Defining and Assessing Adverse Environmental Impact from Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms

300 Pages·2003·3.76 MB·English

by  D.A. Dixon

DEFINING AND ASSESSING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FROM POWER PLANT IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT OF
AQUATIC ORGANISMS

Defining and Assessing Adverse
Environmental Impact from Power Plant
Impingement and Entrainment of
Aquatic Organisms
Editors:
Douglas A. Dixon
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA
John A. Veil
Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA
Joe Wisniewski
Wisniewski & Associates, Inc., McLean, VA, USA
A.A. BALKEMA PUBLISHERS LISSE / ABINGDON / EXTON (PA) / TOKYO
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
Copyright © 2003 Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
written prior permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the
information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for
any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication
and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: A.A. Balkema, a member of Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers
www.balkema.nl and www.szp.swets.nl
ISBN 0-203-97119-1 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 90 5809 517 7
V
Table of Contents
PREFACE by Douglas A. Dixon and Kent D. Zammit VII
Maryland Power Plant Cooling-Water Intake Regulations and 1
their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact
R. McLean, W.A. Richkus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke
Scientific and Societal Considerations in Selecting Assessment 12
Endpoints for Environmental Decision Making
E.M. Strange, J. Lipton, D. Beltman, and B.D. Synder
Adverse Environmental Impact: 30-year Search for a Definition 21
D.A. Mayhew, P.H. Muessig, and L.D. Jensen
Uncertainty and Conservatism in Assessing Environmental 30
Impact under §316(b): Lessons from the Hudson River Case
J.R. Young, and W.P. Dey
A Holistic Look at Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact 40
Under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
J.A. Veil, M. G. Puder, D. J. Littleton, and N. Johnson
Modeling Possible Cooling-Water Intake System Impacts on Ohio 56
River Fish Populations
E. Perry, G. Seegert, J. Vondruska, T. Lohner, and R. Lewis
A Process for Evaluating Adverse Environmental Impact by 79
Cooling-Water System Entrainment at a California Power Plant
C.P. Ehrler, J.R. Steinbeck, E.A. Laman, J.B. Hedgepeth, J.R. Skalski,
and D.L. Mayer
Comparing Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Policy Options 103
J. Kadvany
Using Attainment of the Designated Aquatic Life use to Determine 136
Adverse Environmental Impact
G. Seegert
Defining “Adverse Environmental Impact” and Making §316(b) 143
Decisions: a Fisheries Management Approach
D.E. Bailey, and K.A.N. Bulleit
Indicators of AEI Applied to the Delaware Estuary 165
L.W. Barnthouse, D.G. Heimbuch, V.C. Anthony, R.W. Hilborn,
and R.A. Myers
V
Adverse Environmental Impact: a Consultant’s Perspective 185
A.W. Wells, and T.L. Englert
Proposed Methods and Endpoints for Defining and Assessing 198
Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) on Fish Communities/
Populations in Tennessee River Reservoirs
G.D. Hickman, and M.L. Brown
Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact: How Murky the Waters? 213
R.W. Super, and D.K. Gordon
Measurement Error Affects Risk Estimates for Recruitment to the 231
Hudson River Stock of Striped Bass
D.J. Dunning, Q. E. Ross, S.B. Munch, and L.R. Ginzburg
Use of Equivalent Loss Models under Section 316(b) of the Clean 247
Water Act.
W.P. Dey
A Blueprint for the Problem Formulation Phase of EPA-Type 264
Ecological Risk Assessments for 316(b) Determinations
W. Van Winkle, W.P. Dey, S.M. Jinks, M.S. Bevelhimer,
and C.C. Coutant
Author index 291
VI VII
Preface
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), headquartered in Palo Alto, California,
USA, is a non-profit energy research consortium for the benefit of the energy industry,
its customers, and society. The mission of EPRI’s Environment Sector is to be the pre-
mier provider of timely, credible scientific and technical knowledge, tools and services
to (1) inform critical policy and regulatory deliberations, (2) support cost-effective
compliance, stewardship, strategic issue management and business decision-making,
and (3) address longer-term sustainability issues.
A current issue of major importance to the U.S. electric power industry is the develop-
ment of regulations to address Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Section
316(b) addresses the protection of aquatic life at power plant cooling water intake
structures (CWIS). CWIS affect fish and invertebrates via impingement of organisms
on intake screens and entrainment of organisms, particularly early life stages (eggs
and larvae), into the cooling system where they are exposed to physical, chemical
and thermal stress. Historical §316(b) demonstration studies have shown that billions
of aquatic organisms are annually exposed to these stresses. In accordance with our
mission, EPRI has a program dedicated to providing science and technology-based
solutions for aquatic life protection at CWIS.
Section 316(b) states:
Any standard established pursuant to section 301 or section 306 of this Act and
applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction,
and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology avail-
able for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
Over the 30 years since its enactment, there has been considerable discussion and
debate among stakeholders regarding the definition of terms and implementation proc-
ess for this section. Neither the legislation, nor its legislative history, defines “adverse
environmental impact (AEI).” In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) proposed regulations for implementing §316(b). However, these regulations
were challenged on procedural grounds and, subsequently, were formally withdrawn
by USEPA. Nevertheless, in the absence of formal regulations, permit applicants,
scientists, and regulators continued to rely on USEPA draft guidance publications, and
also on administrative decisions in several permit proceedings, to define the §316(b)
requirements for permitting CWIS during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
In the early 1990s, a coalition of U.S. environmental groups sued USEPA for failing
to promulgate §316(b) regulations. In 1995, the parties entered into a Consent Decree
directing USEPA to issue final regulations. USEPA divided the rulemaking process
into three phases. Regulations for new facilities were issued in November 2001; regu-
lations for power plants with intakes exceeding 50 MGD will be finalized in February
VI VII
of 2004; and regulations for CWIS at non-power plants with intake flows exceeding a
volume yet to be determined will be issued in June of 2006. The proposed regulations
are intended to minimize the potential AEI associated with CWIS. Minimizing AEI
may include requirements affecting the design, construction, location, and capacity of
CWIS that are determined to reflect the “best technology available” (BTA).
One central issue in the rule-making process is the definition of AEI, including how
it is assessed, endpoints for decision-making, and how it can be minimized. EPA has
not defined AEI, nor have they proposed an approach for assessing environmental
impact. Several alternative definitions and assessment approaches have been offered
for public consideration and comment.
To facilitate an exchange of information among all stakeholders in the §316(b) issue,
EPRI organized a national symposium to discuss the meaning of AEI and methods for
its assessment. The symposium was held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of
the American Fisheries Society, August 23, 2001 in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Techni-
cal experts in federal and state resource agencies, academia, industry, and non-govern-
mental organizations attended and made presentations on AEI issues including:
• Definition of AEI (including consideration of the full range of options such as indi-
vidual losses, population-level impacts, fishery opportunity foregone, and disruption
of aquatic community structure and function).
• AEI assessment endpoints and thresholds.
• Predictive and retrospective methods for assessing AEI (e.g., conditional mortality,
equivalent adult losses, production foregone, biocriteria, trend analysis of fishery-
independent and dependent data).
• Role of ecological risk assessment in assessing AEI.
The peer-reviewed accepted papers herein were presented at this symposium. EPRI
and the editors are making this information available to the scientific community and
specifically to the stakeholders in the §316(b) issue, particularly EPA, for considera-
tion during the rule development effort.
Finally, the symposium and papers reflect an enormous effort by many individuals and
organizations. For co-sponsorship of the original symposium, we express our appre-
ciation to the American Fisheries Society and its Western Division. Development of
the symposium objectives and selection of papers for presentation was supported by
John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory; William Richkus, Versar Inc.; and James
Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. John Veil also served as symposium co-mod-
erator. Completion of this book involved sustained and extensive effort by all of the
authors, who were aided by the thoughtful and constructive reviews and comments
of many others. We are grateful to all these individuals for the diligence and patience
they have shown in bringing this project to fruition.
Douglas A. Dixon, Ph.D. and Kent D. Zammit
Managers, Fish Protection Research, EPRI
VIII
Maryland Power Plant Cooling-Water
Intake Regulations and their Application
in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental
Impact
Richard McLean1, William A. Richkus2,*, Stephen P. Schreiner2, and
David Fluke3
1Power Plant Research Program, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Annapolis, MD 21401; 2Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD 21045;
3Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore, MD 21224
Received December 6, 2001; Revised January 28, 2002; Accepted February 19, 2002;
Published February, 2003
Maryland’s cooling-water intake and discharge regulations, the Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR) 26.08.03, stem from Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA). COMAR 26.08.03.05 and litigative and administrative rulings stipulate that
the location, design, construction, and capability of cooling-water intake structures
must reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmen-
tal impacts (AEIs), providing that the costs of implementing the BTA are not wholly
disproportionate to the expected environmental benefits. Maryland law exempts
facilities that withdraw less than 10 million gallons/day (MGD) and less than 20% of
stream or net flow by the intake. If not exempt, BTA must be installed if the cost of
doing so is less than five times the value of fish impinged annually. Through site-
specific studies and the use of a Spawning and Nursery Area of Consequence (SNAC)
model applied to Representative Important Species, several power plants were evalu-
ated to determine if they have had an adverse effect on spawning and nursery areas
of consequence. Examples of application of the Maryland law to a number of power
plants in the state are presented, together with the outcome of their evaluation.
KEY WORDS: entrainment, impingement, environmental impact, cooling water regulation
DOMAINS: freshwater systems, marine systems, ecosystems and communities, environ-
mental monitoring
INTRODUCTION
Maryland takes pride in its strong commitment to environmental protection. A
cornerstone of this commitment has been the state’s efforts to restore and protect
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2002 with author. 1