable to the site:
A. Rivers: maximum, minimum, and mean current speed
giving daily, monthly or seasonal fluctuations
and variations across cross-sections as appropriate
to describe hydro-dynamics of the 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 the 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 temperature of the receiving
waters, giving monthly means and monthly extremes for the
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 meter
intervals and any changes which may occur due to sediment
movements, construction, etc. Indicate bottom type.
Provide other significant features (e.g., thermal bar) and
characteristics needed to evaluate the hydrodynamics
of the primary and f^r 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 the
316(a) demonstration, provide the following daily average meteoro-
logical data for the plant site, giving both monthly means and
seasonal extremes. Indicate units:
1. 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 wave (solar) radiation (may be calculated).
6. Cloud cover.
7. Evapotranspiration (may be calculated).
3 .5 .3 .4 Outfall Configuration and Operation.
Provide the following information on outfall configuration
and operation, indicating units:
1. Length of discharge pipe or canal
2. Area and dimensions of discharge port(s)
3. Number of discharge port(s)
4. Spacing (on centers) of discharge ports
5. Depth (mean and extremes)
6. Angle of discharge as a function of:
A. horizontal axis
B. vertical axis
C. current directions
3.5.3.5 Plume Data Requirements.
The applicant will furnish estimates based upon model
predictions and/or field data at existing plants of the following
plume data:
1, Utilizing the load information in Table C, wind rose
data and tidal/current data, a plume rose or locus of
plumes shall be provided for each calendar month.
The plumes shall be bounded by the 2 C above
ambient isotherm. This shall be done for both surface
isotherms and bottom isotherms when contact with
benthic areas is made.
2. Representative plumes of the maximum size and most
frequently occurring plumes shall be detailed showing
instantaneous isotherms at the 2 C intervals to
within 1°C of ambient for conditions of variations
in tide, wind and current.
-------
-50-
A. Rivers: Plumes for average and 7-day, 10-year
low flows should be provided.
B. Lakes and Reservoirs: Plumes for summer conditions,
winter conditions and after spring ancT fall
overturns should also be provided. For flood
control reservoirs, plumes for various water
levels should be provided.
3. For isotherm plots required in number 2 above,
vertical temperature profiles along the plume centerline
extending to the bottom of the water body at 2°C
intervals to within 1°C of ambient.
3 .5 .6 .2 Engineering and Hydrological Data.
The information required in this section, for the most
part, consists of parameters which are necessary input to analytical
or physical predictive hydraulic or energy budget models. 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 most 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 tirae-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
water 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 is injected to the cooling water system for
-------
-51-
periods ranging from 15 minutes to two hours per
application. The number of applications is site
specific but usually totals less than two hours total
per day. Ideally, only exact amounts of chlorine are
introduced so that it reacts entirely, leaving no
active residual at the discharge. In practice this is
difficult to achieve, and some chlorine compounds are
discharged. Chlorine reacts with dissolved organic
matter in the cooling water to form various chlorinated
organics which may be harmful to the balanced indigenous
community. It is therefore necessary to project the
usage of chlorine and consider the results of its
interaction with the thermal component of the discharge.
Thermal Interaction - Section 316(a) specifies that
the thermal component of the discharge must be evaluated
"... taking into account the interaction of such
thermal components with other pollutants...". While
data on such synergistic effects are limited, certain
information will assist the Regional Administrator/
Director in assessing potential harmful interactions.
Other Chemicals - The addition of heat may increase
the effect of other chemicals in the water body.
Chemical information is needed to evaluate possible
effects of this kind and to properly interpret biological
data for thermal effects alone.
2. Hvdrological Information. This entire section deals
with conditions of the receiving water. This information
should be required because it is basic siting information,
modeling input data and necessary for proper interpretation
of biological data.
3. Meteorological Data. This information should be
included where energy budget computations are made as
part of the 316(a) demonstration. It is not intended
that all demonstrations include this data. When in
doubt the applicant should discuss this with the
Regional Administrator/Director.
4. Outfall Configuration and Operation. These numerical
data describing the geometry and orientation of the
outfall are necessary input for all predictive plume
models.
-------
-52-
5. Plume Data Requirements. This data is the result of
the modeling effort. While the results may be p.resented
in many formats, these suggested plume configurations
yield a graphic portrayal of where the heat is going.
These maps are necessary for making qualiFative and
quantitative assessments of biological changes.
3.5.4 Synthesis of All Information Into "Master" Ecosystem Rationale
The Master Rationales of the demonstration should summarize the
key findings in a concise manner and should form 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 Biotic 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 hydrological data, and other key facts, suggest that
the balanced indigenous community will be protected.
3.5.5 Suggested Format for Type II Demonstration
(EXAMPLE) 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
-------
TABLE C
COOLING WATER CHARACTERISTICS 1'2
% Capacity
40% & Less
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
% Time at
Fractional
Load
Intake Velocity
Channel , „
Entrance 1 Screens
Rate of Circulating
Cooling Water Flow-*
Condenser
Rise
A T
Discharge
At4
Rate of Discharge
I Non-
Cooling , Cooling
Water
Water
Discharge
Velocity"'
i
OJ
I
A separate table should be prepared for each generating unit and for all units combined.
^ If seasonal variations occur, this should be indicated.
3 Variations of intake velocity with changes in ambient conditions (e.g., river flow, tidal height, water level) should
be noted.
4 Discharge At = Discharge temperature - Intake temperature (In many cases, condenser A T is equivalent to discharge
A T; however, this is not the case for plants with supplemental cooling).
^ Discharge velocity should be provided at the point where cooling water leaves the discharge structure. Variations in
discharge velocity, with changes in ambient conditions (e.g., river flow, tidal height, water level) should be noted.
-------
-54-
D. Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
E. Fish
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
F. Other Vertebrate Wildlife
1. Decision Criteria
2. Rationale
V. Brief Summary of Engineering and Hydrological Data and Why
the Data are Supportive of the Predictions in the Above
Rationales
VI. Demonstration Appendices
A. Information Supporting Master Rationale
B. Information Supporting Representative Important Species
Rationale
C. Information Supporting Biotic Category Rationales
D. Engineering and Hydrological Information
1. Baseline Data (see Section 4.1)
2. Discussion of Relationship of the Physical Data
to the Summary Rationales and Choice of Models
or Other Predictive Methods
E. Supportive Reports, Documents, and Raw Data Not From
the Open Scientific Literature
-------
-55-
3.5.6 Discussion of Why the Required Data are Necessary for Making
316(a) Determinations
3.5.6.1 Biological Data.
1. Phytoplankton. The organisms of the phytoplankton
community are a principal food source for most
zooplankton and for some fish species. They may
also become important in relation to industrial
or recreational water use if blooms of certain
species occur, which can have a variety of dele-
terious effects (e.g., clog filters and intake
pipes, impart tastes and odors to water).
Many water bodies, such as the majority of rivers
and streams, can be classified as "low potential
impact areas" for phytoplankton, and relatively
little information is necessary for a 316(a)
demonstration. Nevertheless, more 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 diseharge is likely to
cause a shift towards nuisance species. Even
if firm predictions cannot be made on the basis
of the increased data, these data may be
necessary as a base for comparison with post-
operational monitoring surveys to detect long-
term community shifts.
A. Standing Crop Estimates. Estimates of
standing crop are useful in determining
the importance of phytoplankton in the
productivity of the impacted body of water.
Productivity is a principal factor in
defining high and low impact areas.
B. Species Composition and Abundance. Taxonomic
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 may occur and that the food web
of the system is being altered.
-------
-56-
C. Delineation of Euphotic Zone. The euphotic
zone of a water column is the upper layer
into which sufficient light penetrates to
permit photosynthesis. The comparison of
this zone to the configuration of the
discharge plume will indicate how much the
thermal discharge will affect the produc-
tivity of the impacted body of water.
2. Zooplankton. The zooplankton community 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
wildlife have planktonic life stages (termed mero-
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, fewer 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 in relation to the productivity
of the affected system. Any significant
change in standing crop becoming evident during
post-operational monitoring may indicate an
adverse impact resulting from the heated
discharge.
3. Species Composition and Abundance. These data
will identify dominant taxa in the system and
provide baseline information for observing
changes accompanying thermal discharge. Any
alteration in the composition and relative
abundance of the zooplankton 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.
-------
-57-
C. Seasonal Variations. This information is
essential for assessing impact because different
species, with different thermal tolerances,
become dominant at varying times of tTTe year.
It will also show when the important mero-
plankters are present in the discharge area.
D. Diel and Tidal Distribution. Sampling to show
diel and tidal fluctuations in depth distribu-
tion are necessary because zooplankton and
meroplankton organisms demonstrate distinct
vertical movements which may be a function of
both light intensity and tidal stage. The
organisms are thus vulnerable to a discharge
plume in varying degrees at different times
of the day.
3. 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 estuarine
environments, are a limited resource, slow to re-
establish, and non-renewable in many cases. These
organisms are subject to damage by a discharge
plume in a number of ways. Rooted aquatic plants,
including kelp, may be damaged or destroyed by
excessive temperatures, velocities, turbidity, or
siltation. 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 minimal data
base for the evaluation of the applicant's
eligibility for modification of thermal treatment
technology requirements. The data are necessary
for the following reasons:
A. 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 levels for selected species.
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 growing
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 Upon 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.
A. ghpl1fish/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
areas for benthic species.
A thermal discharge may have a variety of effects
on macroinvertebrates. Aquatic insects having
an 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 macroinvertebrates 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
low 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-
is an indicator of environmental stress.
Additionally, a reduction in the diversity of
a system frequently results in a diversion
of production into non—useful forms. ""
Drift. In flowing waters, drift is an important
survival mechanism for many species of macroin—
vertebrates. Since it is a passive function,
the drifting organisms are subject to lethal
temperatures occurring in a thermal plume.
Drift is a stepwise downstream phenomenon, and
many 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.
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 RIS 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
-------
-61-
useful in evaluation because heat additions
may cause a loss of condition in certain
species, especially 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 non-affected areas, pre- and
post-operational conditions.
B. Community Level. Data on species composition,
relative abundance, and principal associations
will define the dominant fish species at the
site. Any 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 limits for
the effluent.
C. ' Mapping. Maps are required in order to represent
habitat areas (used for spawning, migration, etc.)
in relation to the configuration of the discharge
plume.
nthp.r Vertebrate Wildlife. Data will be required in
relatively few cases for this biotic category. In
those cases where data is required, the type oi 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 pppr-pstentative 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.
As 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 B (section 3.5.2.2) are
recommended as being helpful to those making 316(a)
decisions for the following reasons:
-------
-62-
They allow an estimation of the size of the
areas which will be excluded for key biological
functions and the duration of the exclusion.
They provide the basis for at least rough
predictions of high temperature survival, heat
and cold shock, and effects on reproduction
and growth.
-------
-63-
3.6 Type III Low Potential Impact Determinations
If the Regional Administrator/Director determines, a*fter early
screening studies, that the site is one of low potential impact for all
biotic categories, the applicant may elect to do a "short form" 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 more
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 form" 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 made
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 3.5.5 except that the RIS sections should be deleted.
-------
-64-
3.7 Other Type III Demonstrations (Biological,
Engineering, and Other Data)
Those applicants not qualifying for a Low Potential Impact demon-
stration and not desiring to do a Type II demonstration, may (with the
written concurrence of the Regional Administrator/Director) do a regular
Type III demonstration. A Type III demonstration provides for the
submittal of any information which the Regional Administrator/Director
believes may be 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 the Regional
Administrator/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 need 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 3.5). 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 biotic protection.
Each item of information or data submitted as a part of a Type
III demonstration should be accompanied by rationales comparable to
those 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 that the RIS sections should be deleted.
-------
-65-
3.8 Decision Criteria
3.8.1 Biotic Categories
Decision criteria for each biotic category are given in section
3.3. The Regional Administrator/Director will compare the rationales
(and other data) for each biotic category with the decision criteria in
section 3.3 and determine if the decision criteria have been met.
3.8.2 Representative Important Species
The Regional Administrator/Director will find the Representative
Important Species Rationale and other RIS information to be unacceptable
if the information presented:
1. is too incomplete to allow a clear assessment; or
2. suggests (or does not 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 mixing zones for heated discharges. Application
of this concept involves the identification and mapping of resource
-------
-66-
zones and critical functions* so that mixing 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 must 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 mixing 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.
3,8.3.1 Typical Resource Value Zones.
The following annotated list includes resource value zones
which should be considered in the designation of mixing 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 mixing
zones are the often limited area of habitat
suitable for the spawning of a species and the
limited time during which spawning occurs.
*S8BSSSa!SaB8SSa8SM6
* 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 sites for an impor-
tant species is limited in extent, then such areas
can generally be avoided and should not be designated
for the disposal of waste heat. If it is-'totally
impossible to avoid such sites, then the use for
mixing should be timed to avoid the period of
spawning. Seasonal avoidance is only feasible if
the effects of the discharge are transitory.
2. Food-Producing Areas. The productivity of aquatic
systems is directly related to the inputs of
organic matter from green plants. The free-floating,
relatively immotile microscopic plants (phytoplankton)
are short-lived with 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 among the most productive plant
communities known.
B. As a result of an abundance of food and
cover, they serve as nursery areas for the
immature stages of many finfish and shell-
fish.
C. The trapping and recycling of nutrients.
D. The stabilization and building of substrate.
Included in the category of food-producing areas are
the wetlands—the interface between terrestrial and
aquatic environments—which, 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.
-------
-68-
3. Nursery Areas. These are areas having an abundance
of food and cover for the growth and development
of the early life stages of many finfish and shellfish.
Since the early life stages are the periods of maximum
growth rates and maximum vulnerability tC predation,
the availability of suitable nursery areas may be the
limiting factor determining the abundance of a species.
Thus, the zones of freshwater, estuarine, and marine
ecosystems identified as nursery areas have high
resource value and should generally be avoided when
designating mixing zones.
4. Migratory Pathways. Included in this category are
routes utilized for movement to and from spawning
grounds, feeding grounds, and nursery areas; thus,
the life stage involved may be adult, egg, larval, or
juvenile. In some cases, these pathways are very
circumscribed; and total blockage could result in
extermination of a population in the water body
segment. Since these pathways serve a "critical
function," they have high resource value and should be
avoided when planning the discharge of waste heat.
Ip situations where the usage of pathways is seasonal
and the effects of the discharge are transitory,
deleterious effects may be avoided by proper timing
of disposal. In terms of power plants, this seasonal
usage is important in evaluating the feasibility of
seasonal mode operation of cooling devices.
A consideration of zones critical to endangered species,
usage by waterfowl and wildlife, and shellfish beds are additional
resource values that must be considered when selecting mixing zones
for heated discharges.
3^8.3.2 Methodology.
As discussed above, discharge sites should be selected
which will have 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.
_ Seiection and listing of RIS 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 showing
zones of resource use, including areas supporting "critical
functions,"
-'Assignment of a numerical value, per unit area, to each
resource use.
- Superimpose 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
major river systems having no 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 many freshwater and marine species
(examples include salmonids, shrimps, crabs, spot,
croaker, flounder, white bass, walleye, etc.) may
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 (form and
stabilize habitat, produce organic matter, provide
cover).
- Necessary (e.g., in the food chain) for the well-
being of species 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. Maps of the water body segment
should, as a minimum, include depth contours, adjacent
wetlands, tributaries and, in estuarine situations,
the average salinity gradient and saflinity stratification
should be visually expressed in cross section. Resource
zones and areas performing "critical functions" should
be superimposed on the same or on a similarly scaled
map. To avoid overlapping detail, it may sometimes be
desirable to prepare separate maps for selected
species.
4. Assignment of Values. Once the resource zones and
zones supporting "critical functions" have been
identified and mapped, then values per unit area
can be assigned. If the effects of the discharge
are transitory and the use of the 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
thus excluded from mixing zone use. Other zones may
be assigned values according to their area and their
importance in maintaining different species.
3.8.4 "Master" Rationale, Demonstration As a Whole
The Regional Administrator/Director will find the demonstration
successful if:
1 It is found to be acceptable in all of the considerations
outlined in steps 20-25 of the decision train (section
3.3.2).
2. There is no convincing evidence that there will be damage
to the balanced, indigenous community, or community com-
ponents, resulting in such phenomena as those 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 limits 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 take 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 harm to the
balanced indigenous population.
-------
-72-
3.9 Non-Predictive Demonstrations (Type I,
Absence of Prior Appreciable Harm)
All of the demonstrations done for NRC under the Memorandum of
Understanding are predictive. Therefore, the predictive sections of
this document were completed first. The EPA and other agencies may
decide to mount a separate effort to revise this section at a later
date. In the meantime, most of the requirements of section 3.2
(Decision Train), 3.3 (Early Screening Procedures), 3.5 (Type 11),
and 3.6-3.8, are applicable for determining lack of appreciable harm
(Type I demonstrations). The primary language which is inappropriate
and should be deleted is the language on predictive factors, predictive
models, and Representative Important Species (sections 3.5.2, parts of
other sections, and section 3.8.2).
-------
-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 the general
case to aid the Regional Administrator/Director in delineating a set
of working definitions and concise endpoints requisite to a satisfactory
demonlstration for a given discharge.
Appreciable Aquatic Harm
Appreciable aquatic harm is damage to the balanced, indigenous
community, or to community components which results in the following:
1. The ecological functioning of the unit is impaired
or reduced to the point such that long-term stability
at pre-existing levels is decreased; or
2. A reduction in optimum sustained yield to sport and/or
commercial fisheries results; or
3. Threatened or endangered species of aquatic life are
directly or indirectly adversely affected; or
4. The magnitude of the damage constitutes an unmitigable
loss to the aquatic system.
This definition describes harm which should be considered
appreciable. It is not intended that every change in flora and fauna
should be considered appreciable harm unless it impacts an endangered
species or a potential critical habitat for an endangered species.
Aouatlc Macrolnvertebrates
Aquatic macrolnvertebrates are those invertebrates that are
large enough to be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve (0.595-mm
openings) and generally can be seen by the unaided eye.
Area of Potential Damage
The area of potential damage for R1S is defined as that area
of the thermal plume enclosed by the isotherm which coincides with th
appropriate (designated by the Regional Adrainistrator/Director) water6
quality criteria for that particular RIS. This area can be determined
from the plume rose data specified in section 3.5.3.
-------
-74-
Balanced, Indigenous Community
The term "balanced, indigenous community" is defined here as
being synonymous with the term "balanced, indigenous population" (PL
92-500) and means a biotic community always characterized by diversity,
the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes, and
non—domination of nuisance species. A balanced, indigenous community
consists of desirable species of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, including
the biota at other tmphic 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 restoration 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, 01 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.
Balanced. Indigenous Population (BIP)
For the purposes of 316(a) demonstrations, the term "balanced,
indigenous population" is synonymous with the term "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 the
extent that it has characteristics additional to its individual and
population components, and functions as a unit through coupled metabolic
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 States
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 30-50% 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 recommended sampling procedures.
Estuary
An estuary is defined as a semi-enclosed coastal 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 estuarine and river
habitats in the upper reaches of a fresh water river discharging into
marine waters. The interface is generally a dynamic entity varying
daily and seasonally in geographical location. In such cases, determina-
tion of habitat boundaries should be established by mutual agreement on
a case-by-case basis. Where boundary determination is not clearly
established, both estuary and river habitat biological survey requirements
should be satisfied in a combined determination for environmental
effects and best available technology for minimizing adverse impact.
Far 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).
-------
-76-
Far Field Study Area (FFSA)
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 the Regional Administrator/Director.
Habitat Formers
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 epibiota;
2. Either a direct or indirect food source for the
production of shellfish, fi^h, and wildlife;
3. A biological mechanism for the stabilization and
modification of sediments and contributing to
the development of soil;
4. A nutrient cycling path or trap; or
5. Specific sites for spawning and providing nursery,
feeding, and cover areas for fish and shellfish.
Macroinvertebrates
For this document, the term "macroinvertebrates" may be
considered synonymous with "aquatic macroinvertebrates" as defined
above.
-------
-77-
MeroplanVtcm
For the purposes of this document, meroplankton are defined as
planktonic life stages (often eggs or larvae) of fish or invertebrates.
Migrants
Migrants are uonplanktonic organisms that are not permanent
residents of the area but pass through the discharge zone and water
contiguous to it. Examples include the upstream migration of spawning
salmon and subsequent downstream migration of the juvenile forms, or
organisms that inhabit an area only at certain times for feeding or
reproduction purposes.
Nuisance Species
Any microbial, plant or animal species which indicates a hazard
to ecological balance or human health and welfare that is not naturally
a dominant feature of the indigenous community may be considered a
nuisance species.
Nuisance species of phytoplankton include those algae taxa
which in high concentration are known to produce toxic, foul tasting,
or odoriferous compounds to a degree that the quality of water is
impaired.
Other Vertebrate Wildlife
The term "other vertebrate wildlife" includes wildlife which
vertebrates (i.e., ducks, geese, manatees, etc.) but not fish*
Phytoplankton
Plant microorganisms such as certain algae, living unattached
in the water.
Plankton
Organisms of relatively small size, mostly microscopic, that
either have relatively small powers of locomotion or drift in the
waters subject to the action of waves and currents.
-------
-78-
Primary Study Area
The primary study areaQis the entire geographic area bounded
annually by the locus of the 2 C above ambient surface isq£herms
(determined-in section 3.5.3.5) as these isotherms are distributed
throughout an annual period. The reference ambient temperature shall
be recorded at a location agreed upon by the Regional Administrator/
Director.
Principal Hacrobenthic 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, mollusks, polychaetes, certain macroalgae, rooted
macrophytes, and coral.
Regional Administrator (Director)
This term refers to the Regional Administrator of the U.S.
EPA except that in -those States which have been delegated the NPDES
permit program, the term refers to the Director of the State NPDES
permit program.
Representative. Important Species (RIS)
Representative, important species are those species which
are: representative, in terms 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:
1. Commercially or recreationally valuable (i.e.,
within the top ten species landed—by dollar
value);
2. Threatened or endangered;
3. Critical to the structure and function of the
ecological system (e.g., habitat formers);
4. Potentially capable of becoming localized
nuisance species;
-------
-79-
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 not
be important.
Shellfish
All mollusks 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 nektonic
fauna in fresh and salt water.
Threatened or Endangered Species
A threatened or endangered species is any plant or animal
that 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.
Water Body Segment
A water body segment is a portion of a basin the surface
waters of which have common hydrologic 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 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.
------- |