e 

EVALUATION OF THE SECTION 316 STATUS 

OF DELAWARE FACILITIES WITH 

COOLING WATER DISCHARGZS . 

Final Report 

Prepared for 

State of Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources 

89 Kings Highway 

Cover, DE 19903 

and Environmental Control 

Prepared by 

Versar, Inc. 

ESM Operations 

9200 Rumsey Road 

Columbia, MD 21045 

April 1990 
FOREWORD 

Facil 

PrePa 

W.A. 

John 

Divis 

Resou 

order 

This document, "Evaluation of Section 316 Status of Delaware 

,ities with Cooling Water Discharges: 

,red by Versar, Inc., ESM Operations (contributing authors: 

Richkus, C.F. Stroup, J.M. Dietz) under the direction of Mr. 

Davis, Project Manager, Water Quality Management Branch, 

ion of Water Resources, Delaware Department of Natural 

rces and Environmental Control (DNREC). 

Final Report" was 

The DNREC purchase 

for this work is 366082. 

. 

iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

FOREWORD. ......................................... iii 

I. INTRODUCTION...................................... 1-1 

11. SUMNARY AHD EVALUATION OF 5 316 EVALUATION 

CRITERIA.......................................... 11-1 

A. SECTION 316(a)..... ........................... 

B. SECTION 316(b)..... ........................... 

11-1 

11-5 

C. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN S 316(a).AND 316(b) 11-8 

0. CONCLUSION.................................... 11-9 

Iff. GENERAL 5 316 EVALUATION REQuIREm~NTS .............. 111-1 

A. MODES OF IMPACT............................... 111-1 

B. TYPES OF STUDIES REQUIRED FOR IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT.................................... 111-4 

C. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR STATE 

316 EVALUATIONS............................... 111-7 

IV. 

v. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................... 

REFERENCES.. ...................................... 

1v-1 

V-l 

APPENDIX A 

FACILITY 316 STATUS REPORTS........................ A- 1 

APPENDIX 0 

LEGAL OPINIONS ON DELAWARE-SPECIFIC 316 ISSUES..... B-1 

WP74:4728 

V 
I. INTRODUCTION 

Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 

amendments, referred to as the Clean Water Act, requires that the 

intake and discharge effects of cooling water withdrawal systems 

be evaluated for their effect on balanced indigenous populations 

of aquatic organisms. It further requires installation of Best 

Technology Available to minimize entrainment/impingement impacts. 

Twelve facilities that are'subject to Section 316 have thus far 

been permitted by the state of Delaware. 

Section 316 is implemented as part of the NPDES permitting 

process. ~t requires that the owner/operator of a facility 

supply all of the data necessary for the regulatory agency to 

make a reasoned evaluation as to the effects of the cooling water 

systems on aquatic life. 

regulations, the regulatory agency may then grant the facility a 

variance from relevant water quality standards based upon a 

showing of minimal harm. The original 316 applications in 

Delaware, from those few facilities that submitted such applications, were developed in the mid-1970s. These applications 

contained varying amounts and qualities of data on which the 

state could base its assessment. Since that time, the various 

NPDES permits have been renewed with little or no new information 

relevant to S 316 required by the state or submitted by the NPDES 

applicants. In addition, substantial changes in receiving water 

quality (particularly in the Delaware River) have occurred since 

the 1970s as is evidenced by changes in the abundance and distribution of potentially impacted aquatic organisms. Ecological 

characterizations based upon studies conducted 15 years ago may 

not be relevant for assessing current magnitude of impacts. 

Moreover, intake technologies to protect aquatic life have 

advanced markedly during the intervening two decades, as have the 

impact assessment methodologies. 

If the discharger cannot meet thermal 

For all of these reasons, the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) recognized the need 

for a preliminary review of the Section 316 status of cooling 

water discharges in the state. Versar, Inc., was contracted to 

conduct this review, with the following tasks being specified: 

0 Identify the types of historical information necessary 

to carry out 316 reviews, to enable DNREC to identify 

and acquire that information and provide it to Versar 

vant to 316 evaluations, and to provide a preliminary 

determination of its technical adequacy and validity 

0 Review the information to identify that which is rele1-1 
for assessing impacts and the current status of 

ecosystems 

0 Develop detailed status reports documenting findings of 

these reviews for each of the 12 identified facilities 

(CISA-GEIGY; DP&L Delaware City Power Plant, Edge Moor 

Power Plant, and Indian River Power Plant; E1 du Pont 

Edge Moor and Seaford Nylon Plant; General Chemical 

corporation; Hercules Research Center; rcI Americas, 

Inc.; NVF Newark Plant and Yorklyn Plant; and Star 

Ente rpr i se 1 

0 Prepare a summary discussion of legal, procedural, 

administrative, public policy and environmental issues 

relevant to 316 determinations 

0 Prepare recommendations and guidelines regarding the 

316 status of each of the facilities, identifying data 

gaps and information needs and suggesting actions which 

might be appropriate on the part of DNREC to acquire 

the needed information and resolve outstanding 316 

issues for each facility. 

This report presents the results of this project, incorporating material and findings presented in all previous progress 

reports. Detailed status reports for each facility are included 

in-Appendix A. In each of the facility reports, specific recommendations are presented with regard to information needs and 316 

review requirements. Chapter Ir presents a summary and evaluation of 316 Evaluation Criteria, and Appendix B presents additional legal opinions from Versar's legal consultant, Mr. Ned 

Lawson of Weston, Patrick, Willard, and Redding, provided in 

response to specific inquiries regarding some of Delaware facilities being reviewed. Chapter 111 addresses general S 316 evaluation requirements and Chapter IV presents conclusions and 

recommendations with regard to Delaware's permit compliance and 

review procedures. 

I-2 
11. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF 

C 316 EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize information 

concerning burden of proof, standard of proof, the degree of 

acceptable harm, environmental factors to be considered, and 

cost-benefit considerations under 5 316(a) and 5 316(b) of CWA. 

Inconsistencies between the various legal decisions which may 

serve as precedents are also discussed as are general principles 

of administrative law when such principles are relevant and 

assist in the resolution of conflicts among the decisions re-. 

viewed. Discussions pertaining to S 316(a) and S 316(b) are 

presented separately and the interrelationships between 5 326(a) 

and 5 316(b) are discussed at the end of the chapter. 

A. SECTION 316(a) 

Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act states that: 

"With respect to any point source otherwise subject to 

the provisions of Section 301 or Section 306 of this 

Act, whenever the owner or operator of any such source, 

after opportunity for public hearing, can demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator (or is appropriate, the State) that any effluent limitation proposed 

for the control of the thermal component of any discharge from such source will require effluent limitations more stringent than necessary to assure the 

projection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous 

population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on 

the body of water into which the discharge is to be 

made, the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) 

may impose an effluent limitation under such sections 

€or such plant, with respect to the thermal component of 

such discharge (taking into account the interaction of 

such thermal component with other pollutants), that will 

assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, 

indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife 

in an on that body of water." 

Burden of Proof 

It is clearly established from litigation review that 

the burden of establishing entitlement to a S 316(a) variance 

11-1 
lies with the applicant (i.e., the owner/operator of the facility). First, the language of S 316(a) requires the owner or 

operator to "demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator 

(or, if appropriate, the State)" that thermal limitations are 

overly stringent. Second, the federal Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) provides that in federal rule-making and adjudicatory 

proceedings "the proponent of a rule or order has the burden 

of proof" [f U.S.C. 5 556(d)I. The burden of proof has been 

uniformly applied in the S 316(a) decisions previously reviewed 

by Versar and is addressed by General Counsel Opinion X63. 

Summary Statement: The burden of proof is on the applicant 

under S 316(a). 

Standard of Proof 

The standard of proof involves determination of how much 

evidence is required to support an administrative decision. 

The federal APA requires that a rule of order may not be issued 

"except on consideration of the whole record or those parts 

thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance 

with reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" (5 U.S.C. 

5 556(d)]. The APA also provides that in reviewing an administrative action, federal courts shall determine whether the action 

is "supported by substantial evidence" [S U.S.C. 5 706(2)(E11. 

Court cases define "substantial evidence " as that which a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular 

conclusion. 

In the Anclote Plant decision, the 5 316(a) variance was 

denied in Part because of the utility's failure to Drovide 

"complete and scientifically reliabl; data. " 

Electric v. Costle, the court held that the agency must provide 

"some basis" for appellate review. In In Re Public Service Co. 

of New Hampshire, the Administrator held that the applicant 

must Provide sufficient evidence for a "reasoned decision." It 

In Viiginia 

has ais0 been held that the applicant must provide the "best 

information reasonably available" which "ideally" should allow 

the determination of impacts "with same degree of confidence." 

Expensive studies that result in little additional information 

are not required. Applicants should provide more than just 

data. The information made available should be presented in an 

interpretable, comprehensive, narrative summary. In the Wabash 

River and Cayuga Generatina Stations decision the Administrator 

required evaluation of worst case conditions as a part of the 

measures of variation. 

Summary Statement: Applicants must supply the best information reasonably available that allows a regulator to reach a 

reasoned decision. This information should allow the determiSI-2 
nation to be made with a reasonable degree cf confidence and 

should include consideration of worst case conditions. Expensive 

studies that result in little additional information should not 

be required. A S 316(a) variance may be denied because an applicant failed to provide complete and scientifically reliable 

information. A 5 316(a) variance may not be granted on the 

absence of evidence that there is an impact. Affirmative evidence demonstrating no impact is required. 

Degree of Acceptable Harm 

Adverse impact is acceptable under S 316(a) as long as the 

impacts allowed "assure the protection and propagation" of 

balanced, indigenous populations. EPA's 5 316(a) regulations 

allow existing discharges to satisfy the statute by demonstrating 

no "appreciable harm" to the receiving water body [40 C.F.R. S 

125.73(c)]. This is accomplished on a case-by-case basis. 

The cases reviewed by Versar approach this issue in a variety of ways and indicate that varying levels of adverse impact 

are acceptable. In the Indian River Plant and CaDe Canaveral 

Plant decisions, EPA found that adverse impacts were "significant" but that the balanced indigenous population was not 

"endangered." This conclusion seems inconsistent with the 

requirement to "assure the protection" of balanced, indigenous 

populations. Other decisions have applied more stringent definitions of "appreciable harm." The Wabash River and Cayuqa 

Generating Stations decision found a "minimal reduction" in 

populations to be acceptable but held that "appreciable" changes 

in regional populations would be unacceptable. Similarly, in the 

Anclote Plant decision, the variance was denied because of "significant effects" to important biological populations. In the 

Brunswick Steam Plant case, EPA held that "significant harm" 

that occurred to the environment warranted a reduction in intake 

flows. In all cases evaluations of appreciable harm have been 

made by considering the long-term consequences of the impacts 

identified. 

Summary Statement: Some impact is acceptable under 

5 316(a); however, that impact should not result in appreciable 

harm to biota characteristic of the receiving water body over 

the long term. 

Environmental Factors to be Considered 

An applicant may satisfy 5 316(a) by: (1) showing the 

absence of prior appreciable harm; (2) showing that representative important species (RIS) are protected: or (3) submitting 

11-3 
other biological and engineering.data. Thus, there is more than 

one way to demonsttate compliance with 5 316(a). 

The legal decisions reviewed offer a variety of factors to 

0 Adverse effects on those elements of the aquatic 

be considered in making a S 316(a) determination, including: 

ecosystem necessary to support a balanced population 

0 Impact on Representative Important Species 

0 Effects of impingement and entrainment 

0 Indirect effects (e.g., on dissolved oxygen levels, 

toxicity, or metabolic processes) 

0 Background stresses and nature of the receiving waters 

0 Worst case conditions 

0 Increase or decrease in threatened or endangered 

species 

0 Change in the overall composition of aquatic 

populations 

0 Adverse effects of withdrawal of greater volumes of 

cooling water 

0 The degree of certainty as to the nature and magnitude 

of impacts including reasonable measures of variation. 

The Brunswick Steam Plant decision held that 5 316(a) 

requires consideration of a11 adversely affected fish populations and any elements of the aquatic ecosystem necessary to 

support a balanced population. However, in In Re Public Service 

Co. of New Hamushire the Administrator held that it may not be 

necessary to provide data on all species if the species that were 

studied provided sufficient information on species and ecosystem 

components not studied to make a decision. These two decisions 

are not contradictory, but rather indicate that selection of 

target species should be done in a manner that assures they are 

representative of the system as a whole. 

All decisions reviewed required that 5 316(a) studies consider the effects of entrainment and impingement. The degree 

of acceptable harm from entrainment and impingement was, however, 

not clearly defined. Some of the decisions suggested that impingement and entrainment be considered as a background stress in the 

context of which the impact of the thermal discharge is assessed. 

Other decisions suggest that impingement and entrainment impacts 

11-4 
may themselves be the basis for denying a S 316Ia) application. 

In addition, the decision in Pilgrim Power Plant held that 

indirect effects of thermal effluent (e.g., increases in 

predator species, cold shock, gas bubble disease) and background 

stresses must be considered. In addition, in the Wabash River 

and Cayuga Generating Stations decision the Administrator 

required consideration of "worst case" conditions. 

The capacity of receiving waters to assimilate pollution 

may be considered under 5 316(a) (see Weyerhaeuser v. Costle). 

This reflects the tolerance of 5 316(a) to allow adverse impacts 

which do not interfere with balanced, indigenous populations. 

A 5 316(a) variance, however, may not be granted on the basis 

that receiving waters are already polluted (Appalachian Power v. 

Train). 

Summary Statement: A broad range of environmental factors 

must be considered under 5 316(a) including entrainment, impingement, indirect effects, worst case conditions, and the degree 

of uncertainty as to the nature of impacts. 

to study all species or aquatic populations as a whole as long 

as the species selected for study are representative of those 

not studied. 

It is not necessary 

Cost-Benefit Considerations 

The General Counsel Opinion #63 states that economic considerations are not appropriate under 5 316(a). This is consistent with the Wabash River and Cayuga Generating Stations 

decision which holds that consideration of economic factors ___--_ 

is appropriate only in establishing "original thermal limitations" and not in determining whether a variance should be 

granted under 5 316(a). 

Summary Statement: Alternate effluent limitations that 

assure the protection and propagation of balanced indigenous 

populations should be established under S 316(a). 

8. SECTION 316(b) 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act states that: 

"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 available for minimizing adverse 

environmental impact." 

11-5 
Burden of Proof 

The burden of proof under S 316(b) is discussed only in the 

Office of General Counsel Opinion K63. That opinion holds that 

"EPA has the ultimate burden of persuasion." The burden under 

5 316(b) is different from the burden under 5 316(a) because 

S 316(b) involves "standards" adopted pursuant to S 301 and S 306 

of CWA. Because EPA is responsible for adopting the standards, 

€PA is the proponent of a rule. Once EPA has established the 

"best technology available" for a particular facility/situation 

basad upon the regulatory record' the operator of the facility 

has the burden of going forward if it wishes to utilize some 

other technology (e.g., one that is less expensive). In other 

words, if there-is a-reasonable basis for the regulator's 

position, the operator/owner has the burden of demonstrating 

that the existing technology or a more cost-effective alternative 

is as or more appropriate. Therefore, in order to overcome a 

regulator's position, the applicant must show that the regulator's position is not a "reasoned decision." 

Summary Statement: The initial burden of proof under 

S 316(b) is on the regulator; however, once the regulator has 

developed a position under 5 316(b) and provided the technical 

basis for that position, the owner/operator must accept the 

regulator's position or show that the existing technology or a 

more cost-effective alternative is more appropriate for minimizing environmental impact. 

Standard of Proof 

The Office of General Counsel Opinion #63, states that EPA 

must provide "clear written notice of the factual and legal 

determinations" which provide the basis for discharge permit 

conditions. The discharge permit conditions must have a reasonable basis, and must be supported by the record. 

Summary Statement: The regulator, under 5 316(b) is 

required to establish the record with respect to permit 

conditions and their reasonableness. 

IX-6 
Degree of Acceptable Harm 

Section 316(b) requires the use of the "best technology 

available" for "minimizing adverse" environmental impacts. It 

does not require elimination of harm. Section 316tb) does 

not specify the amount of harm which must be avoided, but harm 

must be minimized to the extent possible without imposing costs 

wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Adjudicated proceedings suggest harm should be measured in the context 

of "the species population in the area of impact" and should be 

measured in terms of absolute damage and percent damage. The 

degree of acceptable harm should also include consideration of 

short- and long-term impacts. Minimization of harm may be 

achieved by means other than alterations to intake structures. 

Changes in operational modes were required for the Anclote Plant 

and seasonal outages were evaluated as a part of the Hudson River 

Settlement Agreement, Within the context of negotiated settlements, stocking programs have been required in the John Sevier 

Steam Plant decision and the Hudson River Settlement Agreement. 

Summary Statement: The objective of 5 316(b) is minimization, not elimination, of impact. 

Environmental Factors to be Considered 

Section 316(b) determinations are made on a case-by-case 

basis and the factors listed below have been applied to various 

degrees in the decisions reviewed by Versar. These factors are 

included as guidelines, not mandates: 

0 Whether the location, design, construction, and 

capacity of the intake structures minimize adverse 

environmental impacts 

(fogging, icing, noise, salt deposition, and 

aesthetics) or other alternative cooling technologies 

that might be required to accommodate a reduction in 

intake capacity 

0 General environmental effects of cooling towers 

0 Effects of entrainment and impingement including: 

-- Decrease in abundance of threatened or endangered 

species 

-- Increase in abundance of indigenous species 

-- Decrease in abundance of indigenous species 

11-7 
-- Damage to critical aquatic organisms in the food 

chain 

-- Change in population composition 

-- Decrease in abundance of commercial or sport fish 

0 Temporal and spatial distribution of species 

0 Fish swimming capabilities 

0 Intake location with respect to spatial and temporal 

distribution of aquatic species 

0 Location of spawning areas in relation to the intake 

structures 

0 Ability of aquatic community to absorb the additional 

mortality caused by the intake structures 

0 The degree of certainty as to the nature and magnitude 

of measured or predicted impacts 

0 Dams and pools associated with intake structures. 

It should be noted that because S 316(b) uses the term 

“cooling water intake structure”, it does not authorize the 

imposition of a specific closed-cycle technology, such as cooling towers. However, S 316(b) authorizes limitations on the 

withdrawal of cooling water, the practical effect of which may be 

to require a closed-cycle system. Section 316(b) determinations 

are not dependent upon thermal limitations imposed under 5 301 or 

S 316(a). An operator may be required to monitor intake structures through an NPDES permit condition. 

Summary Statement: All factors that affect the probability 

of entrainment or impingement are appropriate for consideration 

under S 316(b) because it is through reductions in entrainment 

and impingement that the impacts of intake structures are minimi zed. 

CostlBenefit Considerations 

The decision in In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 

states that “best technology available” means “best technology 

commercially available at an economically practicable cost.“ 

Several decisions held that the costs of the “best technology 

available” should not be out of proportion to environmental 

gains that result. EPA recommended closed-cycle systems be 

required at Hudson River facilities after finding that the 

11-8 
cost to consumers was not an “impracticable or unbearable” 

burden. Cost-benefit considerations are, therefore, appropriate under 5 316(b). This does not mean, however, that a formal 

cost-benefit analysis is required. The cost of the 316(b) 

technology which may be required is not limited to the dollar 

value of environmental benefits which can be shown to result 

from application of that technology. Moreover, the Fourth 

Circuit has held in the analogous context of thermal effluent 

limitations under 5 301 that monetary quantification of environmental benefits is not required. 

Summary Statement: The proponent of an intake technology 

must demonstrate that the costs for that technology are not 

wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits that are 

anticipated to result. A formal cost-benefit analysis is, however, not required because the environmental gains need not be 

quantified monetarily or equated to the costs on a dollar-ford3llar basis. 

C. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 5 316(a) AND S 316Ib) 

Section 316(a) of CWA requires a compliance determination 

to assure that power plant operations do not adversely impact 

balanced, indigenous populations of shellfish, fish, and other 

wildlife in or on receiving water bodies. Entrainment and 

impingement imgacts as well as discharge effects must be considered as a part of this compliance determination. Section 

316(b) of CWA requires that entrainment and impingement impacts 

must be minimized by installation of the best technology available (BTA) for intake structures or modifications in plant 

operation practices. Under S 316(b), cooling water intake 

capacity may be restricted to levels lower than necessary to 

assure protection and propagation of balanced indigenous populations in receiving waters, so long as the resulting costs are 

not wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits. 

The intake technology required under S 316(b) is the available 

technology that reduces plant impacts to the greatest possible 

degree where cost is not wholly disproportionate to ecological. 

benefit. 

Since the cooling water intake structure and capacity may 

affect the plant’s ability to achieve thermal effluent limitations set under S 316(a), and vice versa, Section 316(a) and 

316(b) determinations should be resolved on a consolidated basis 

whenever possible. 

11-9 
D. CONCLUSION 

A review of the litigation, administrative decisions, and 

Office of General Counsel opinions has resulted in the identification of a substantial number of decision-making criteria 

which can be applied to the S 316 Demonstration for Delaware‘s 

thermal discharges. The review has also identified principles of 

administrative law which guide the decision-making process. of 

all these criteria, the single most important one for the 

decision-maker under S 316(a) is the “substantial evidence” 

standard. As long as 5 3161a) determination is based upon 

substantial evidence, it is appropriate and should be upheld. 

11-10 
111. GENERAL S 316 EVALUATION REQUSREHENTS 

A. MODES OF IMPACT 

The magnitude of impact of power plants (or other facilities 

that withdraw water for cooling purposes) on aquatic biota is 

influenced by plant engineering design and operating practices 

(e.g., the location, design, construction, and capacity of 

intake structures and intake water velocities), the magnitude of 

temperature increases across condensers (AT), the amount of 

cooling water use relative to the size of the receiving water 

body, the amount of "new" water available to dilute plant 

effluents, the level of power generation, and the duration of 

exposure of biota to thermal discharges (Clark and Brownwell 

1973; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976, 1977a, 1977b; 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1986). 

Figure 111-1 is a schematic representation of cooling water 

flow through a generic generating facility showing major power 

plant-biota interactions. These interactions fall into three 

modes of impact: (1) impingement, (2) entrainment, and (3) 

discharge effects. Each mode of impact is discussed below. 

Imuingement 

Impingement consists of trapping large organisms on barriers 

(e.g., trash racks and intake screens) that are used to keep 

condenser tubes free of blockage (Clark and Brownwell 1973). 

Impingement often causes immediate mortality by abrasion or by 

restricting movement of oxygen-bearing water across gills (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 1977a, 1977b). Latent mortality 

may also occur because organisms physically damaged during the 

impingement process are more susceptible to disease and may bu 

less able to compete when returned to the receiving water body. 

The methods used to remove impinged organisms and return them to 

the receiving water body determine, to a large degree, the 

magnitude of impingement mortality (American Society of Civil 

Engineers 1982). Impingement is of major concern when lasses to 

juveniles of commercially or recreationally important species are 

large relative to the stock size of these biota in the receiving 

water body (Hanson et al. 1977, Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1983. 

111-1 
Figure 111-1. Path of water flow through a power plant using 

once-through cooling and locations of plantorganism interactions 

A. 

8. 

.C. 

D. 

1. 

Fish and crabs may accumulate and became entrapped in the 

intake tmbaymcnt. During entrapment, they may be exposed to 

water of low dissolved oxygen content that is sometimes 

drawn in with intake flows below a curtain wall (not 

present at all plants). 

Organisms, mainly fish and crabs, too large to pass throuqh 

intake screens may become trappe'd on them (i.e., are 

impinged). Intake screens are periodically rotated to wash 

off imuinqed organisms and either return them to the 

receiving water (predominantly via the discharge canal) or 

remove them from si te. 

Organisms small enough to pass through intake screens 

(plankton) are drawn through the cooling system (i.e., are 

entrained). During transit through the plant, plankton 

experience a sudden temperature rise, shear and pressures 

forces, and many cantact internal structures. At some 

plants, entrained organisms are also exposed to lethal 

levels of chlorine and its residuals durinq warm months. 

Larqe organisms (fish and crabs) may also be entrained into 

unscraened augmentation pumps, which are present at some 

power plants. During auxiliary pump entrainment, fish and 

crabs experience mechanical damage from contact with 

internal pump Structures. 

Organisms surviving entrainment and impingement (if a fish 

return system is present) are exposed to continued excess 

temperatures and possibly to chlorine residuals durinq 

transit down the discharge conduit or canal enroute back to 

the receiving body. 

Organisms in the receiving water may be exposed to elevated 

temperatures and potentially stressful chemical substances 

in the discharge plume. Currents associated with the 

discharge plume may cause habitat modifications through 

bottom scouring and changes in circulation patterns. 

111-2 
4 

Entrainment 

Entrainment is the transport of biota through the cooling 

water system. Entrained biota may experience mortality due to 

abrasion, rapid velocity c.hanges, shearing flows, rapid 

temperature increases, and toxic chemicals used to prevent 

biofouling (Hanson et al. 1977). Since screens are used to 

prevent entrainment of larger biota, entrainment is of principal 

concern when intake structures are located in or near spawning 

and nursery areas of important species and large numbers of early 

developmental stages are entrained (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 1977a, 1977b). Entrainment mortality of a large 

proportion of each year's spawn has the potential to adversely 

impact regional population size (Boreman et al. 1978, Polgar et 

al. 1981). Power facilities that use auxiliary dilution pumps to 

reduce thermal discharge temperatures provide a secondary source 

of entrainment of both early life stages and larger biota (if 

auxiliary pumps are not screened). Depending upon the volume of 

water used for this dilution, entrainment through the augmentation cooling systems can be equivalent to the entrainment 

observed for condenser cooling systems. 

Discharge Effects 

Discharge water from power plants with once-through cooling 

systems is generally released at temperatures above ambient and 

may include residues of toxic materials such as copper corroded 

from condenser tubes or chlorine injected to reduce biofouling. 

Biological effects from exposure to thermal effluents depend upon 

the magnitude of the temperature increase compared with ambient 

water temperature and the duration of exposure (Barnett and Hardy 

1984). Thermal mortality is generally of major concern when 

discharge temperature exceeds 30°C (95OF). Cold shock is of 

concern when biota attracted to thermal effluents during the 

winter are suddenly exposed to cold temperatures during plant 

shutdowns (Hanson et al. 1977, Barnett and Hardy 1984). 

Chlorine, toxic to most estuarine biota in the ppb to ppm range, 

is of concern when concentrations in plant effluents are greater 

than 0.2 ppm. Chlorine toxicity is greatest at high temperatures 

(Capuzzo 1979). 

Exposure to power plant discharges may cause direct 

mortality, but sublethal thermal effects are generally of greater 

environmental concern, and include alteration to physiological 

processes (e.g., growth, reproduction) movement of resident biota 

away from the discharge region, and increases in abundance of 

nuisance organisms within the thermally impacted are8 (Coutant 

1977, Coutant and Talmadge 1977, Holland and Hiegcl 1981). 
.. Thermal effluents can also cause blockage of migration pathways 

(Coutant and Talmadge 1977). 

Site Characteristics 

The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of 

the water body adjacent to a power generating facility also play 

a role in determining the nature and magnitude of power plant 

effects as do other human uses of the water body. 

B. TYPIFS OF STUDIES REQUIRED FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The modes of impact described above are generic to most 

facilities utilizing surface waters for cooling purposes. 

However, the nature and magnitude of potential impacts generated 

by each facility are a function of many factors, including: the 

magnitude of water withdrawals and discharges, the size of the 

source and receiving water body, the types and sensitivity of 

organism exposed to facility operations, and the structural and 

operational characteristics of the intake and discharge portions 

of the facility. For these reasons, studies required to evaluate 

the impact of any given facility will always be, to a large 

extent, site specific. However, it is possible to identify key 

elements of studies that are necessary to address each mode of 

impact. Site-specific tailoring of studies generally entails 

determining whether each of these potential study elements is 

necessary and what sampling level is needed to achieve study 

objectives. Adequacy of studies evaluated in this project was 

generally assessed with regard to the general study guidelines 

presented here. 

In general, 316 evaluations require that the loss of 

organisms caused by plant operations be quantified and that the 

loss be placed in perspective to the size of the exposed 

population. Basic categories of studies required to determine 

the percentage of a population being lost to plant operations 

include: population; impingement; entrainment; and, discharge. 

0 Pouulat ion 

-- Population studies should be comprehensive, and 

cover all important ecosystem elements, with 

particular emphasis on commercial and 

recreationally important species, species of 

special concern (e.g., threatened, endangered), and 

species likely to be exposed to the greatest degree 

of impact. 

111-4 
0 

-- Studies should employ state-of-the-art sampling 

gear, deuloyed in a standard and technically 

acceptabie manner. 

-- Spatial distribution of sampling should be 

sufficient to ensure that elements of the 

population outside the area of potential impact are 

being sampled, and to the extent possible, the 

entire affected population. 

reference locations are to be compared as a means 

of evaluating impact, sampling stations should be 

located in similar and comparable habitats (e.g., 

similar salinities, bottom depths, substrate type), 

and reference stations should clearly be outside 

the area of influence of the facility. 

If impacted and 

-- Temporal distribution of sampling should be 

sufficient to document seasonal change in 

distribution and occurrence so as to completely 

document an annual cycle of exposure to impact; 

sampling intensity should be higher during the 

portions of the year when most sensitive life 

stages are present or when the greatest degree of 

impact is expected, either because of 

environmental conditions (e.g., during summer for 

evaluating thermal impacts) or because the 

population at risk is most abundant (e.g., spring 

sampling for assessing impacts on migratory 

anadromous fish). 

Imoingement 

Sampling should be conducted throughout the year, 

in order to characterize seasonal variations in 

magnitude of impingement and changes in species 

composition, and ideally for more than one year to 

assess the magnitude for "worst-case" conditions. 

Sampling design should be based'on water withdrawal 

rates, in order to establish impingement rates as a 

function of water withdrawal with acceptable 

statistical reliability. 

Sampling design should reflect normal plant 

operational procedures, so that estimates 

accurately reflect total impingement. 

Impingement mortality studies should document bath 

short-term and long-term mortality; mortality 

factors applied to measured impingement rates 

should reflect those mortalities incurred under 

normal as well as maximum operating conditions. 

111-5 
.. 

-- sampling methods should ensure that all ‘organisms 

trapped on screens are adequately represented in 

samples and that appropriate collection efficiency 

factors are considered. 

0 Entrainment 

-- Temporal distribution of sampling on a seasonal 

basis should be consistent with the occurrence of 

entrainable life stages and with population studies 

conducted in the vicinity of the facility. 

-- Temporal distribution of sampling, on a diurnal 

basis, should take into account typical diurnal 

behavior (e.g., vertical migration, day/night net 

avoidance behavior) of the organisms being sampled. 

-- Deployment of sampling gear in intake and discharge 

flows should be such that sampling efficiency is 

either comparable or can be normalized to a 

standard €or both locations. 

-- Vertical and horizontal distribution of sampling 

locations should be such that the entire intake 

and/or discharge flow is adequately represented in 

the estimates of total entrainment derived from 

the samples. 

-- Sampling gear and laboratory processing methods 

should be state-of-the art, with appropriate 

quality control on quantitative and taxonomic data 

-- Entrainment mortality studies should document 

species-specific latent mortality rates composed of 

thermal, chemical and mechanical mortality factors. 

0 Thermal Plume 

-- Temperature sampling should be done in such a way 

as to document temperature increases over ambient 

in both horizontal and vertical dimensions (i.e., a 

three-dimensional plume); this information is 

necessary to assess compliance with Delaware‘s nev 

thermal mixing zone requirements. 

-- Sampling should be done at all tidal stages, for 

those facilities in tidal waters. 

-- Studies should be done during all seasons, with 

particular emphasis on the summer period when 

thermal impacts might be expected to be greatest. 

111-6 
-- Studies should be done when the facility is at full 

permitted level of operations; studies conducted at 

partial operation should not be used to assess 

compliance with water quality regulations. 

-- Xodels or statistical procedures applied to predict 

thermal plumes should be state-of-the-art. 

0 Discharge Impacts (Thermal and Non-thermal) 

All available literature information should be used 

to establish those ecosystems components most 

sensitive to thermal impacts; potential 

synergistic effects of non-thermal components of 

discharges should be taken into account in these 

preliminary assessments. 

Sampling should focus on the most susceptible 

components of the ecosystems 

Sampling spatial distribution should be consistent 

with thermal plume mapping and/or prediction, to 

ensure that sampling is done at affected and 

unaffected locations. 

C. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR STATE S 316 EVALUATIONS 

Detailed reviews of utility 316 Demonstrations generally 

require specialized technical capabilities and often entail 

extensive amounts of technical effort. In situations where 

potential or actual environmental impacts are large and/or where 

public concern is high, the manpower requirements for conducting 

the review and then supporting administrative hearings or 

litigation in state or federal court are often large. 

Because most states have assumed responsibility for the 

administration of the NPDES permit program within their 

jurisdiction, the burden of 316 evaluations has fallen on the 

state agencies. Several different procedures have been followed 

by states in order to meet their permitting needs. 

In the Stateof Maryland, a major controversy over the 

construction of a large nuclear power plant (Calvert Cliffs) on 

the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay resulted in tho 1972 passage 

of legislation creating the Power Plant Siting Program within the 

Department of Natural Resources. The objective of this program 

was to conduct research and carry out monitoring of existing 

power plants in order to ensure that the construction and 

operation of such facilities would not have significant impact on 

human health and the natural resources of the state. The program 

III-7 
was specifically designed not to generate a new state 

bureaucracy. A small administrative Staff was established within 

Maryland DNR, and all major program work was contracted out to 

topical "program integrator" contractors. 

At the present time, program integrators are funded covering 

biology (terrestrial and aquatic), atmospheric sciences, solid 

waste and engineering, and economics. Contracts are awarded 

through competitive bid for 5 year terms. Statements of work are 

revised each year, with from 20 to 30 different projects being 

conducted during any given fiscal year. Projects range from the 

technical review of utility permit or license applications to the 

design and implementation of field programs to address specific 

impact issues. Annual integrator Contract amounts are generally 

on the order of $800-900 thousand each for biology, atmospheric 

sciences and engineering. Lesser amounts are used to cover 

economics and to cover specific additional contract needs. 

Integrators generally contribute to the selection and oversight 

of contractors selected to perform specialty functions. 

Funding for the Power Plant Research Program {PPRP, the 

current successor to the original Power Plant Siting Program) 

comes from a surcharge on electric bills. The magnitude of this 

surcharge is set by the legislature each year. The funds are 

dedicated to PPRP and cannot be incorporated into the state 

general fund. The surcharge amount is typically between $.lo and 

$.25 on the monthly bill of each utility customer. 

Despite the lead role which PPRP plays in the review of . 

power plant licensing and permitting review, the Department of 

Natural REsources, within which the Power Plant Research Program 

resides, is not the discharge regulatory authority in the State 

of Maryland. The Maryland Department of the Environment (NDE) is 

the agency which issues permits. Formal inter-departzcntal 

agreements exist which identify MDNR as the lead agency for the 

resolution of majot power plant issues. HDE provides DNR with 

all information regarding any power plant permit matters, for 

review and input, in recognition of the special expertise which 

resides within the Power Plant Research Program. While MDE is 

not bound by the recommendations of DNR, for the most part those 

recommendations are followed. 

The State of New Jersey has also established what appears to 

be a unique means-of meeting the needs for special expertise and 

extensive manpower to conduct detailed reviews of 316 

Demonstrations produced by utilities. New Jersey's program arose 

as a result of enabling legislation which was necessary for the 

state to assume responsibility for NPDES permits from EPA. That 

legislation included a fee program, which gave the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection the authority to assess 

permittees for the cost of the permit program. The major 

utilities in the state were the first permittees to challenge 
this legislation in court. The suit was ultimately settled out 

of court, with the stipulation that the utilities would provide 

funds to the state for contractors who would assume the task of 

reviewing permit applications, including those for variances. 

This stipulation provided for the consultant’s work to be 

reviewed and commented on by both the state and the utility. 

Funding could be provided either before or after the work was 

completed. Under this arrangement, New Jersey has conducted 

detailed reviews of 316(a) variance applications for the Salem 

and Oyster Creek nuclear power plants, and is presently in the 

process of reviewing variance applications for several facilities 

located on the Arthur Kill and Hackensack River. 

From information available to Versar, no other special 

programs appear to have been established by other states 

specifically to deal with power plants or 316(a) variance 

applications. Versar conducted a review of state and federal 

approaches to renewal of NPDES permits and reassessments of 

316(a) variances for the Maryland Power Plant Research Program in 

1988 (Versar 1988). That review revealed that the extent to 

which states perform detailed reviews of power plant permit 

submittals is extremely varied, from virtually no review to, more 

generally, a limited review by a single individual assigned that 

duty within the permitting agency. Funding for such reviews is 

generally normal funding to that agency, with no allowance for 

acquisition or sugport of special expertise in power plant impact 

issues. In general, the permitting agency relies on input from 

fisheries agencies within the state, and, on a more limited 

basis, from EPA regional offices, in order to meet the needs for 

special impact assessment technical expertise. 

Because construction of major new power plants has been 

limited during the past decade, major public controversies over 

power plant impacts have not been as prevalent in recant years as 

they were during the 1970s. This lack of controversy has 

undoubtedly contributed to the loss of special power plant impact 

expertise in most of the state as well as the federal agencies. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a 

special Power Plant Team in the early 1970s specifically for the 

purpose of evaluating power plant impacts to fisheries resources 

and contributing to power plant apglication reviews nationwide. 

That team was disbanded before 1980, and USFWS retains no special 

structure to address power plant issues. The Environmental 

Protection Agency has a single National Expert on steam electric 

power plants (Charles Kaplan, U.S. EPA Region IV, Facilities 

Performance Branch) who serves as the single information source 

on power plant permits and variances within the agency, for all 

regions. 

The application of the above information to the power plant 

issues confronting the State of Delaware suggests that the best 

IIX-9 
model for the state to follow would be that being employed by the 

State of New Jersey. The relatively limited number of power 

plants and thermal dischargers in Delaware, together with the 

special expertise which is necessary to conduct technically 

rigorous reviews of permit submittals, lead to the conclusion 

that establishment of an in-house staff Of power plant impact 

specialists would not be cost effective. Such staff would be 

needed relatively infrequently, and it is unlikely that such 

staff could remain up-to-date on advances in power plant impact 

methodologies and techniques. .The New Jersey model allows for 

necessary expertise to be acquired only as needed, and *' 

establishes that the permittee is to be assessed the cost of the 

review process. It is likely that the implementation of such a 

procedure within Delaware would require enabling legislation; 

however, that matter was not researched for this report. 

111-10 
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Specific conclusions and recommendations for each of the 12 

facilities reviewed are included in the individual facility 

status reports presented in Appendix A. Table IV-1 presents a 

summary overview of facility status for each of the impact 

categories identified in Chapter 111 as being relevant to 316(a) 

variance determinations. Here we present a general overview of 

our findings relevant to 5 316(a) and S 316(b) procedural issues 

and recommendations relative to each of the impact categories. 

316(a! StattJs 

A 316(a) variance is Only required for a facility if it 

fails to meet thermal discharge requirements (See the answer to 

Question 1 in Appendix B). As will be discussed below, 

compliance agpears not to have been formally evaluated for most 

of the 12 facilities reviewed in this study. Even for those 

facilities where compliance was assessed, the assessment was done 

under old water quality criteria which have been recently modified and adopted (February 1990). The "reopener clause" 

included in all of the current facility permits allows permits to 

be opened and modified, under Section B -- Responsibility, 

S.b(3)(a), if there has been a revision of the state water 

quality standards. It appears that since DNREC has modified the 

thermal mixing zone criteria, and since all of the facilities 

have permit temperature limits greater than the maximum temperature allowed by state water quality standards, a compliance 

evaluation of each facility with,a thermal discharge relative to 

the new mixing zone criteria is procedurally appropriate. A 

recanmendation regarding this reassessment is presented below in 

the Thermal Discharge section. 

The permit "reopener clause", under Section B -- 

Responsibility, S.a(3), also identifies "a change in any 

condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction 

or elimination of the authorized discharge" as a basis for permit 

modification. 

appear to be a basis for permit modification for those facilities 

discharging into that water body under this part of the "reopen8r 

clause. " 

Improvement in the Delaware River ecosystem would 

One additional legal question which arose during this 

project had to do with which facility had responsibility for 

addressing 316(a) issues in the case of Star Enterprise's plant, 

which discharges its own effluent as well as those of several 

other facilities. As is indicated in the response ta Question 3 

IV- 1 
I 

WLLI~ w Lu 

I 1 I 

ul LUW~ w 

CI 

c 

m 

r 

I I 

1 I 

IV-2 
in Appendix B, Star has responsibility for assessing impact. In 

addition, that assessment should include consideration of the 

impacts from the intakes of the other facilities contributing to 

Star's discharge. 

316(b) Status 

Compliance with S 316(b) is necessary for any facility which 

withdraws water for cooling purposes (See response to Question 2 

in Appendix B), regardless of whether the facility has a discharge. The latter issue arose in the case of the CIBA-GEIGY 

facility, which does not discharge directly into a receiving 

water body. Three of the 12 facilities included in this study 

submitted material relevant to a 316(b) evaluation during the 

1970~~ but there is no indication in the material examined that 

the state forsally reviewed that material and made a decision 

that the existing intakes were Best Technology Available (BTA). 

For the other nine facilities, no information appears to have 

been collected to assess the potential impacts resulting from 

water withdrawal or to determine whether existing intakes represent BTA. 

Besides the standard "reopener clause" discussed above in 

reference to 5316(a) issues, nine of the twelve facilities have 

provisions for opening and changing a permit with regards to 

316(b) issues under the Special Conditions section of the permit. 

All of these "reopener clauses" are similar in that they stipulate that the state may perform analyses or biosurvcys of the 

receiving waters and based on the results of those studies, 

reopen and modify the permit during its term. The Special 

Conditions section differs between the permits with regards to 

the types of results necessary to reopen the permit. For seven 

of the facilities (CIBA-GEIGY, DPbt's DCPP, EMPP and IRPP, du 

Pont Edge Moor and Seaford, and General Chemical Corp.), theresults of these analyses or surveys must suggest that the 

permittee's discharge "is causing, or has the potential to cause, 

diminished attainment of the receiving waters' designated protected uses... or poses an unacceptable threat to human health." 

For DPcL's DCTP and EMPP, entrainment, impingement, and thermal 

impacts are specifically mentioned as being included in possible 

analyses or biosurveys. At NVF Yorklyn and Star Enterprise, the 

results of the state's analyses or biosurveys must show that the 

water quality in the receiving waters "is harmful to indigenous 

fish and aquatic life" ta allow reopening of the permit under the 

Special Conditions section. No "reopener clause" exists within 

the Special Conditions section of the permits for Hercules, IC1 

Americas, or NVF Newark. As is discussed in Chapter 11 of this 

report, the burden of proof that an intake is not BTA is on the 

regulatory agency. in Table IV-1 it is shown that no data are 

available to assess the BTA status of most of the facilities, and 

IV-3 
based on our brief review the data which are available for three 

of the facilities are either technically inadequate or potentially outdated. 

For the three facilities that have conducted impingement or 

entrainment studies in the past, the state can proceed to conduct 

a formal 316(b) evaluation review of previously submitted material, but may first give the facilities an opportunity to perform 

new, current sudies which can be used for the evaluation. The 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has 

employed this approach in their current round of 316 evaluations. 

If the permittee chooses not to submit additional information, 

and a thorough review of the existing intake structure impact 

studies finds them technically inadequate for the state to make a 

reasonable decision on BTA, and there exists a reasonable basis 

that existing intake technologies are not minimizing adverse 

environmental impact, DNREC could take a protective position and 

require stringent BTA (i.e., cooling towers, as NJDEP has done). 

This position by the state then shifts the burden of proof to the 

permittee to demonstrate that existing technology or a more costeffective alternative is as or more appropriate for BTA. For the 

nine permittee's that have not conducted intake structure impact 

studies, it would appear that a facility may have no obligation 

to provide the state with impingement or entrainment data unless 

the state has some basis for declaring their existing intake 

technology to not be BTA, or unless the facility is determined to 

be out of comoliance with thermal regulations. Intake impacts 

must also be considered in a 316(a) Demonstration (see Response 

to Question 3 in Appendix 8). 

Thermal Discharge 

All of the 12 facilities addressed in this project were 

selected by DNREC for review because they use surface waters for 

cooling purposes and thus are potentially subject to compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations, including 316(a) variance 

rules. 

Of the twelve facilities, three (DP&:L's Indian River and 

Edge Hoor power plants and du Pont's Seaford plant) have conducted thermal studies in the 1970s which' appear to be technically adequate. Results of these studies appear useful to 

evaluate the status of compliance of these facilities with new 

thermal mixing zone regulations. However, the qualifier "appear" 

is used here because the conclusion on adequacy was based on a 

general assessment of the scope of the work done and not on a 

detailed, analytical review of the modeling and statistical work 

performed. Such detailed assessments were beyond the scope of 

this project. The permits for both of the power plants require 

that additional thermal studies be conducted by DP&L (discharge 

canal temperature monitoring at IRPP and a thermal plume field 

IV-4 
survey at EMP?). These studies were scheduled to commence early 

in 1989 and data may now be available to contribute to thermal 

compliance determinations under the recently adopted water 

quality standards. 

Given the ecological importance of the Nanticoke River and 

the large amount of water used by the Seaford facility relative 

to the amount of river flow past the plant, compliance with 

thermal mixing zone requirements should be reassessed. If 

du Pont cannot demonstrate compliance with thermal regulations 

they may apply for a 316(a) variance, produce a 316(a) 

Demonstration, and major impact issues could be addressed at that 

time. 

Star Enterprise apparently conducted a thermal plume study 

in 1977. However, the study report was not available for review 

during this project. This document should be requested from Star 

and reviewed for technical adequacy, relevance to current 

operating practices, and compliance with current thermal 

regulations. 

The compliance status of the remaining facilities is 

unknown, particularly with regard to thermal mixing zone 

requirements. For all of the facilities, the permit temperature 

limit for the cooling water discharge exceeds the maximum 

discharge temperature allowed under state regulation (86OF). 

This suggests that a thermal mixing zone must have been defined 

for the facility and that compliance with that mixing zone should 

be assessed. 

Two facilities appear to not be subject to thermal discharge 

regulations: DP&Lfs Delaware City Power Plant discharges into 

the Star Enterprise’s discharge canal, and, consequently, responsibility for complying with thermal regulations is that of Star’s 

and not DPgL’s; CIBA-GEIGY discharges either into a sewer system 

or a dry well and not directly into a receiving water body. 

Recommendations 

1. As new water quality standards have been adopted 

(February 1990)’ with modifications to therinal regulations, the permits of the ten facilities to which the 

regulations agply should be reopened and thermal compliance assessed; current discharge monitoring or 

thermal plume data should be required by the permittees 

and reviewed, and appropriate characteristics of the 

receiving water body necessary to assess compliance 

with new thermal mixing zone regulations (e.g., width, 

net flow, cross-sectional area) should be documented to 

permit the compliance assessment. 

IV-5 
2. For those facilities found to be in compliance, a formal finding should be documented in DNREC files, together with supporting information and calculations. 

3. For those facilities found to be out of compliance, the 

pernittees are required to apply for §316(a) variances 

and produce 316ta) Demonstrations, or consider a change 

in permit effluent limits which would result in mixing 

zone compliance (although this option is likely to be 

operational unfeasible for most owner/operators). 

Population Sttldies 

Studies of populations of organisms potentially impacted by 

plant operations appear to have been done at only two of the 

twelve facilities reviewed. Studies at the Indian River Power 

Plant were done to support a 316(a) Variance Demonstration. 

Ecological studies were conducted at DP&L’s Edge Hoof Power Plant 

to assess impacts. Our review of these studies suggest that they 

addressed the important elements of the ecosystem and were done 

in a generally acceptable technical manner. However, in both 

cases the studies were done in the mid-1970s. 

The water quality status of the Delaware River estuary, on 

which DP6rL’s Edge Moor facility is located, has improved markedly 

since the mid-1970s. There have also been documented increases 

in fish stocks (e.g., striped bass) and a general enhancement of 

the ecosystem in the plant vicinity. As a result, the population 

studies conducted in the 1970s are not representative of current 

conditions near the plant site, and conclusions about plant 

impacts in the 1970s are not likely to be representative of current impacts. Because the plant is located near the center of 

striped bass spawning in the Delaware, a reassessment of impacts 

caused by plant operations appears warranted. DPhL clearly 

recognized the potential for new impacts, since they funded a 

focused ichthyoplankton study near the plant in 1989. However, 

this study, by itself, is insufficient to address all potential 

impact issues. 

Little information seems to exist to document the present 

relationship between the Indian River estuary and the Indian 

River Power Plant and any changes that have occurred since the 

mid-1970s. However, during this project no evidence supporting 

the conclusion that there has been a definitive, significant 

change in the ecosystem exposed to plant impacts was identified 

or reviewed. A more extensive search for available information 

on the current status of the estuary would be appropriate before 

proceeding further with a reassessment of the Indian River Power 

Plant impacts. 

IV-6 
For the remaining eight facilities which have thermal discharges (two facilities have no applicable thermal discharge, as 

discussed above), no population studies were done, or, in the 

case of Star Enterprise, no information was available for review. 

For many of the smaller facilities included in this review, 

detailed population studies are likely not to be needed, particularly if they are found to be in compliance with thermal mixing 

zone regulations and if there appears to be little likelihood of 

major intake impacts (this issue will be discussed below). For 

the smaller facilities located on the Delaware River estuary 

(i.e., General Chemical Cotp., IC1 and Du Pont Edge Moor), data 

which may be collected for assessing impacts of larger facilities 

(e.g., Star Enterprises, DP&L Edge Moor Power Plant) could serve 

as sufficient documentation of exposed populations to assess 

potential impacts of these smaller facilities. 

Recommendations 

1. New population studies should be required for those 

facilities found not to be in compliance with thermal 

mixing zone requirements, as a basis for conducting a 

current and representative 316(a) Demonstration. In 

essence, no existing population data are considered 

useful for either a 316(a) Demonstration or a 316(b) 

evaluation. 

2, Any new populations studies should follow the general 

guidelines presented in Chapter 111. It would be 

advisable to have study designs reviewed by the state 

prior to study implementation. The review should not, 

however, be interpreted as unequivocal approval of the 

study conducted. This step will, however, reduce the 

prospects for technical disagreements later in the 316 

review process. 

Nan-Thermal Discharqc 

The only information concerning non-thermal discharge impacts available for this review were generated by DNREC and du 

Pont Seaford. The state conducted whole effluent, i'n-situ bioassay tests for 11 of the facilities (no tests were conducted at 

DP&L's Indian River Power Plant) and du Pont Seaford performed a 

chronic toxicity test of it5 combined discharge. Five of the 

facilities are required by their permits to conduct biomonitoring 

(DPLL's Indian River Power Plant, du Pont Edge Moor, du Pont 

Seaford, NVF Yorklyn, and Star Enterprise); however, only the 

results from du Pont Seaford's tests were available for review. 

IV-7 
CSBA-GEXGY and General Chemical Corporation will begin biomonitoring in the near future. Non-thermal impacts only come into 

consideration within the context of 5 316 evaluations for those 

facilities failing to meat thermal discharge requirements and 

which request a S 316(a) variance. Thus, requirements for nonthermal discharge impact data would agpear to be secondary to 

requirements for thermal compliance and intake impact information. 

Recommendations: 

1. Non-thermal discharge impact information should only 

requested for those facilities which are required to 

be 

submit 316(a) Demonstrations. The type of information 

required will have to be identified on a case-by-case 

basis, after the thermal compliance assessment is 

completed. 

Impingement and Entrainment 

Impingement and entrainment are addressed together here 

because both represent modes of intake impact and studies of both 

are essential to accomplishing a 316(b) evaluation. As is shown 

in Table IV-1, only three of the facilities reviewed in this 

study appear to have conducted impingement and entrainment 

studies. None of these studies were deemed to be adequate for an 

assessment .of current intake impacts or for a current BTA evaluation. There appears to be no information available for the 

smaller facilities on the design and operational characteristics 

of their intake structures, including such basic information as 

whether the intakes have screens or trash racks. 

Given the very small volumes of water withdrawn by some of 

these facilities, the likelihood for significant intake impacts 

may be small. However, even small intakes can have significant 

localized impacts if they are not sited or operated in an appropriate manner. Thus, a basic review of intake structures and 

operational procedures is definitely warranted, together with at 

least a preliminary characterization of the ecosystem exposed to 

impact, before any conclusions about potential intake impacts 

are drawn. Based--on such basic and preliminary assessments, it 

should be possible to identify those facilities for which more 

rigorous studies are warranted. 

of proof regarding BTA is on the regulatory agency, and the facilities may not have a legal obligation to provide information 

which can be used to assess the BTA status of existing intake 

technologies. This uncertainty regarding the state's legal 

However, as was discussed regarding 316(b) above, the burden 
.. 

technologies. This uncertainty regarding the state's legal 

standing is further support for undertaking a step-wise evaluation of the intake status of these facilities. Facilities may 

not object to providing fairly limited and basic information 

which is readily available. Such preliminary information can 

then serve as the basis for requesting additional and more 

detailed information, for those facilities where it appears to be 

appropriate. 

Recomme mndations : 

1. For each of those facilities where no information on 

the structure and operational characteristics of their 

intake is available (as noted in Appendix A), such 

information should be requested, including the following specifics: 

-- Specifications of the intake structure (e.g., pipe 

diameter, pipe composition, distance from shore, 

water depth at the intake location, depth of the 

intake below the surface, orientation of the 

intake opening) 

-- Specifications of any protective screening or 

grating over the intake opening (e.g., screen 

mesh, size of openings between trash bars, mode of 

operation for any traveling screens, typical 

cleaning procedures) 

-- Specifications of water withdrawal procedures 

(e.g., intake velocity at the intake opening, 

standard daily, seasonal and annual operating 

procedurest volumes withdrawn) 

2. Physical and flow characteristics of the receiving 

water body in the vicinity of the intake structure 

(e.g., width, depth, substrate type, seasonal flow 

patterns, mean annual flow rates) should be documented. 

Such information may be available from the facility 

operator or from one of the other state agencies. 

3. For each of the facilities where no information on the 

ecosystem in the vicinity of the intake is available, 

solicit from each facility any information which they 

may have (this action may already have been done during 

the initial phase of this project; however, a follow-up 

request may still be appropriate, particularly if it is 

linked to the request for intake structure and operations information). If the facility has no data of 

information, appropriate state agencies should be contacted to determine if they have any relevant data. 

IV-9 
8 

Should no information be identified, basic characterization studies should be conducted by the state to 

establish the nature of the ecosystem exposed to 

potential intake impacts. 

4. using the plant structural and operational characteristics, and basic ecological information obtained, each 

facility for which no data were available when this 

project was oonducted should be reviewed to assess the 

potential for impact. "Potential" would be based primarily on the presence of important species which 

appear to be vulnerable to impact from the type of 

water withdrawal occurring. 

5. For those facilities identified as having high potential for impact, the state should identify potential 

changes in intake structure or operation which would 

reduce impacts to acceptable levels (i.e., the identification of BTA). A request for intake modification 

can then be made. It is likely that a facility operator may disagree with the state's conclusions and 

recommendations. However, the facility operator would 

then have the burden of proving that the state's 

position is incorrect, and may then have to initiate 

studies to collect data to support their position. 

6. If those facilities located on the Delaware River that 

have conducted studies (i.e., Star Enterprises and DPLL 

Edge Moor Power Plant), even if considered in this preliainary review to be outdated or technically inadequate, do not have to produce 316(a) Demonstrations, 

there is sufficient information currently available to 

document a significant change in the resources exposed 

to impact. DNREC may then have a reasonable basis for 

selecting protective technologies as BTA (i.e., cooling 

towers). As a result, the burden of proof then falls 

to the permittee to demonstrate otherwise. 

7. If DPCL's Indian River facility is in compliance with 

the new thermal regulations and hence does not need to 

produce a 316(a) Demonstration, additional data and 

inforaation should be sought and reviewed to determine 

if the= is a firm basis for claiming that a significant cnange in the Indian River estuary ecasystem has 

occurred. If an "improvement" in the ecosystem has 

Occurred, the same procedure identified for the 

Delaware estuary plants, above, should be followed in 

reassessing BTA status of the facility. Should a 

significant change in the estuary not be confirmed, BTA 

status should probably be deferred until the next pcrmit renewal, in the absence of evidence of significant 

IV-10 
current intake impacts. If evidence can be found that 

there has been a significant decline in or degradation 

of the Indian River ecosystem, potential links between 

plant operation and the ecosystem "decline" could be 

assessed. Any such linkage could serve as a basis for 

revising the plant permit under the reopener clause. 

IV-11 
V. REFSRENCES 

Albert, R.C. 1989. The historical context of water quality 

management for the Delaware Estuary. Estuaries 

11(2):99-107. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1982. Design of 

Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. Prepared by 

ASCE, New YOrk, NY. 

Barnett, P.R.O., and B.L.S. Hardy. 1984. Thermal deformations. 

- In: Pollution and Protection of the Seas: Pesticides, 

Domestic Wastes, and Thermal Deformations, Vol. V, Part 4 of 

Marine Ecology, A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life 

in Oceans and Coastal Waters, 1769-1914. 0. Kinne, ed. New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 

Earnthouse, L.W., and W. Van Winkle. 1981. The impact of 

impingement on the Hudson River white perch population. 

- In: Issues Associated with Impact Assessment, Proceedings 

of the Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment, and 

Impingement, 199-205. L.D. Jensen, ed. Sparks, MD: 

Ecological Analysts, Inc. 

Boreman, J., C.P. Goodyear, and S.W. Christensen. 1978. An 

Empirical Transport Model for Evaluating Entrainment of 

Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. Prepared by the U.S. 

Fish and Wild. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog., National Power 

Plant Team. Ref. No. FWS/OBS-78/90. 

Capuzzo, J.M. 1979. The effect of temperature on the toxicity 

of chlorinated cooling water to marine animals -- a 

preliminary review. Mar. Poll. Bull. 10:45-47. 

Clark, J.D., and W. Brownwell. 1973. Electric Power Plants in 

the Coastal Zone, Environmental Issues. American Littoral 

Society, Highland, NJ. Special Publ. No. 7. 

J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 34:?39-745. 

Coutant, C.C. 1977. Compilation of temperature preference data. 

Coutant, C.C., and S.S. Talmadge. 1977. Thermal effects. J. 

Delaware DNREC. 1974. Regulations Governing the Control of 

Water Poll. Control Fed. 49:1369-1425. 

Water Pollution. (40-08/79/05/1). Adopted 15 Harch 1974. 

Effective 15 March 1974. Amended 23 June 1983. 

v- 1 
Delaware DNREC. 1985. State of Delaware Water Quality Standards 

for Streams: Amended 12/23/85. 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. Data pertaining to bioassay tests of 

whole effluents. 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. State of Delaware Surface Water Quality 

Standards, Hearing Draft, 20 July, 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. Draft executive order to amend Delaware 

Surface Water Quality Standards, Hearing Draft, 

20 July, 1989. Received from J. Davis, Delaware DNREC, 

21 November, 1989. 

Derickson, W.K. 1970. The shore zone fishes of Rehobeth and 

Indian River bays of Delaware. M.S. thesis, University of 

Delaware. 

Hanson, C.H., J.R. White, and H.W. Li. 1977. Entrainment and 

impingement of fishes in power plant cooling water intakes: 

An overview. Marine Fisheries Review 39:7-17. 

Holland, A.F., and M.H. Hiegel. 1981. Results of benthic 

studies at Chalk Point. Prepared by Martin Marietta 

Environmental Center, Baltimore, Haryland for Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting Program, 

Annapolis, MD. Ref. No. PPSP-CT-81-1. 

Holland, A.F., S.B. Weisberg, J.K. Summers, L.R. Cadman, and J.M. 

Hoeniq. 1989. Technical review and evaluation of thermal 

effects studies and cooling water intake structure 

demonstration of impact for the Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station: Revised Final Report. Prepared by Versar, Inc., 

for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

Loftan, L. 1976. Impingement of fishes on water intake screens 

of major industrial water users on the Delaware River with 

particular reference to anadromous fish. Paper presented at 

A workshop on American Shad, 14-16 December, 1976, in 

Amherst, Hass. 

Maurice, K.R., R.W. Blye, and P.L. Harmon. 1987. Increased 

spawning by American shad coincident with improved dissolved 

oxygen in the tidal Delaware River. In: Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on Common Strategies of Anadromous 

and Catadromous Fish. Am. Fish. SOC., 79-88. Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1986. Power Plant 

Cumulative Impact Report for Maryland. Prepared by the 

Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, MD. 

v- 2 
Miller,' R.W. 1987. Species list for June 1987 Indian River fish 

kill compiled by R.W. Miller, Delaware DNREC. 

Miller, R.W. 1987. Summary of Indian River fish kill 

investigations as of June 25, 1987 by R.W. Miller, Delaware 

DNREC, 26 June, 1987. 

Miller, R.W. 1988. Daily fish kill report from R.W. Miller, 

Delaware DNREC, 24 June, 1988. 

Miller, R.W. 1988. Notes frbm Indian River fish kill by 

Miller, R.W. 1989. Fish kill. Delaware Conservationist 32:38. 

Miller, R.W. 1989. The 1987-88 Indian River fish kills re- . visited by R.W. Miller, Delaware DNREC, 23 Hay, 1989. 

R.W. Miller, Delaware DNREC, 24-25 Hay, 1988. 

NUS Corporation. 1976. Overview environmental study of 

cumulative effects of electric power development in the 

Delaware River Basin, 1975-1989; Executive Summary. 

Prepared for ACE Co., DP&L Co., JCB&L Co., HE Co., OCR 

Util., Inc., PP&L Co., PE Co., PSE&G Co. 

Polgar, T.T, J.K. Summers, and M.S. Haire. 1981. Assessment of 

potential power plant entrainment impact at Morgantown Steam 

Electric Station, In: Issues Associated with Impact 

Assessment, Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on 

Entrainment and Impingement, 207-223. L.D. Jensen, ed. 

Sparks, MD: Ecological Analysts, Inc. 

Public Sevice Electric and Gas Company (PSELG). 1984. Salem 

Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration. Newark NJ. 

Rodgers, Paul W. 1988. Impacts of chlorinated discharges on 

Delaware's surface waters - Final Report. Prepared by 

Limno-Tech, Inc. for the Delaware DNREC. 

Scotton, L.N. 1970. Occurrence and distribution of larval 

fishes in the Rehobeth and Indian River bays of Delaware. 

M.S. thesis, University of Delaware. 

Seagraves, R.J., and R.W. Cole. 1989. Annual report of stream 

and inland bays fish survey for the State of Delaware. 

Project P-37-8-3. 

Shirey, C.A. 1988. Annual regort of stream and inland bays fish 

survey for the State of Delaware. Project P-37-3-2. 

Summers, P. 1987. Fish population study. Delaware River Basin 

Commission report, W. Trenton, New Jersey. 

v- 3 
Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby, M.A. Kjelson, and MOP. Weinstein. 

1983. Estimates of larval-fish abundance: diurnal variation 

and influences of saqling gear and towing speed. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:272-279. 

Development document for best technology available for 

location, design, construction and capacity of cooling 

water intake, structures for minimizing environmental 

impact. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA-440/1-756/-16-a. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1976. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1977(a). 

Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for 

Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental 

Impact Statements. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1977(b). 

Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water 

Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment. Section 

3161b) P.L. 92-9500. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

Versar, Inc. 1988. Preliminary review of state and federal 

approaches to renewal of NPDES permits an dreassessment of 

Section 316 variances. Draft. Prepared for Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research 

Program, Annapolis, MD. 

Weisberg, S.B. and W.B. Burton. 1989. Spatial and temporal 

patterns of striped bass spawning activity in the Delaware 

River during Spring 1988. Prepared by Versar, Inc. for the 

Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. 

Weisberg, S.P., W.B. Burton, R.W. Chapman, and P.F. Kazyak. 

1987. Striped bass spawning and stock assessment in the 

Delaware River between Philadelphia, PA and Trenton, NJ. 

Prepared by Versar, Inc. and Chesapeake Bay Institute for 

the Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. 

v-4 
APPENDIX A 

facility 316 Status Reports . 

A-l 
I. CIBA-GEIG? 

Plant Characteristics 

CIEA-G2IGY’s Quinacridone facility is located in Newport on 

the Christina River and manufactures organic pigments and chromium dioxide. Previously, CIBA-GEIGY discharged non-contact 

cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, water softener backwash 

and stormwater to the Christina River (at a permitted rate of 

0.36 MGD, NPDES permit 1983-1988). However, as of the September 

1989 reissuance of their NPDES permit, CIBA-GEIGY is only permitted to discharge stormwater to the Christina River. Although 

CXBA-GEIGY continues to withdraw water from the Christina River 

for cooling water purposes, it now discharges all non-stormwater 

discharges to either the New Castle County Sewer or to a “French 

drain” system (J. DeFriece, DNREC, personal communication). 

A schematic of a proposed additional river water intake 

accompanying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permit 

(NAPOP-Et-81-0311-3, requested by CIBA-GEIGY 6 May 1981) 

illustrates that there are two existing 12-inch intake pipes 

‘extending approximately 50 ft into the Christina River. It is 

unknown whether these pipes are still in operation or if the 

proposed 24-inch intake pipe was ever constructed. When CIBAGEIGY purchased this facility from du Pont in 1984, a request for 

a water allocation permit was submitted to DNREC (3 April 1984). 

Accompanying this request was a description of the river water 

intake indicating the existence of only one surface intake in the 

Christina River which usually withdrew water for up to 3 to 4 

hours a day on alternate days. This water was pumped to three 

reservoirs (with a total holding capacity of two million gallons) 

and then to the facility. The normal pumping rate was 3,500 GPM 

with a capacity of 5,000 GTM. Average expected withdrawal was 

0.4 MGD. It is also unknown whether this description accurately 

portrays the current number of intakes or operating practices. 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

The Christina River is a tributary of the Delaware River and 

in turn receives input from smaller water bodies such as White 

Clay and Brandywine creeks. Besides flowing passed Newport, it 

traverses Wilmington before discharging into the Delaware River. 

The CIBA-GZIGY facility is located approximately 9 miles upstream 

of the confluence of the Christina and Delaware rivers and water 

depth is approximately 8-10 feet at the river intake. This area 

is freshwater tidal and designated uses include: public water 

A- 3 
supply, industrial water supply, primary contact recreation, 

secondary contact recreation, maintenance of fish, aquatic life, 

and wildlife, and agricultural water supply. No other information was available for review concerning the Christina River 

ecosystem. 

Permit Info mat ion 

The NPDES permit for this facility was revised in 1989 and 

is due to expire in September 1994. The permit identifies eight 

outfalls, all stormwater. Seven of these discharge into the 

Christina River, the other one into a City of Newport storm . 

drain. Although outfall 001 is listed as a stormwater discharge, 

it is the only outfall at CIBA-GEIGY to have effluent limitations. Maximum allowable average quantity of effluent is 0.11 

MGD and maximum allowable temperature is 38OC (IOOOF). 

TSS are also limited. In addition, biomonitoring of this outfall 

on a quarterly basis will be required by 1992. As part of the 

permit, CIBA-G2IGY is required to monitor the flow (calculated 

from drainage area and rainfall measurements) and temperature of 

outfall 001 bi-weekly and four times per month, respectively. 

The other seven outfalls have no effluent limitations other than 

"only uncontaminated storm water may be discharged through these 

outfalls". Other permit requirements include the monitoring of 

some organics and metals at outfall 001 and a few metals at the 

other seven outfalls during the first three months of this issue 

of the permit. 

BODj and 

Other permits regarding water usage at CIBA-GEIGY's 

Quinacridone facility are: County Sewer permit, Delaware State 

lease, Delaware intake permit, Delaware River Basin Commission, 

and Army C.O.E. permit (CIBA-GEIGY permit application, 15 April 

1988). 

Impact Determination Studies 

No population, thermal, entrainment or imgingement studies 

The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

have been conducted for the CIBA-GEIGY Quinacridone facility. 

this facility are the results of 24-hr whole effluent bioassay 

tests performed on outfall 001 by the State of Delaware on threeseparate days in June 1987. Results of the acute toxicity tests 

performed on this outfall indicate a significant amount of 

mortality of the test organisms. Both fish and invertebrate 

mortality was as high as 100% in these tests. This type of 

testing is appropriate to evaluate non-thermal effects of the 

outfall, but the limited number of tests (3) and monitoring 

A- 4 
during a single month is not adequate to address long-term 

variations that typically occur in discharges. If outfall 001 

has no thermal component, a 316(a) Demonstration would not be 

necessary and potential non-thermal impacts would have to be 

addressed under other provisions of the NPOES program. 

Conclusions 

I. DNREC has indicated that this facility no longer has a 

thermal discharge. However, the permit for one of the 

"stormwater" discharges has a temperature maximum specified 

as 100°F. Why a temperature maximum should be specified if 

there is no thermal discharge is not clear from the information reviewed. If there is no thermal discharge, then this 

facility would by default be in compliance with thermal 

regulations, and a 316(a) Demonstration would not be 

necessary. 

2. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this 

facility. CIBA-GEIGY has not conducted any population, 

entrainment, or impingement studies that will aid DNREC's 

evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. If the 

state has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology does not constitute BTA, CIBA-GEIGY may either accept 

DNREC's decision or undertake the burden of demonstrating 

that existing technology (or a more cost effective alternative) represents BTA by producing a 316(b) evaluation. 

However, the mode of operation (3-4 hours of withdrawal per 

day, every other day) and the nature of the intake (one-two 

12-inch diameter surface pipes) suggest that significant 

impingement and entrainment is unlikely. 

Recommendations 

I. Clarify the status of the 001 outfall (i.e., the basis for 

the ef3luent limits included in the existing permit) to 

confirm the absence of a thermal discharge. 

2. Obtain information necessary to characterize the ecosystem 

in the vicinity of the intake and to document the engineering characteristics of the intake pipes (e.g., depth, 

orientation, presence of screens or trash racks); use this 

information to evaluate whether existing intake structures 

constitute BTA. 

A- S 
3. If no biological/ecological information exists fox the 

Christina River in the vicinity of the intake, DNREC may 

consider conducting studies to provide data for the BTA 

decision-making process. 

A-6 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS! a 

CIBA-GEIGY Corporation. 1988. Application for renewal of NPDES 

Permit DE 0000400 for Quinacrindone facility. State Permit 

Number WPCC 3106B/74. 

CIBA-GEIGY Corporation. 1989. Monthly NPDES discharge 

monitoring reports for the period October 1988 through 

September 1989 at the Quinacrindone facility, prepared for 

the Delaware DNREC. NPDES Permit DE 0000400. 

Delaware DNREC. 1983. NPDES Permit DE 0000400 for E.I. du Pont 

de Nemours & Co. State Permit Number WPCC 31068/74. 

Effective date: 17 October 1983. 

Delaware DNREC. 1984. Temuorary Water Allocation Permit, No. 

84-0023, granted to CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, Quinacridone 

facility. Effective date: 12 April 1984. . 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES Permit DE 0000400 for CIBA-GP'fGY 

Corporation, Quinacridone facility. State Permit Number 

WPCC 3106C/74. Effective date: 30 September, 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, 

Quinacridone facility. 

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1984. Application for purchase 

of continued use, intake, and NPDES discharge from 

du Pont Co., Quinacridone facility, to CIBA-GEIGY 

Corporation, 

Deming, J.L. 1984. Letter (including request for temporary 

water supply allocation permit) from J.L. Deming, CIBAGEIGY Corporation, to P.J. Cherry,' Delaware DNREC, 

3 April 1984. 

Department of the Army. 1981. Permit for E.I. du Pont de 

Nemours & Company, Quinacrindone facility. Permit No, 

NAPCP-R-81-0311-31. Expiration date: 31 December 1984. 

Hull, G.H. 1984. Letter (including request for water suoply 

allocation permit) from G.H. Hull, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, 

to P.J. Cherry, Delaware DNREC, 9 May, 1984. 

Sasso, J.J. 1989. Letter from J.J. Sasso, CIBA-GEIGY 

Corporation, to S. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 

10 November 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 
2. D?&L -- DELAWARE CITY POWER PLANT 

Plant Characteristics 

Delmarva Power and Light's Delaware City Power Plant (DCPP) 

is located on the Delaware River estuary approximately 60 miles 

upestuary from the mouth of the Delaware Bay. DCPP is a single 

unit coal-fired steam electric generating facility with- a net 

generating capacity of 135 MWe. Its dominant discharge is water 

used for once-through cooling. DCPP receives its once-through 

cooling from a river pumping station owned and operated by Star 

Enterprise (letter from W.G. Watts, DP&L to S.W. Cooksey, DNREC, 

15 November 1989). After use, the cooling water is discharged 

with Star Enterprise and Akzo Chemical Co. discharges as a 

combined discharge to the Delaware River. This outfall is 

located on Star Enterprise property. DCPP does'not chlorinate 

its cooling water since Star Enterprise chlorinates at the intake 

structure. Nu other information was available for this review 

concerning intake or discharge operations at this generating 

station. 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

A general description of the Delaware River estuary is 

prwide in Section 3 of this appendix (DPLL's Edge Moor Power 

Plant). DCF? is located in Delaware City approximately 3 miles 

upestuary from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Designated 

uses for this region of the Delaware River are: industrial water 

supply, primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, 

and fish, aquatic life and wildlife. 

Permit Information 

The NPDES permit for this generating facility was reissued 

in 1988 and is due to expire in October 1993. The permit 

identifies four outfalls. One outfall (0.S MGD) includes 

discharges from water treatment plant operations, pump bearings 

cooling water, boiler blowdown and sludge dewatering waste. Two 

other outfalls are intermittent discharges of runoff from the 

coke storage area (no flow limit) and effluent from the metal 

cleaning wastewater treatment plant (0.22 MGD). The fourth 

discharge is a combined discharge of the three other outfalls 

with the once-through, non-contact cooling water for a total 

permitted discharge of 75 MGD. The maximum allowable temFerature 

for the combined discharge is 43.3OC (llO°F), the other three 

A-8 
outfalls do not have temperature limits. The outfall of the 

water treatment plant and miscellaneous discharges have limits on 

TSS while the metal cleaning effluent is limited in terms of TSS, 

oil and grease, and two metals. The permit stipulates that the 

flow of the combined discharge be monitored on a monthly basis 

and that temperature will be monitored on a monthly basis until 

June 1989 and thereafter on an hourly basis between the hours of 

1000 and 2200. 

Impact Determination Studies 

No population, thermal, non-thermal, entrainment or impingement studies have been conducted by DP&L for the Delaware City 

Power Plant. 

The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

the DCPP discharges are the 24-hr whole effluent bioassay tests 

performed by DNREC. These tests were performed on three separate 

days in January and February 1988. Results of the acute toxicity 

tests performed on these outfalls indicate a minimal amount of 

mortality of the test organisms (< 10%). This type of testing is 

appropriate to evaluate non-thermal effects of discharges, but 

the limited number of tests (3) and monitoring during two months 

is not adequate to address long-term variations that typically 

occur in discharge. 

Conclusions 

1. Because this facility receives its water from Star 

Enterprise, it is not subject to 5316(b) (see Appendix B, 

Section 3). Any intake impacts which might occur would be 

the responsibility of Star Enterprise as owner and operator 

of the intake structure, and would have to be addressed by 

that company. 

2. Information reviewed did not provide detailed characterizations of the physical layout of the Delaware City Power 

Plant discharge configuration. The DC?P outfall apparently 

discharges into a Star Enterprise outfall, as is noted in 

Section 12 of this appendix, prior to being released into 

Star Enterprise's discharge canal. Based on this arrangement, DCPP would be responsible only for compliance with the 

temperature limit specified in its permit, and would not be 

subject to mixing zone requirements or responsible for 

applying for an alternative effluent limitation (or 

conducting a 316(a) Demonstration) if the final discharge 

from Star Enterprise into the Delaware River is not in 

compliance with thermal regulations. No information was 

A- 9 
provided to determine if the facility, in fact, was 

achieving compliance with its permit. 

environmental consequences of thermal discharges from this 

facility would have to be addressed in an assessment of the 

Star Enterprise discharge impacts. 

The overall 

Recommendations 

1. Evaluate thermal. compliance status by reviewing the 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for this facility. 

2. No studies are required for this facility. 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS! a 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Delaware Power and Light, Co. 

(DPLL), Delaware City Power Plant. State Permit Number 

WPCC 30498/76. NPDES Permit DE 0050601. 

Delaware DNREC. NPDES Permit DE 0050601 for DPLL, Delaware City 

Power Plant. State Permit Number WPCC 30498/76. Effective date: 26 October, 1988. ., 

Watts, W.G. 1989. Letter (including cooling water 

intake/discharged systems chronoloqy of submittals for the 

Delaware City Power Plant) from W.G. Watts, DPLL, to 

S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, If November, 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 
c 

3. DP&L -- EDGE MOOR POWER PLANT 

Plant Characteristics 

Delmarva Power and Light’s Edge Moor Power Plant (EMPP) is 

located on the Delaware River, just upestuary from Wilmington at 

RM 72.3. EMPP, which uses a once-through cooling system, 

withdraws water from the Delaware River and discharges this water 

via a canal back into the Delaware River. The information 

presented here concerning EMPP is based on the 316(b) evaluation 

submitted in 1979 and accompanying reports LIA 1974a, 1974b, 

197s. 1976, RMC and J.E. Edinger Assoc. 1979). As a decade has 

gassed since the mast remc of tn ese reports were produced, the 

operating practices described below may no longer reflect current 

plant operations. 

EMPP consists of five, oil-fired steam electric generating 

units with a total net generating capacity of 801 me. Since 

1974, Units 1-4 have been operated intermittently for economic 

reasons. Unit 5 is considered a baseload unit. The five units 

are located in three pumphouses. Pumphouse 1 services Units 1 

and 2, and contains four vertical traveling screens, two for each 

unit. Pumphouse 2 services Units 3 and 4 and contains five 

screens, three for Unit 3 and two for Unit 4. Pumphouse 3 

services Unit 5 and contains eight screens. 

Trash racks, consisting of bars with slot widths of 5 

inches, are locatsd 10-20 ft in front of the traveling screens. 

The traveling screens have a mesh size of 9.5 mm. The flow 

through the traveling screens is 0.5 to 0.85 fps. Organisms 

passing through the trash racks become impinged on the traveling 

screens and when the screens are rotated, are washed off into a 

trough and recurned to the Delaware River approximately 10-20 ft 

from the intakes. One circulating pump is operated full time for 

each unit, but two pumps are active when water temperatures 

exceed 15.6OC (except during extended outages when no pumps are 

operated). Under normal operating conditions, at least one 

screen is rotated continuously at Units 1, 2 and 4, two screens 

at Unit 3, and four alternate screens at Unit 5 (at least once 

every eight hoursthc screens being rotated are alternated). 

Since 1975, chlorination of the condensers for biofouling control 

has been performed on an infrequent basis (once or twice per 

year) for all units; Units 4 and 5 employ an Amertap system. 

The Amertap system consists of small, sponge-rubber balls which 

are injected into the cooling system before the condenser box to 

scour fouling organisms from the condenser tubes. These balls 

are collected after passage through the tubes and reused. 

A-12 
Once cooling water has passed through EMPP it is released 

into the discharge canal. Approximately 750 ft long and 35 ft 

wide at the discharge tunnels, the canal terminates in the 

Delaware River at a 10 ft wide hydraulic jet. Water velocity at 

the discharge tunnels ranges from 5 to 10 fps. 

discharges into the river at approximately 10 fps. 

stated a maximum total of 1770 cfs (1144 MGD) is discharged from 

EMPP, although this value now exceeds EMPP's current permitted 

discharge of 1070 MGD. 

condensers is 5.6OC for all units with both pumps operating and 

9.4-ll.1°C with only one pump in operation. 

The hydraulic jet 

IA (1975) 

Temperature increase across the 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

PSE&G (1984) has described the Delaware River estuary as 

being composed of the Delaware Bay (generally defined as RM 0 to 

RM 49) and a tidal portion, RM 49 to the fall line at RM 132 

(Trenton). 

only extending to RM 81. 

River extends an additional 180 mi above the fall line. 

total drai2age area of the Delaware estuary is about 33,000 km 

(12,700 mi ) and includes parts of Delaware, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland. South of Wilmington, the 

Delaware estuary is bordered by extensive marshland with 

occasional small, sandy beaches. This region is characterized by 

relatively little shoreline development. 

Wilmington much of the shoreline has been extensively modified 

and developed by industry. 

Salinity in the Delaware River estuary ranges from full 

strength sea water at the mouth of the Delaware Bay to freshwater 

near Wilmington. However, during drought years the salinity 

intrusion has extended upriver of Philadelphia. 

been a recognized problem in the Delaware River estuary for two 

centuries and has been the focus of rigorous abatement programs 

for over 50 years. Specifically, spatial distributional patterns 

for dissolved oxygen concentration have historically shown a sag, 

caused by inputs of industrial and municipal wastes, between 

Philadelphia and Wilmington. The duration and extent of the 

dissolved oxygen sag downstream of Philadelphia have decreased 

in recent years {Albert 1988) and evidence exists that fish 

populations have responded positively. An increase in spawning 

activity of American shad has been observed as well as a general 

increase in the number of fish species utilizing this perturbed 

area (Maurice et al. 1987, Weisberg et al. 1987, Summers 1987). 

vicinity of EMPP include: industrial water supply, primary 

contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and fish, 

aquatic lift and wildlife. 

Other authors have, however, defined the estuary as 

The non-tidal portion of the Delaware 

The 

Between Trenton and 

Pollution has 

Designated surface water uses for the Delaware River in 

A-13 
Pt rmi t Info mat i on 

The NPDES permit for DP&L's Edge Moor Power Plant was 

revised in 1988 and is due to expire in October 1991. EMPP has 

six permitted outfalls: condenser cooling water (one outfall for 

all five units), boiler blowdown, three screen backwash outfalls 

and runoff from the fly ash disposal site. The screen backwashes 

are discharged directly into the Delaware River and do not have a 

specified permitted rate or effluent limitations, other than the 

debris removed from the trash racks shall not be returned to the 

surface water. The terminus of the fly ash disposal site outfall 

is unknown and the quantity of effluent discharged not covered 

under the permit; however, the concentrations of four metals and 

TSS are restricted. The permitted release of boiler blowdown 

effluent into the discharge canal is an average of 0.1 MGD with 

limitations on the discharge of TSS and oil and grease. 

Permitted discharges from EMPP are dominated by the 

condenser cooling water outfall. The permit allows an average 

discharge of 1070 MGD of once-through cooling water. The 

maximum allowable temperature is 36°C (96°F) at any time and 

total residual chlorine shall not exceed 0.14 mg/L. The permit 

further stipulates that neither free available chlorine nor total 

residual chlorine shall be discharged from any unit for more than 

two hours in any one day and not more than one unit shall 

discharge chlorine at any one time. 

The Special Conditions section of the permit indicates that 

the size of EMPP's mixing zone shall not exceed the dimensions 

stipulated in the Water Quality Standards of the State of 

Delaware, amended 23 December 1985. In addition, the permit 

further states that the permittee established the size of the 

mixing zone in February 1976 and Department approval was given 

July 1976. 

Imuact Determination Studies 

Pouulation 

Nearfield sucveys conducted by @over a two-year period 

(1974-3976) sampled phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic 

communities, and fish. Stations were evenly distributed from 

three miles nort- the EMPP to less than 1 mile south of the 

facility. 

Phytoplankton were sampled monthly at between 2 and 10 

stations from November 1973 to September 1974 and bimonthly at 

six stations from October 1974 to September 1975. Grab samples 

A-14 
were collected at the surface and at 4 m. Samples were analyzed 

for chlorophyl1.a and species composition. 

zooplankton were sampled at six stations twice per month 

from October to December 1973 and March to June 1974, and monthly 

during January and February 1974 and July 1974 to September 1975. 

Samples were collected by pumping 132 gallons of surface and 

bottom water through 80 ,mu plankton nets. Biomass and species 

composition was determined on collected samples. 

Sediment sampling to evaluate benthic communities was 

conducted bimonthly from January through September 1975 at nine 

stations in the vicinity of EMPP. TWCJ samples were collected at 

each station with a ponar grab (0.5 m and preserved in a rose 

bengal formalin solution. Samples were sieved through 0.5 mm 

screens and the organisms retained preserved in 40% isopropanol. 

Species composition and biomass (dry weight) was determined on 

the collected samples. 

Fisheries studies included ichthyoplankton tows, beach 

seines, otter trawls, and gill netting. Ichthyoplankton tows 

were conducted bimonthly or monthly, from October 1973 to 

September 1975, at six stations (+2 miles from the facility) with 

simultaneous 3 minute surface and-bottom tows of 0.5 m diameter, 

0.5-mm mesh conical nets. Seines (10 and 25 ft with 1/8 in mesh) 

were used to sample six shore zone areas (from approximately 

3 miles north to 1/2 miles south of the Station) semimonthly from 

December 1974 to September 1975. Trawls (16 by 4 ft with 

1.25 inch mesh) were used for offshore areas bimonthly, from 

December 1974 to September 1975, at 13 day stations and monthly 

from April to September 1975 at six night stations. Gillnets 

(3.5 inch mesh and 5.25 inch mesh) were drifted 30 minutes 

perpendicular to the current in three zones from March to Hay 

1975. 

The population studies examined the appropriate components 

of the ecosystem and used proper sampling techniques. These 

studies were also adequate to address temporal variations that 

occur in the Delaware Estuary, but may not address spatial 

variability. However, these population data may be outdated. 

Over the last fifteen years dissolved oxygen concentrations have 

increased to above 5 ppm in this area from less than 1.5 ppm 

during early fall months (Albert 1988). This increase is due to 

increased treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters wnich 

discharge into the Delaware Estuary. This improvement in water 

quality has resulted in increased striped bass spawning-in the 

vicinity of EMPP, strongly suggesting changes in indigenous 

populations since the 1970s studies. 

DPCL has recognized the changes in the Delaware Rivet 

ecosystem since their population studies were accomplished in the 

1970s. In response to the concerted management efforts and 
intense interest concerning stocks of striped bass, DP&L 

initiated a striped bass ichthyaplankton survey in vicinity of 

EMPP in 1989 (RMC 1989). Daytime Sampling was performed from 5 

April through 15 June in the immediate vicinity of EMPP. 

Sampling frequency was twice per week in April and May and once 

per week in June. Two non-consecutive tows were taken at each 

of three stations on each date. Samples were collected with 

0.5 m bongo nets (0.5-mm mesh) towed in a oblique manner against 

the tidal flow for approximately 5-7 minutes. Volume filtered 

was measured with a flow meter mounted in the mouth of one of the 

nets. Best methods reasonably available were used in this 

ichthyoplankton study. The results of this survey provide 

information on the abundances of striped bass and white perch 

ichthyoplankton in direct proximity to EMPP. However, due to the 

narrow spatial and temporal focus, the usefulness of these 

results in documenting the distribution and abundance of other 

species is lisited. 

Thermal 

A limited amount of information was available regarding the 

location and size of the thermal plume from this facility. 

DP&L's response to DNREC's request for relevant 316 information 

concerning this facility indicated there is one historical (i.e., 

1970's) document that pertains to the thermal discharge as well 

as some current thermal data which DNREC may not have on file 

(see references marked by asterisks). However, available 

historical information documents past compliance of the thermal 

discharge with past regulations (Vasuki 1976). It is unknown 

whether recent surveys provide evidence of continued compliance 

of the discharge with current water quality regulations. 

The only information available for review were temperature 

profile studies performed by IA for DP&L (IA 1975). 

profiles were recorded biweekly at 24 transects, located from 

8000 ft north to 7000 ft south of the discharge, from September 

to November 1974. The data indicate the plume from this facility 

was small with temperatures greater than 2OF above ambient not 

extending more than 200 ft across the es.tuary and less than 2000 

ft longitudinally. Projections from the data (presented in 

figure form only) indicate the thermal plume extends less than 

500 ft across the estuary and less than 1 mile longitudinally in 

either direction, Eowever, no models are presented and the 

figures do not indicate plant power production, Therefore, the 

validity of the plume predictions can not be confirmed, leaving 

the question of comgliance unresolved. 

Temperature 

A-16 
.* 

Non-thermal Impacts 

Non-thermal impacts from power plants are usually associated 

with toxic effects of periodic chlorination of non-contact cooling water, boiler blowdown discharges, flyash settling pond 

effluent, and water treatment plant discharges. These impacts 

were not addressed by DPLL, but some non-thermal impact data were 

available from 24-hr static whole effluent bioassay tests performed by the State of Delaware on the three outfalls during 

March 1988. The results of these acute toxicity tests performed 

on the cooling water outfall indicated a minimal amount of mortality of the test organisms (< 5%). However, testing of the 

boiler blowdown discharge indicated substantial mortality (> 90%) 

for fish, and invertebrate test mortalities ranged from 10 to 

65%. This type of testing is appropriate to evaluate non-thermal 

effects of the outfall, but the limited number of tests (3) and 

short period of evaluation (3 days) does not adequately (technically) address long-term variations that typically occur in 

discharges. 

Entrainment 

Entrainment sampling programs were conducted at EHPP between 

July 1974 and September 1975. Sampling locations, frequency and 

methods varied over the 14 months. The location which had the 

most consistent, longest running sampling program was in the 

discharge canal near the hydraulic jet discharge. This program 

sampled between July 1974 and September 1975 on a semimonthly 

basis over a 12 hour period (encompassing both day and nighttime 

hours). Two samples were collected every two hours over this 12 

hour period. Sampling was conducted at a single, fixed point 

(mid-depth) in the discharge canal. Unfortunately, this program 

experienced a variety of problems such that a change in gear 

occurred and some samples had no volume associated with them. 

For most of the study a modified 0.25-m plankton net was used. 

This net was three meters long and cylindrical in shape with 

0.5-mm mesh. Sampling was also conducted in the intake forbay of 

Unit 4 between June and September 1975 with two 0.25-m diameter 

nets which were lowered to one meter off the bottom and allowed 

to sample for 20-30 minutes. Sampling was attempted in the diocharge tunnels pEior to complete mixing in the common discharga 

but was found to be ineffective and discontinued after four 

months. 

The entrainment sampling program near the hydraulic jet has 

several limitations. First, the small diameter sampling gear 

and stationary use of it decrease collection efficiency (Holland 

et al. 1989). In addition, the hydraulic jet is almost 750 ft 

downstream from the actual point of discharge and the likelihood 

A-17 
of significant settlement of dead larvae occurring before the 

sampling point is great, resulting in underestimates of entrainment. 

that occurred, but the methods were inappropriate. Best methods 

reasonably available were not used in this portion of the entrainment sampling program. 

DP&L attempted to correct for the lack of sample volume 

The data collected from the intake has marginal utility for 

a variety of reasons. 

this requires the assumption that entrainment sampling at the 

fixed sampling site is representative of the actual enkrainment. 

Secondly, the sampling gear used and the location of sampling 

(bottom) are different from that used in the discharge, making 

comparisons between the intake and discharge difficult. 

the limited temporal extent of the sampling in the intake, 

coupled with the lack of sampling during the spring months when 

sensitive life stages are present, renders this program techriically inadequate. 

First, only bottom sampling was performed; 

Finally, 

Impingemen t 

Impingement studies were conducted at EMPP between October 

1973 and September 1975. Samples were collected from the screen 

wash basins associated with each of the three pumphouses. Collections were made with all screens in pumphouses 1 and 2 in 

operation and 4 of the 8 screens in pumphouse 3 operating (not 

all the screens can be operated simultaneously in pumphouse 3 

because of insufficient spray wash pressure). 

rotated for 30 minutes prior to sampling to clear them of 

accumulated material. 

the screen wash basin of each pumphouse. 

were rotated for 30 minutes and impinged organisms collected. 

Between October 1973 and March 1974 one, 30 minute sample was 

collected twice a week between 0900 and 1200 hours. 

April and August 1974 a 30 minute sample was collected every 3 

hours over a 24 hour period once a month. 

and September 1975 this type of sampling was increased to 

semimonthly. 

counted and measured; fish were also weighed. 

was noted with fish being classified as live, 

recycled (signs of obvious decay). 

were based on number of organisms impinged during a period of 

time. 

Screens were 

Nets of 1.5-mm mesh were then placed in 

The traveling screens 

Between 

Between September 1974 

Fish and macroinvertebrates were identified, 

Initial survival 

fresh dead, or 

DPbL's impingement estimates 

Several limitations exist with DP&L's impingement program. 

The first limitation stems from the frequency of sampling. The 

sampling frequency between October 1973 and March 1974 (30 minutes, twice per week) is insufficient to provide an accurate 

estimate of impingement. 

while adequate to assess within day variation, 

Sampling between April and August 1974, is insufficient to 

A-18 
account for within month variation. 

between September 1974 and September 1975 can be considered best 

methods reasonably available; however, a high degree of uncertainty may be associated with the estimates of impingement. 

The semimonthly sampling 

A second limitation is associated with traveling screen 

operation. During impingement sampling, the traveling screens 

were not operated under standard procedures. Rotating all the 

screens continuously in pumphouses 1 and 2 may increase screen 

collection efficiency. This does not result in an overestimate 

of impingement (as DPCL states), but rather a more accurate 

estimate of actual impingement. 

fates of an impinged fish. Organisms can remain on the screens 

and be collected, but they can also not be counted because: I) 

they swim away? 2) they are small enough or delicate enough to be 

entrained through the screens, 3) they are eaten by scavengers, 

or 4) they die and fall off the screens. 

rotation can only increase the accuracy of impingement estimates. 

A negative aspect of operating the screens under abnormaleincreased rotation is that it overestimates impingement survival, 

ultimately underestimating impingement losses. Although DP&L did 

not calculate losses or conduct latent mortality tests, they did 

present results of initial impingement survival. Any conclusions 

drawn from these results are questionable. 

- 

There are a variety of possible 

Increasing screen 

A third limitation of the impingement work results from 

DPCL’s treatment of the data. 

on the number of organisms collected over a time period. 

calculation of impingement rate is inappropriate because it does 

not take into account changes in plant withdrawal rates which 

directly affect the number of organisms being impinged. Impingement estimates must be based on the number of organisms collected 

adjusted for the volume of water withdrawn by the facility. 

Impingement estimates were based 

This 

Conclusions 

1. Biological studies conducted in the 1970s in the vicinity of 

the plant to assess plant impacts appear to be technically 

adequate. However, because of changes in the Delaware River 

estuary, the data are outdated and not representative of 

current conditions. The recent ichthyoplankton work is not 

temuorally CK spatially adequate to document current distributions and abundances necessary to address potential entrainment impacts. 

arqear to be fatally flawed and data from those programs are 

not considered tecnnically adequate. 

not representative of current conditions. 

Entrainment and impingement studies 

These data are also 

A-19 
2. Historical thermal studies appear adequate to document the 

size and extent of the thermal plume and compliance with 

1976 thernal regulations was documented. Recent thermal 

plume data were unavailable for this review. 

3. only limited data are available from which to evaluate nonthermal impacts of the plant discharge. However, studies 

conducted in the cooling water discharge suggest that nonthermal impacts are minimal. 

Recommendations 

1. Recent thermal plume studies should be reviewed for technical adequacy and compliance with current regulations. If 

recent studies are deemed inappropriate to assess thermal 

configurations, historical data could be used in light of 

current water quality regulations to evaluate compliance, 

providing that plant operations (e.g., load use, pumping 

rates) at the present time are the same as they were when 

historical data were collected, 

2. Should the facility be out of thermal compliance, a 316(a) 

variance would be necessary, and a 316(a) Demonstration 

required, Because of changes in the Delaware Estuary 

ecosystem since the time most biological studies were done, 

new studies would be required to address S 316(a) issues. 

The recent ichthyoplankton studies, while documenting current, local striped bass conditions, are not adequate to 

address plant impacts on regional ichthyoplanktcn populations. 

3. While DP&L submitted a 316(b) evaluation, no material reviewed by this project indicates that the state conducted a 

detailed technical review of this submittal. Thus, there 

is no record of a formal decision on the part of DNREC that 

existing intake structures at EMPP constitute BTA, If this 

is the case, the state needs to accomplish a technical 

review of EMPP's 316(b) evaluation. If DNREC decides that 

EMPP's 316(b) evaluation is technically inadequate to make a 

reasoned decision on BTA then the state may choose to select 

a highly protective technology as BTA. If DP&L disagrees 

with the state's position, the utility is required to 

demonstrate that alternative technology will constitute BTA. 

A-20 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a 

* Analysis of DP&L Edge Moor Power Plant thermal plumes for 

* An analysis of excess temperature distribution in the Delaware 

present operations (10/17/88). 

River in the vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station 

(2/16/76). 

Delaware DNREC. 1988. NPDES Permit DE 0000558 for the DPLL, 

Edge Moor Power Plant. State Permit Number WPCC 3011B/75. 

Effective date: 1 November 1988. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for the DP&L Company, Edge Moor 

Power Plant. State Permit Number WPCC 30113/75. NPDESY 

Permit DE 0000558. 

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1973. Final environmental 

impact statement for the proposed Edge Moor Electric 

Generating Station expansion (Unit No. 5; DPQL). 

* Dissolved oxygen monitoring, Edge Moor Power Plant cooling 

water intake, discharge, and discharge canal. Ongoing from 

June 1989. 

Ichthyological Associates, Inc (IA). 1974a. An ecological study 

of the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Edge Moor 

Power Station, progress report January through Nay, 1974. 

Prepared for Delmarva Power. 

IA . 

IA. 

IA. 

1974b. An ecological study of the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station, progress report 

October through December, 1973. Prepared for DPcL. 

1975. An ecological study of the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station, progress report 

June through November, 1974. Prepared for DPhL. 

1976. An ecological study of the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station, progress report 

December, 1974 through September, 1975. Prepared for 

DP6L. 

Janiga, P.J. 1989. Letter from P.J. Janiga, Delaware DNREC to 

W.G. Watts, DPLL, 21 February 1990. (Approval of EMPP's 

thermal plume sampling plan, amended 2/16/89.) 

A-21 
RMC and J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. 1979. An evaluation of 

the cooling water intake at the Edge Moor Power Station: 

section 316(b) evaluation. Prepared for DP&L. 

RMC Environmental Services (RMC). 1989. A study of striped bass 

eggs and larvae and other ichthyoplankton in the Delaware 

River near Edge Moor Power Station in 1989. Prepared far 

DP&L. 

*RMC. 1989. Edge Moor Power Plant thermal plume surveys. 

RMC. 1989. Edge Moor Power Plant thermal plume sampling plan 

(1/25/89), amended (2/16/89). 

Vasuki, N.C. 1976. Letter from N.C. Vasuki, Delaware DNRC to 

H.P. Hoen, DPLL, 15 July 1975. (Waiver of 316(a) 

Demonstration and notification of discharge compliance with 

Delaware WQS). 

Watts, W.G. 1989. Letter (including cooling water 

intake/discharged systems chronology of submittals for the 

Edge Moor Power Plant) from W.G. Watts, DP&L, to 

S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 15 November, 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. * Documents unavailable for review. 

A-22 
4. DP&L -- INDIAN RIVER POWER PLANT 

Plant Characteristics 

The Indian River Power Plant (IRPP) is located near 

Millsboro and on the western end of Burton Island, above the 

southern bank of the Indian River- This location is approximately 5 miles upstream of the Indian River Bay inlet and 4 miles 

below Millsboro Dam. The Indian River estuary is located on the 

mid-Atlantic Coast approximately 19 km south of Cape Henelopen. 

The IRPP has three coal-fired electric generating units 

(345 We) with once-through cooling water systems and a fourth 

coal-fired unit (400 We) that utilizes a closed-cycle cooling 

water system, Each of the once-through cooling'systems is 

equipped with two centrifugal pumps rated at 54 MGD for Units 1 

and 2, and 81 MGD for Unit 3. The maximum withdrawal of cooling 

water from the Indian River by the three units is 378 MGD. 

Service water for the IRPP is withdrawn by five pumps (four for 

Units 1 and 2, and one for Unit 3). Operation of these pumps is 

variable - depending on the needs of the facility. 

The IRPP withdraws cooling water from the Indian River 

through an intake structure located on the south shore opposite 

Ballast Point. The water passes through a 95 ft wide trash rack 

equipped with 3-inch spaced metal bars into an intake canal. 

Mean water velocities in front of the trash rack range from 0.46 

ft/sec (fps) at high tide to 0.64 fps at low tide. The intake 

canal tapers to about 80 ft over the first 80 ft of length and 

remains this width for the next 190 ft to just in front of the 

intake to Unit 1 where the width decreases to 23 ft. Water 

velocities in this canal range from an average of 1.48 fps at 

high tide to an average of 2.14 fps at low tide. Intake bays 

for Units I, 2 and 3 are located 275 ft, 383 ft and 503 ft from 

the trash racks, respectively. The intake canal has a total 

length of 528 ft and an averaqe depth of 10 ft at mean low water. 

Intake bays for each unit are parallel to and recessed 

approximately 4 ft from the intake canal and are equipped with 

Rex Chainbelt vertical traveling screens with a mesh size of 3/8 

in. Both of Units 1 and 2 contain two 10 ft wide screens and 

Unit 3 contains four 8 ft wide screens. Mean water velocities in 

front of the screens of each unit were: 0.82 fps for Unit 1; 

0.81 fps for Unit 2; and 0.87 fps for Unit 3. The screens axe 

washed and rotatod once or twice during an eight hour period 

(depending on loading) with an 80-100 psi spray wash into a 

concrete sluiceway. The sluiceway carries the wash material to 

the discharge canal where it is released. 

A-23 
The IRP? periodically chlorinates intake water to control 

biofouling of condenser tubes in the cooling water systems of the 

three units. The frequency of this chlorination is variable 

depending on extent of biofouling. During winter months chlorination of intake water does not occur far long periods and is 

only periodic even during summer months. During days intake 

water is chlorinated, chlorine is introduced in front of intake 

screens twice daily for no more than a total of one hour per day. 

Free available chlorine in the discharge is maintained at or 

below 0.2 ppm as required by the NPDES permit of this facility. 

with a design temperature increase of 15 F. After passing 

through the condensers of each unit the heated water is carried 

through several large pipes to a bulkheaded discharge canal were 

it is released. This discharge canal also receives effluent from 

other areas of the station that include: service water for cooling machinery; intake screen washdown; a small domestic wastewater treatment facility; an industrial wastewater treatment facility; and a sedimentation basin. These waters are carried 510 

ft at velocities between 1.73 and 2.61 fps in this canal and discharged into Island Creek, which flows approximately 2 miles in 

an easterly direction at velocities ranging from 0.26 to 0.88 

fps before discharging into Ware Cove and the Indian River 

Estuary . 

The cooling water passes through thg condensers of each unit 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

The Indian River Estuary is a shallow, stratified coastal 

plain estuary extending only 14 miles from its origin at 

Millsboro Dam to the outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. Average 

depths are only 5.3 ft with maximum depths of 30 ft near the 

outlet; tidal range is 2 ft. Channel depths range from about 

6 to 10 ft with much of the estuary consisting of very shallow 

tidal flats (normally exposed at low tide). 

A two-layered circulation pattern exists in this estuary 

(i.e., low salinity overlying intruding denser higher salinity 

water). 

of Atlantic Ocean water (9.2*10 

greater than the freshwater component (7.1'10 ft /day). Xowever, due to the narrow width of the estuary above the Bay, 

freshwater conditions dominate the upger portion of the estuary 

(i..e., the regions in the vicinity of Millsboro Dam). 

Water flow in the estyry 3s dominated by tidal movement 

ft /tide) whfch 3s considerably 

The freshwater inflows contribute the largest amount of 

nutrient and organic carbon loading to the estuary. These 

loadings are due to agricultural and urban/stormwater 

seepage/runoff and discharges from industrial facilities and 

municipal wastewater traataent plants. These inputs result in 

A-24 
lowered dissolved oxygen in the estuary from the input of both 

biological oxygen demand and increased phytoplankton praduction. 

A variety of habitats are found within the Indian River 

Estuary which are directly related to the salinity gradient found 

along the axis of the estuary and the effects of tides and seasonal changes. These conditions result in the use of the estuary 

as a spawning ground and nursery habitat for a variety of 

species. 

Permit Information 

Delmarva Power & Light Company was reissued an NPDES permit 

(State Permit Number WPCC 30138/76; NPDES Permit Number DE 

0050580) for the IRPP in 1988 with an expiration date of 

September 24, 1992. This permit establishes authorization for 

the facility to discharge effluent from various outfalls into a 

combined discharge canal with the Indian River Estuary as the 

receiving waterbody. The permit identifies 18 distinct outfalls 

from the IRPP. Outfalls 001 through 006 are the non-contact 

cooling water discharges for the three coal-fired once-through 

coolinq water system units. These discharges are to be monitored 

for flow (monthly), temperature (hourly), total residual chlorine 

during chlorination (weekly), turbine heat rejection (monthly), 

and pH (monthly). The maximum allowable temperature is 41.7'C 

(107OF) at any time from any of these six outfalls. 

Outfalls 010, 012, and 013 are service water discharges from 

non-contact cooling of hydrogen and lubrication oil used in the 

turbines.. These three discharges are monitored monthly for flow, 

oil and grease, pH, and several heavy metals. Outfalls 019, 020, 

021, 029 are the backwash from the sgray cleaning of intake 

screens for all four of the Units (includes the closed cycle 

system). No monitoring of these outfalls is required by the 

permit. Cooling tower blowdown (Outfall 027) from the closed 

cycle cooling system of Unit 4 is monitored continuously for 

flow, hourly for temperature, daily for phosphorous, weekly for 

chlorine and pH, and monthly for heavy metals. The maximum 

allowable temperature is 3S.SoC (96OF) at any time. 

Effluent from the wastewater treatment facility (Outfall 

028) is monitored-continuously for flow, daily for pB, weekly for 

total coliforms and fecal coliforms, monthly for BOD5, TSS, 

phosphorous, and chloroform, and biomonitorinq is to be monitored 

on a quarterly basis. The industrial wastewater discharge 

(Outfall 030) is monitored weekly for flow, TSS, oil and grease, 

iron, copper, and pH, and monthly for arsenic and selenium. 

Discharge from the stormwater catch basin (Outfall 033), which 

also receives effluent from outfall 028 and 030, is to be 

monitored monthly for TSS, oil and grease, and pH. Outfall 037 

A-25 
is runoff from the ash landfill sedimentation basin. No discharge has occurred from this outfall to the date the permit was 

issued. When a discharge does occur the IRPP is required to 

provide sufficient data in a discharge application to permit 

review and selection of monitoring requirements. 

In the Special Conditions section (A.3) of this permit, a 

mixing zone for IRPP's thermal discharge is defined. At the time 

this permit was reissued (1988) this mixing zone definition provided specific numeric criteria for thermal discharge regulation 

when state water quality standards were composed of general, 

narrative constraints. Now that new water quality standards have 

been adopted, the mixing zone criteria in IRPP's permit should be 

compared to current water quality standards and a decision made 

as to the appropriateness of retaining this mixing zone 

definition in the permit. 

Imoact Determination Studies 

Resident populations found in the Indian River Estuary, 

thermal and non-thermal impacts, entrainment and impingement were 

evaluated by Ecological Analysts, Inc. (EA) for DP&L as part of 

a 316(a) Demonstration (EA 1976) and a 316(b) evaluation (EA 

1978). 

Population 

EA'S population surveys were conducted over a two-year 

period (1974-1976) in which phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic 

communities, and fish were sampled. Stations were evenly distributed from 2.5 miles above the IRPP to 6 miles below the 

facility . 

Phytoplankton were sampled semi-monthly at stations from 

June 1974 to June 1975 and from flay to August 1976 by collecting 

a 5 gallon surface sample while transversing 80 m. Phytoplankton 

in the estuary were characterized by determining chlorophyll-a, 

biomass, productivity, and species composition at each station. 

Zooplankton were sampled at the same stations as phytoplankton twice per month from June 1974 to May 1975 and monthly 

from June 1975 to August 1976. Samples were collected during 

oblique tows using conical plankton nets (153 pm mesh for microzooplankton and 505 prn mesh for macrozooplankton). Biomass and 

species composition was determined on collected samples. 

Sediment sampling to evaluate benthic communities occurred 

quarterly over a two year period starting in August 1974 and 

A-25 
ending in May 1976. Additional sampling was conducted near industrial discharges and during a 24-hr tidal period study at a 

single station. Two samples were collected at each station with 

a modified Peterson Grab Sampler. Samples were sieved through 

0.5 mm screens and preserved wit'n 75% alcohol. Species composition and biomass were determined on the collected samples. 

Blue crab studies were incorporated into the fisheries studies 

except for sampling with crab pots at each station and in the 

vicinity of the IRPP. 

Fisheries studies included ichthyoplankton tows, beach 

seines, otter trawls, and gill netting and were conducted over a 

two year period starting in July 1974 and ending in August 1976. 

Ichthyoplankton tows were conducted at 10 stations with 505 Nm 

conical nets using oblique tows. Beach seines (50 ft seines 

with 0.25 in mesh) and otter trawls (16 by 4 ft with 1.25 in 

mesh) were used in bimonthly sampling the first year and monthly 

sampling in the second year at 12 stations. Gillnets were used 

to sample at four stations on a monthly basis between July 1974 

and August 1975. 

The population studies examined the appropriate components 

of the ecosystem and used proper sampling techniques. These 

studies were also adequate to address the spatial and temporal 

variations that occur in the Indian River Estuary. However, the 

population data may be outdated. Over the last fifteen years 

dissolved oxygen concentrations have increased in regions above 

IRPP due to improved treatment of industrial discharges. This 

increase may have resulted in changes in indigenous populations 

in the Indian River Estuary. Fish kills below IRPP over the past 

several years may be an indication of additional changes within 

the estuary. 

Thermal Imoacts 

DP&L, Johns Hopkins University (JHU), and EA have conducted 

numerous hydrothermal studies in the Indian River Estuary (EA 

1976). The oldest program, conducted by JHU for DPcL, consisted 

of two components. The first facet of the program entailed continuous temperature monitoring at five, fixed stations within 

Ware Cove and the upper estuary between 1968 and 1976. The 

second comoonent consisted of synoptic water temperature and 

salinity surveys in Ware Cove between 1966 and 1974. This 

survey consisted of vertical temperature and salinity measurements at 30 stations in Ware Cove. Results of these surveys vete 

used to describe circulation patterns within the Indian River 

Estuary . 

Between 1974 and 1976, EA conducted semimonthly, vertical 

temperature and salinity measurements along the axis of the 

A-27 
Indian River Estuary betxeen Millsboro Dam and the Indian River 

inlet. 

studies in the spring, summer, and fall to evaluate recirculation 

of thermal discharge through the IRPP. 

Also during this time period, EA performed long-term dye 

The data produced by all these studies were used to determine size and location of the thermal plume, to develop models to 

predict plume size, evaluate compliance with thermal regulations 

and determine thermal impacts on indigenous populations. 

data collected and the models developed estimate both spatial and 

temporal distribution of the thermal plume. In order to assess 

whether the modeling conducted was most appropriate and technically adequate, detailed evaluation beyond the scope of the project would be necessary. 

The 

Results'of the models were used to determine compliance 

with thermal regulations. 

annual power production, which is not appropriate since maximum 

power production could result in thermal non-compliance. However, the facility does not meet thermal regulations during summer months even when at less than 100% power production. As a 

result, this facility applied for an alternate effluent limitation and attempted to demonstrate protection of balanced indigenous populations. 

DP&L assessed compliance using average. 

DP&L attempted to demonstrate protection by comparing populations outside the thernal plume to populations within the 

plume and by comparing populations of this estuary to "similar" 

estuaries. The plume is quite far-reaching, extending several 

miles upstream on flood tide and almost to the inlet on ebb tide, 

indicating that impacts (however small) may occur throughout most 

of the estuary. Therefore, cornparing different areas of the 

estuary is inappropriate because all stations are affected by 

the thermal discharge to some extent. Further, estuarine communities tend to segregate along longitudinal salinity gradients, 

making comparison of population data at one salinity to data at a 

different salinity invalid. 

demonstrate protection of populations is adequate as long as 

environmental conditions and habitat are "similar" between the 

estuaries. DPhL compared Indian River to the Chesapeake Bay and 

the Delaware River. These estuaries in size alone are considerably different from the Indian River Estuary and comparisons are 

inappropriate. 

Comparing different estuaries to 

Non-thermal 

Non-thermal impacts from power plants are usually associated 

with toxic effects of periodic chlorination of non-contact cooling water, boiler blowdown discharges, flyash settling pond effluent, and water treatment plant discharges. These impacts 

A-28 
were not addressed by DP&L for the IRPP. No studies from other 

sources are available to evaluate the toxic effects of the discharged water. However, the effects of chlorination are likely 

to be small due to the high amount of reduced material typically 

found in estuarine waters. More subtle non-thermal effects are 

related to increase decomposition rates (oxygen demand) which can 

decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations to lethal levels. DP&L 

examined dissolved oxygen throughout the estuary and found no 

significant decrease in concentrations in the vicinity of the 

IRPP. Unlike the other facilities under review, no information 

was provided concerning any state bioassay tests conducted. 

Entrainment 

An entrainment sampling program was conducted at IRPP 

between October 1975 and December 1976 (although actual entrainment sampling began in June 1975, the full comptehensive program 

was not in place until October). Samples were collected from the 

intake canal approximately 65 m down the canal from the trash 

racks but prior to the first unit. Sampling was conducted twice 

a month over 24 hours with five sample sets (consisting of 3 

replicates). This split the day into quarters with an overlapping sample set. A 0.5-m diameter, 5-mm mesh plankton net 

attached to a plankton sled was used to collect samples. The 

sled was held horizontally stationary but obliquely sampled the 

water column at bottom, mid and surface depths. Volume of water 

filtered was measured by a flowmeter mounted inside the mouth of 

the net. In addition, an intensive, study was conducted to investigate. the level of variation associated with only sampling 

twice a month. Daily sampling over a two week period was accomplished between June and July 1976. Best methods reasonably 

available were used in this entrainment sampling program. 

Initial and latent entrainment viability studies were also 

conducted on a semimonthly/monthly basis between June 1975 and 

December 1976. Collections were made with the same gear as was 

used in the entrainment abundance program. Organisms used as 

controls and in thermal experimental treatments were collected 

from the intake canal at the same site as abundance sampling. 

Organisms used in discharge experimental treatments were collected from the discharge canal where it flows under the roadway 

bridge. Both thermal and discharge experimental organisms were 

held in discharge water for 2-4 hours and then in ambient water 

for 96 hours. Best methods reasonably available were used for 

the determinatian of entrainment viability; however, for some 

species, the number of tests conducted during the program may be 

inadequate to accurately reflect entrainment mortality. In addition, IRPP suspended chlorination during the viability tests 

which will cause an underestimate in the level of mortality 

A-29 
experienced by the discharge treatments and ultimately in 

entrainment loss estimates. 

DP&L also investigated potential gear avoidance by bay 

anchovy by calculating night-day ratios. 

during the day were then corrected. 

gear avoidance is appropriate, but other species besides bay 

anchovy are capable of net avoidance and gear efficiency correction factors should be applied to entrainment estimates of 

all species. 

Bay anchovy densities 

Attempting to account for 

Entrainment loss estimates were made by DP&L and these 

losses were put into perspective by calculating fractional losses 

and conducting an equivalent adult model (EM). These two 

manipulations attempt to evaluate .IXP?'s impact on the populations of Indian River. 

Imuingement 

Impingement studies were conducted at IRPP between 

September 1974 and December 1976; between September 1974 and May 

1975 on a semimonthly basis and between June 1975 and December 

1976 on a monthly basis. 

next to each of the traveling screens with 6.35-mm mesh box over 

a 24 hour period. Organisms collected were identified, counted, 

weighed and up to 40 individuals of each species measured (TL). 

Data were expressed as catch per unit volume. Similar to 

entrainment, DPLL conducted a study to investigate the day-to-day 

variation in the mean catches of organisms on the screens. 

During each season multiple-day samples were taken to estimate 

the confidence with which each monthly impingement estimate was 

made. Best methods reasonable available were used in this 

impingement abundance sampling program. 

Samples were collected in the sluiceway 

Impingement viability studies were performed semimonthly 

between November 1975 and December 1976. Organisms were collected in the sluiceway of each screen with a soft, 6-mm mesh 

net placed prior to the impingement abundance sampling box. 

net was emDtied into a water-filled container every 30 seconds. 

At the end of the screen wash, live-dead determinations were 

made. Organisms initially surviving impingement were subjected 

to post imginqement latent effects studies. These studies lasted 

96 hours and impinged organisms were held in discharge and intake 

water. Controls using non-impinged organisms were also included. 

Facility chlorination was suspended during viability tests. 

Generally, best methods were used to conduct these studies; 

however, the suspension of'chlorination may underestimate total 

mortality and hence impingement loss estimates. 

This 

A-30 
DP&L also conducted several specialized studies, 'one of 

which was a traveling screen collection efficiency test. However, the results of this study were never used in the calculations of impingement loss. Impingement estimates and the 

results of the initial and latent mortality tests were used to 

calculate impingement losses for each season and annual losses 

for 1975 and 1976. Without correcting for ccrllection efficiency, 

these loss estimates constitute an underestimate. Fractional 

losses and the equivalent adult model were used to assess the 

impact of IRPP on the Indian River ecosystem. 

Conclusions 

1. Comprehensive populations studies in the Indian River inlet 

were conducted in the 1970s and appear technically adequate 

to document populations at risk of impact at that time. 

However, status of the Indian River ecosystem may have 

changed during the last decade, and data collected at that 

time may not be relevant to current conditions. 

2, Extensive data were collected to document and predict the 

magnitude and extent of elevated temperatures from IRPP 

thermal discharges. Data collected appear adequate for 

prediction purposes and the type of modeling conducted 

appears appropriate. However, a detailed assessment of 

adequacy of the 1970s modeling work was beyond the scope of 

this project, and thus a firm conclusion as to the validity 

of the conclusions drawn cannot be made at this time. 

3. Entrainment and impingement studies, for the most part, were 

conducted in a technically adequate manner. Although DPhL's 

estimates of impingement and entrainment appear to be underestimated appropriate correction factors can be applied and 

reasonable estimates of losses calculated. However, the 

studies were conducted in the mid-1970s and thus may not be 

representative of current conditions in the Indian River 

estuary. 

Recommendations 

I. Conduct a detailed technical evaluation of the thermal plume 

modeling work accomplished in the 1970s to determine adequacy and completeness. Based on this evaluation, use the 

existing results (if adequate) or new thermal plume projections (if existing results are determined to be inadequate) 

A-31 
2. 

to determine if the discharge is in compliance with new 

thermal mixing zone requirements. 

If the discharge is out of compliance with the new thermal 

mixing zone requirements (which appears to be likely), DP&L 

would be required to apply for a new 316(a) variance (as 

lowering permit limits is not likely to be operationally 

feasible) and produce a new 316(a) Demonstration. The new 

Demonstration should incorporate updated information on 

populations at risk and entrainment, impingement and discharge impacts, since data collected in the 1970s may not 

be representative of current conditions in the estuary. New 

studies could be of the same general nature as the older 

studies. 

3. While DPCL submitted a 316tb) evaluation, no material reviewed for this project confirms that the state conducted a 

detailed review of this submittal. Thus, there is no 

record of a formal decision on the part of the state that 

the existing intake technology represents the best technology available. If this is the case, it is necessary for the 

DNREC to carryout a technical review of IRPP's 316(b) evaluation. If IRPP is not in compliance with-current thermal 

regulations and a new 316(a) Demonstration +is required, 

information concerning intake structure impacts necessary 

for a 316(a) variance could be used in the state's BTA 

decision-making process. 

A-32 
.- 

RELEVANT DOCUMENT~ a 

Delaware DNREC. 1988. NPDES Permit DE 0050580 for the DP&L 

Indian River Power Plant. State Permit Number 

WPCC 3013B/76. Effective date: 25 September 1988. 

Permit WPCC 30138/76. NPDES Permit DE 0050580. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Indian River Power Plant. State 

Ecological Analysts, Inc (EA). 1976. Ecological studies in the 

vicinity of Indian River Power Plant for the period June 

1974 through August 1976: A 316(al Demonstration. Prepared 

for DPLL. Volumes 1-6. 

EA. 1978. Impact of the cooling water intake at the Indian 

River Power Plant: A 316(b) evaluation. Prepared for 

DP&L. Volumes 1-3. 

Jensen, L.D. 1974. Environmental responses to thermal 

discharges from the Indian River Station, Indian River, 

Delaware. Prepared for EPRI and DP&L Co. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1977. Final 

environmental impact statement for DPcL, Indian River Power 

Station, Unit 4. Millsboro, Delaware. 

Watts, W.G. 1988. Letter (including discharge canal temperature 

sampling plan, DPcL, Indian River Power Plant) from W.G. 

Watts, DP&L, to F. Henshaw, XI, Delaware DNREC, 

15 November, 1988. 

Watts, W.G. 1989. Letter (including cooling water 

intake/discharge systems chronology submittals for the DPhL 

Indian River Power Plant) from W.G. Watts, DPLL, to 

S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 15 November 1989. 

Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 

la) 

A-33 
5. E. I. DU PONT -- EDGE MOOR 

Plant Characteristics 

The Chemicals and Pigments Department of E.I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co., located in Edge Moor, manufactures titanium 

dioxide, ferric chloride and titanium tetrachloride. A schematic 

of plant water flows indicates that. during 1987-88, this facility utilized an average of 9.1 MGD from the Delaware River and 1.3 

MGD from Wilmington Suburban Water Co. for non-contact cooling 

water and industrial processes (letter from J.F. Lane, E.I. du 

Pont to P. Janiga, DNREC, 7 November 1989). No other information 

pertaining to intake structures or discharge configurations was 

available f o r review. 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

E.I. du Pont in Edge Moor is directly upestuary from DPbrL’s 

Edge Moor Power Plant and as such has similar ecosystem characteristics to that generating facility (see Section 3 of this 

appendix). The designated uses for the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Edge Moor facility are: 

primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and 

maintenance of fish, aquatic life and wildlife. 

industrial water supply, 

Permit Information 

The NPOES permit for this facility was revised in 1989 and 

is due to expire in September 1994. The permit indicates that 

there are four outfalls. One discharge is effluent from the 

wastewater treatment plant (4.7 MGD). Two other outfalls, which 

are each a combination of non-contact cooling water from industrial processes and stormwater (6.0 MGD and 3.0 MGD), are identified in the permit. The fourth outfall identified is 

stormwater (no effluent limitations). The wastewater and noncontact cooling water outfalls have daily maximum temperature 

limits of 43OC (110OF). These outfalls also have limitations on 

BOD and TSS, with the wastewater outfall having limitations on 

varqous metals as well. 

water and non-contact cooling water effluents must have continuous temperature and flow monitoring and that biomonitoring be 

conducted quarterly. 

The permit stipulates that the wasteA-34 
Impact Determination Studies 

No population, thermal, entrainment or impingement studies 

were available for review. A reference was made by du Font to a 

"316 demonstration" that was submitted to DNREC in October 1977 

€or the wastewater treatment plant outfall (letter J.F. Lane, du 

Pont to P. Janiga, DNREC, 7 November 1989). This letter states 

that "the equipment that was the main source of the heat in discharge 001 then, no longer exists." Although this "316 demonstration" was not available for review, it appears to be no 

longer applicable or relevant to the current operating conditions 

at the Edge Moor facility. Although E.I. du Pont is required to 

conduct quarterly biomonitoring tests to investigate the nonthermal impacts of their discharges, none of the results of these 

studies were available for review. 

The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

the du Pont facility's discharges are the 24-hr whole effluent 

bioassay tests performed by DNREC. These tests were performed on 

three separate days during March 1988 on three different outfalls. Results of the acute toxicity tests performed on the 

three outfalls indicate a minimal amount of mortality of the test 

organisms (< 15%). This type of testing is appropriate to evaluate non-thermal effects of discharges, but the limited number of 

tests (3) and monitoring over a single month is not adequate to 

address long-term variations that typically occur in discharges. 

Conclusions 

1. The only impact-related data or information available for 

the du Pont Edge Moor facility is that from the state 

bioassay tests conducted in March 1988. 

2. While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for their thermal discharge (i.e., the permitted 

temperature limit of llO°F exceeds state water quality criteria temperature maximum of 86*F), the specifications of 

that mixing zone do not appear in any of the material 

reviewed. The material reviewed also does not present any 

information that would document that the facility is in 

compliance with thermal regulations; if the facility were 

out of compliance, a 316(a) variance would be required. 

3. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this 

facility. It is unknown whether du Pont conducted any 

population, entrainment, or impingement studies that will 

aid DNREC's evaluation of potential intake structure 

impacts. The 1977 "316 Demonstration" referred to in the 

A-35 
letter rPferenced above was not available for review to 

determine if it adequately addressed intake issues. Once 

the state has reasonable basis to decide that existing 

technology does not constitute BTA and puts forth the 

technology which does, du Pont may either accept DNREC’s 

decision or undertake the burden of demonstrating that 

existing technoloqy (or a more cost effective alternative) 

represents BTA by producing a 316(b) evaluation. 

Recommendations 

1. Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations. If du Pont Edge Moor is 

not in compliance with thermal discharge regulations the 

resultant required 316(a) Demonstration must take into 

account intake structure impacts and should provide DNREC 

with information necessary for a ETA decision. 

2. If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request that the 

facility provide information on the nature of its water 

intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of 

trash racks or screens), the mode of its operation, and 

general biological/ecological characterizations of the 

source waterbody in the vicinity of the intake. If new 

studies have provided relevant biological/ecological data 

for DP6iL’s Edge Moor Power Plant, this information would 

likely be applicable to du Pont‘s Edge Moor facility. 

3. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine whether existing intake technologies 

represent ETA. If no current biological/ecological data 

exists in the vicinity of the intake, DNREC may consider 

conducting studies to aid them in their BTA decision-making 

process. 

A-36 
RELEVANT DOCUMENT& a 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES Permit DE 0000051 for E.I. du Pont 

de Nemours h Company, Edge Moor. State Permit 

Number WPCC 31938/76. Effective date: 29 September 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for E.I. du Pont de Nemours h 

Company, Edge Moor. State Permit Number WPCC 31938'/76. 

NPDES Permit DE 0000051. 

Lane, J.F. 1989. Letter (with attachments) from J.F. Lane, E.I. 

du Pont de Nemours & Company, to P. Janiga, Delaware DNREC, 

7 November 1989. 

\ 

_. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of .the report. 

A-37 
6. E.I. DU PONT -- SEAFORD NYLON PLAN 

Plant Characteristics 

E. I. du Font de Nemours & Company operates the Seaford 

Nylon Plant which is located on Harrington Street a short distance southwest of Seaford, Delaware. This plant is situated on 

the northwestern bank of the freshwater tidal portion of the 

Nanticoke River, approximately 6 miles up river from the 

Maryland-Delaware state line. 

The Seaford Nylon Plant manufactures nylon 66 resin which is 

spun into a fiber at this facility. Electric power for manufacturing processes is provided by an on-site steam-electric power 

plant operated by E. I. du Pont. This facility withdraws 64.8 

MGD from the Nanticoke River through an intake located in front 

of the facility. The water is primarily used as non-contact 

cooling water for the power plant and for manufacturing processes, with small amounts used for boiler blowdown, make-up water, 

and manufacturing process water. Cooling water (1SOF higher than 

intake water) as well as the other wastewaters (i.e., boiler 

blowdown, ash pond overflow, treated effluent, and stormwater) 

from the nylon plant are discharged into the Nanticoke River via 

a canal. The canal is approximately 5000 ft long and flows in a 

southwesterly direction from in front of the plant to the river. 

No other information describing the intake structure or the discharge canal at this facility was available. 

Ecosystem Description 

The Nanticoke River is located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

and is a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The headwaters of this 

river are in southern Delaware. The river flows in a southwesterly direction from Delaware through Maryland to its confluence 

with the Bay. The Nanticoke River is strongly influenced by 

tides throughout much of its length due to it being located on 

the Coastal Plain. DNREC has classified this river for a number 

of uses: industrial water supply, primary and secondary contact 

recreation, propagation or' fish, aquatic life and wildlife, and 

as a water of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance (ERES). 

The facility is located within the freshwater tidal area of 

the Nanticoke River. The river is approximately 100 ft wide and 

has an average annual freshwater flow of about 150 MGD. There 

A-38 
are substantial shallow zones in the river and abundant freshwater wetlands border the river in this area. The Nanticoke 

River supports extensive spawning runs of anadromous fish including shad, river herring and striped bass. However, the relative 

importance of the Nanticoke River in vicinity of this facility 

for these species could not be determined from the information 

provided. No other information describing the river in the 

vicinity of the Seaford Nylon Plant was available for review. 

Permit Information 

E.I. du Pont de Nemours C Company was reissued a NPDES permit (State Permit Number WPCC 3223C/74; NPDES Permit Number DE 

0000035) for the Seaford Nylon Plant in 1988 with an expiration 

date of December 29, 1993. This permit establishes authorization 

€or the facility to discharge effluent from various outfalls into 

a discharge canal with the Nanticoke River as the receiving waterbody. The permit identifies eight individual outfalls and one 

combined outfall from the Seaford Plant. From the schematics and 

map accompanying the permit, it appears that the combined discharged is not an actual outfall pipe but rather that paint in 

the discharge canal that is down-canal from where the individual 

outfall pipes discharge. Outfalls 001, 003, 004 and 009 are 

contact and non-contact cooling water (non-power generation) and 

stormwater runoff discharges that are monitored weekly for flow 

and pH, and monthly for TOC. The wastewater in the discharge 

canal is dominated by non-contact cooling water from Outfall 002 

(47:5 MGD). This outfall has a maximum temperature limit of 43OC 

(110OF) from the facility’s power plant, and discharges noncontact cooling water, boiler blowdown, and deionization wastewater. It is monitored daily for temperature and weekly for 

flow and pH. Outfall 005 is effluent from the wastewater treatment facility with flow monitored continuously, and daily monitoring of pH and TRC. COD, BOD5, TSS, TRN, oil and grease, and 

fecal coliform are monitored weekly, and quarterly biomonitoring 

and organic analysis are required for this outfall. Outfall 007 

(ash pond overflow) and Outfall 008 (treated wastewater from the 

retention pond) are monitored weekly for flow, TSS, pH, and oil 

and grease. 

Imuact Determination Studies 

Du Pont did not conduct population studies to evaluate discharge effects on the Nanticoke River ecosystem. Further, no . 

studies were conducted to assess impacts of the intake structure 

(i.e., entrainment and impingement). 

24-39 
Data were available from bioassay tests performed by DNREC 

and EA (EA 1989) to evaluate non-thermal effects of the individual outfalls. The state performed 24-hr static acute whole 

effluent bioassays using both fish and invertebrates on three 

separate dates for each outfall during November 1987. The 

results of these acute toxicity tests indicated no mortality of 

test organisms in any of the outfalls except the wastewater 

treatment plant effluent. This outfall had 100% mortality of the 

fish on all three dates of testing and between 75 and 100% mortality for the invertebrate tested. This testing was limited by 

the number of tests (3) and the short period of evaluation (3 

days), which may not adequately (technically) address long-term 

variations that can occur in discharges. Results of EA'S chronic 

toxicity tests, performed during September 1989, indicated less 

than 103 mortality of test organisms in the combined discharge 

water. EA'S testing was limited to water collected during a 

single day, which also does not address long-term variability. 

Studies to assess the extent of the thermal plume from the 

Seaford Nylon Plant were performed for du Pont by Hydroscience, 

Inc. (Hydroscience 1975). Hydroscience, Inc. collected hydrothermal data during two separate 1974 studies. The first study, 

an aerial survey which utilized infrared scanning techniques, was 

conducted in Hay 1974. The second study was conducted in 

September 1974 during which temperature profiles were measured in 

the Nanticoke Estuary. The data from these surveys were used to 

derive models (one-dimensional and two-layer) to predict plume 

dimensions during different plant operations and estuary flow 

conditions. The data as well the models indicate the plume 

exceeds ambient temperatures by greater than 2OF as far as 1 mile 

from the discharge. The temperature surveys and the one dimensional analysis of the thermal plume from the Nylon Plant appear 

adequate and appropriate to characterize the extent of the thermal plume. The one-mile extent of the 2OF isotherm reported in 

these studies indicates that the facility is out of compliance 

with the new criteria (1.8OF plume extent cannot exceed 50% of 

the width of the waterbody). 

Conclusions 

1. No data or information are available on the intake and discharge structures of this facility. No entrainment, impingement, or population studies have been reoorted. Two 

sets of bioassay studies have been conducted, and suggest 

limited mor tali ty . 

2. Thermal studies conducted in 1974 may be adequate to characterize tne thermal plume from the facility. Results of 

those studies suggest that the facility is not in compliance 

with the new thermal mixing zone criteria. 

A-40 

. 
3. NO evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this facility. Du Pont has not conducted any population, entrainment, or imuingement studies that will aid DNREC’s evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. 

important recreational and commercial species in the 

Nanticoke River and the designation of that waterbody as a 

water of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance (ERES), suggests that important resources could be 

impacted by the facility. If the state has reasonable 

basis to decide that existing technology does not constitute 

BTA and puts forth a technology that does, du Pont may 

either accept DNREC’s decision or undertake the burden of 

demonstrating that existing technology (or a more cost 

effective alternative) represents BTA by producing a 316(b) 

evaluation. 

The presence of 

Recommendations 

1. Conduct a detailed evaluation of the 1974 thermal study 

results. Determine if current facility operations are 

consistent with those occurring at the time the thermal 

studies were done. Determine if the facility is in compliance with the new Delaware thermal mixing zone criteria. 

A lack of compliance would require that the facility apply 

for a 316(a) variance and prepare a 316(a) Demonstration. A 

316(a) Demonstration must take into account intake structure 

impacts and should provide DNREC with information necessary 

for a BTA decision. 

If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request the 

facility provide detailed information on the nature of the 

intake and discharge structures (e.g., orientation, location, schematics, types of trash racks or screens, their 

mode of operation), and biological/ecological characterizations of the Nanticoke River in the vicinity of the intake. 

3. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine if detailed entrainment or impingement studies are warranted, and decide whether existing 

intake represents BTA, given the nature of the ecosystem 

exposed to impacts. 

4. If no biological/ecological information exists for the 

source waterbody in the vicinity of the intake DNREC may 

consider conducting relevant studies to aid in the ETA 

decision-making process. 

A-41 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a ) 

Bertels, J.H. 1989. Letter (including a general description of 

discharges and facilities far the du Pent Seaford Plant) 

from J.H. Bertels, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, to 

S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 7 November 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. 1988. Industrial Water Allocation Permit for 

E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Seaford Plant. Allocation No: 

88-0014-A, Effective date: 21 October 1988, 

Delaware DNREC. 1988. NPDES Permit DE 0000035 for E.I. du Pont 

de Nemours & Company, Seaford Plant. State Permit Number 

WPCC 3223C/74. Effective date: 30 December, 1988. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for E.I. du Pont de.Nemours 61 

Company, Seaford Plant. NPDES Permit DE 0000035. State 

Permit Number WPCC 3223C/74. 

EA Enqineerinq, Science, and Technology (EA). 1989. Results of 

Ehronic toxicity test with Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimeohales 

Drornefas on samoles from du Pont's Seaford facility. 

$repared for E.:. du Pont de Nemours and Co. 

- 

Hydroscience, Inc. 1975. Temperature studies of the Nanticoke 

Estuary. Prepared for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 

A-42 
7. GENE2AL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 

Plant Characteristics 

The Delaware Valley works of General Chemical Corporation is 

located on the Delaware-Pennsylvania border in Claymont, DE and 

Marcus Hook, PA. It manufactures industrial inorganic and organic chemicals including sulfuric acid, photo-salts, magnesium 

oxide, and other specialty chemicals. General Chemical also 

operates a 4.5 MWe power generating facility to provide electricity for its industrial processes. Once-through cooling 

water and wastewater front industrial treatment processes are 

discharged into a sluiceway which in turn empties into the 

Delaware River. According to the NPDES permit and a plant flow 

schematic submitted with the permit application,. cooling water is 

withdrawn from the Delaware River (28.0 MGD), the Chester 

Municipal Water Company (1.6 MGD) and the Wilmington Suburban 

Water Company (0.02 MGD). The schematic further indicates that 

most of this water is returned to the Delaware River (28.0 MGD) 

while a smaller portion (0.4 MGD) is discharged to the New Castle 

County sewer system. No further information was provided relative to discharge operations or to detailed descriptions of 

i n,t a k e s t ruc tu r e s . 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

General Chemical Corp. is located between Wilmington and 

Philadelphia and as such has similar ecosystem characteristics as 

DP&L's Edge Moor Power Plant (see Section 3 of this appendix). 

No ecosystem information was provided by General Chemical Corp 

for this region of the Delaware River; however, this area is 

predominantly freshwater and lies within the region of the 

Delaware River known to have historical water quality problems. 

The designated uses for the Delaware River in the vicinity of 

Delaware Valley Works are: industrial water supply, primary 

contact recreation, secondary contact recreation and maintenance 

of fish, aquatic life and wildlife. 

Permit Information 

The NPDES permit for General Chemical Corp. was revised in 

1989 and is due to expire in September 1994. This facility has 

one permitted combined outfall of 33.3 MGD which is composed of 

11 components. These components consist of effluents associated 

A-43 
with power generation (once through cooling water, boiler blowdown and softener backwash), industrial processes and stormwater 

runoff. Besides effluent discharge rate, the permit regulates 

the effluent in terms of ammonia, BOD , COD and TSS. The daily 

maximum temperature of this combined aischarge is stipulated not 

to exceed 41°C (105OF) and must be measured daily. The permit 

further requires continuous monitoring of flow. General Chemical 

Corp. is directed by the permit to begin quarterly biomonitoring 

no later than June 1992. 

Impact Determination Studies 

No population, thermal, non-thermal, entrainment or impingement studies have been conducted by General Chemical 

Corporation's Delaware Valley Works (letter from A.B. Steiner, 

General Chemical Corp. to S.W. Cooksey, DNREC, 9 November 1989). 

The only available information with which to evaluate nonthermal effects of the General Chemical's discharge is from the 

24-hr whole effluent bioassay tests performed by DNREC. These 

tests were performed on three separate days, two in June 1987 and 

one in September 1987. 

this outfall has variable toxicity. Fish experienced minimal 

mortality (< IO$), but invertebrate mortality was as great as 

100%. This type of testing is appropriate to evaluate nonthermal effects of the outfall, but the limited number of tests 

(3) and monitoring only on three occasions is not adequate to 

address long-term variations that typically occur in discharges. 

Acute toxicity test results indicate 

Conclusions 

1. The only impact-related data or information available for 

the General Chemical facility is from the DNREC bioassay 

tests conducted in 1987. 

While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for its thermal discharge (i.e., the permit 

temperature limit of l0SoF exceeds the state water quality 

criteria maximum of 86OF), the specifications of that mixing 

zone do not appear in any of the material reviewed; the 

material reviewed also does not present any information that 

would document that the facility is in compliance with 

thermal criteria; if the facility were not in compliance, a 

316ta) variance would be required. 

3. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this 

2. 

A-44 
facility. GCC has not ccnducted any population,'entrainment, or imDingement studies that will aid DNREC's evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. If the state 

has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology does 

not constitute BTA and puts forth a technology that does, 

GCC may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake the 

burden of demonstrating that existing technology (or a more 

cost effective alternative) represents BTA by producing a 

316(b) evaluation. 

Recommendations 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of the thermal mixing zone for the 

facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations. Given the small amount 

of discharge (33 MGD) relative to the size.of the Delaware 

Estuary at the point of discharge, it is likely that a 

complete evaluation will indicate that the facility meets 

thermal discharge criteria, in which case no ecological 

studies would be necessary. If a 316(a) variance were 

determined to be necessary, the resultant 316(a) 

Demonstration must take into account intake structure 

impacts and should provide DNREC with information necessary 

for a BTA decision. 

If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request that the 

facility provide detailed information on the nature of the 

water intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of trash racks or screens), and bioloqical/ecological 

characterizations of the source water body in the vicinity 

of the intake. If current data are collected for DP&L's 

Edge Moor Plant these could be examined for possible inclusion in an aquatic characterization of the Delaware River 

near GCC. 

If no current biological/ecological information exists, 

DNREC may consider conducting relevant studies to aid in the 

BTA decision-making process. 

A-45 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a 

Allied Chemical Company. 1974. Application for renewal of NPDES 

Allied Chemical Company. 1977. Application for renewal of NPDES 

Permit DE 0000655 for Delaware Valley Works. 

Permit DE 0000655 for Delaware Valley Works. 

Allied Chemical Company. 1982. Application for renewal of NPDES 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES Permit DE 0000655 for the General 

Permit DE 0000655 for Delaware Valley Works. 

Chemical Corporation Power Plant. 

3218C/74. Effective date: 29 September, 1989. 

Power Plant. NPDES Permit DE 0000655. State Permit Number 

WPCC 3218C/74. 

State Permit Number WPCC 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for General Chemical Corporation 

General Chemical Corporation. 1988. Application for renewal of 

NPDES Permit DE 0000655 for GCC Delaware Valley Works. 

Steiner, A.H. 1989. Letter from A.H. Steiner, General Chemical 

Corporation, to S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 

9 November 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 

A-46 
8. HERCULES RESZARCH CENTER 

Plant Characteristics 

The Hercules Research Center is a corporate research and 

development facility for Hercules, Inc., a major chemical manufacturing comgany. It is located in the Wooddale area of 

Wilmington and is situated on the western bank of Red Clay Creek. 

This facility withdraws a small amount of water from Red Clay 

Creek for the non-contact cooling of heat exchanges and chemical 

process reactions in the pilot plant buildings and discharges 

water back into the creek. Schematics of the facility indicate 

that the intake structure incorporates traveling screens; however, no further information describing the intake structure, 

discharge configuration, or increase in temperature at this 

facility was available. 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

Red Clay Creek is a small freshwater stream that flows in a 

southeasterly direction from Pennsylvania to its confluence with 

the Christina River (a tributary of the Delaware River). DNREC 

has classified this stream for public and industrial water supply, primary contact recreation (for lakes and ponds on the 

basin), secondary contact recreation, fish aquatic life and 

wildlife, cold water fish designation from March through June 

from the Pennsylvania/ Delaware line to slightly above Yorklyn 

{approximately one mile into Delaware), agricultural use for nontidal portions, navigation for tidal portions, and passage of 

diadromous fish. 

The facility is located about four miles downstream from the 

cold water fishes designation of Red Clay Creek and is likely to 

contain warm water species. No information describing the stream 

in the vicinity of the Hercules facility was available for review. 

Permit Information 

Hercules, Inc. was reissued a NPDES permit (State Permit 

Number WPCC 31308/74; NPDES Permit Number 0000230) for the 

discharge at the Hercules Research Center in 1985 with an 

expiration date of 22 October 1990. The permit allows this 

facility to discharge non-contact cooling water from Outfall 001 

A-47 
at the rate of 0.35 MGD into Red Clay Creek (the receiving waterbody) with a maximum temperature of 43°C (110°F). The permit 

requires this discharge to be monitored continuously for flow, 

weekly for temperature and pH, and once every six months for BOD5 

and TSS. 

Impact Determination Studies 

The one outfall from the Hercules Research Center into Red 

Clay Creek is non-contact cooling water. Resident populations 

found in Red Clay Creek were not evaluated due to the absence of 

information to review. No data or studies pertaining to the 

extent of the thermal plume or effects on populations were available from Hercules for this discharge. Given that the 110°F 

temperature criteria in the permit exceeds the state water quality thermal criteria (maximum 86"F), a mixing zone may have been 

granted. However, a mixing zone is not specified in any documents reviewed. Data were available from bioassay tests 

performed by DNREC to evaluate non-thermal effects of this discharge. The state perforaed 24-hr static acute whole effluent 

bioassays using both fish and invertebrates on three separate 

dates during February 1987. The results of the state's tests 

indicated a minimal amount of mortality of the test organisms 

(< 20%). This testing was limited by the number of tests (3) and 

the short period of evaluation (3 days) that may not adequately 

(technically) address long-tern variations that can occur in 

discharges. Further, no studies were conducted by Hercules to 

assess impacts of the intake structure (i.e., entrainment and 

impingement). 

Conclusions 

1. The only impact-related data or information available for 

the Hercules facility are those from the state bioassay 

tests conducted in February 1987. 

2. While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for their thermal discharge, the specifications 

of that mixing zone do not appear in any of the material 

reviewed; the material reviewed also does not present any 

information that documents whether the facility is in 

complianco with thermal regulations. If the facility is 

out of compliance, a 316 variance would be required and 

hence a 316(a) Demonstration would be necessary. 

3. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this 

facility. Hercules has not conducted any population, 

A-48 
.. 

entrainment, or impingement studies that will aid DNREC's 

evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. If the 

state has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology does not constitute BTA and puts forth a technology that 

does, Hercules may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake the burden of demonstrating that existing technology 

(or a more cost effective alternative) represents BTA by 

producing a 316(b) evaluation. 

Recommendations 

1. Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations. If Hercules is out of 

compliance with thermal regulations, the resultant 316(a) 

Demonstration must take into account intake structure 

impacts and should provide information necessary for the 

state's BTA decision. 

2. If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request that the 

facility provide information on the nature of the water 

intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of 

track racks or screens), the mode of its operation, and 

biological/ecological characterizations of the source 

waterbody in the vicinity of the intake. 

3. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine if detailed entrainment or impingement studies are warranted; using existing or new data, 

evaluate whether the existing intake structures represent 

BTA, given the nature of the ecosystem exposed to impacts. 

ecological nature of Red Clay Creek in the vicinity of the 

intake, the state may consider conducting its own studies to 

provide data for the BTA decision. 

4. If no information exists on the general biological/ 

A-49 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a 

Carlson, N.P. 1989. Letter (including NPDES permit DE 0000230 

application, and process/discharge description for Hercules 

Research Center) from N.P. Carlson, Hercules Research 

Center, to S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 8 November, 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. 1985. NPDES Permit DE 0000230 for the 'Hercules 

Research Center. State Permit Number WPCC 31308/74. 

Effective date: 25 October 198s. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Hercules Research Center. State 

Permit Number WPCC 3130B/74. NPDES Permit DE 0000230. 

(a' Nan site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 

A-SO 
9. IC1 AMERICAS, INC. 

Plant characteristics 

IC1 Americas, Inc.’s Atlas Point Plant is located on Cherry 

Lane in New Castle, which is approximately two miles southwest of 

Wilmington. The facility is situated on the western bank of the 

Delaware River. 

The Atlas Point Plant is involved in the manufacture of 

specialty organic chemicals. This facility withdraws a small 

amount of water from the Delaware River Estuary for cooling 

chemical process reactors in the Hydrogen Plant and Polyols and 

Sorbitol areas of the facility and for plant process water. 

Cooling water withdrawal from the Estuary by the. plant is roughly 

12.0 MGD. This chemical plant releases cooling water from five 

separate outfalls along the Delaware Estuary. Plant process 

wastewater is released to the New Castle sewer system. No information describing the intake structure, the discharge configuration, or increases in cooling water temperature at this facility 

was available. 

Ecosystem Description 

A general description of the Delaware River estuary ecosystem appears in the appendix for DP&L‘s Edge Moor Power Plant 

(Section 3). The designated uses for the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Atlas Point Plant are: 

primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and 

maintenance of fish, aquatic life and wildlife. 

industrial water supply, 

Permit Information 

IC1 Americas Inc. was reissued an NPDES permit (State Permit 

Number WPCC 3127A/74; NPDES Permit Number DE 0000621) for the 

Atlas Point Plant- in 1984 which expired in November 1989. A 

current, active permit was not available for this review. The 

expired permit authorized this facility to discharge effluent 

from various outfalls into the Delaware River Estuary (receiving 

waterbody). The permit identified seven different outfalls from 

the Atlas Point Plant. Outfalls 001A, 0019, 002, 003, and 005 

were cooling water and surface drainage discharges from the 

various chemical manufacturinq areas of the plant. These 

discharges were monitored continuously for flow, week days for 

A-51 
temperature and pH, and monthly for BOD and TSS, and had an 

were permitted to discharge excessive stormwater drainage and 

overflowing process water during high rainfall events. Discharges from these two outfalls were monitored for BOD , TSS, 

pH, chromium, iron, phenols, surfactants and toluene ezch day 

when discharging occurred. 

effluent temperature limit of 43OC (110 s F). Outfall 004 and 006 

IrnDact Determination Studies 

The outfalls from the IC1 Americas facility that discharge 

into the Delaware River are primarily cooling water and surface 

water runoff. Resident populations in the Delaware Rivet in the 

vicinity of this plant were not evaluated due to the absence of 

information to review. No data or studies pertaining to the 

extent of the thermal plume or its effect on populations were 

available for these discharges. Data were available from bioassay tests performed by DNREC to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

this discharge. The state performed 24-hr static acute whole 

effluent bioassays using both fish and invertebrates on three 

separate dates during April 1987 and January 1988 on discharges 

from Outfall 001A. Toxicity tests of this outfall resulted in no 

mortality in tests with fish and a minimal amount of mortality of 

the invertebrates (maximum of 30%). This testing was limited by 

the number of tests (31, the short period of evaluation (3 days) 

which may not adequately (technically) address long-term variations that can occur in discharges and testing of only one of. 

seven outfalls. Further, no studies were conducted by IC1 

Americas to assess impacts of the intake structure (i.e., 

entrainment and impingement). 

Conclusions 

1. 

2. 

The only impact-related data or information available for 

the IC1 Americas facility are those from the state bioassay 

tests conducted in 1987 and 1988. 

While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for their thermal discharge (permit effluent 

temperature limit is llO°F), the specifications of that 

mixing zone do not appear in any of the material reviewed; 

the material reviewed also does not present any information 

that would document that the facility is in compliance with 

thermal regulations; if the facility were out of compliance, 

a 316(a) variance would be required. Due to the relatively 

small discharge and the large receiving waterbody, 

compliance is likely. 

A-52 
3. No evidence exists that the state has developed a'position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this 

facility. ICI has not conducted any population, entrainment, or impingement studies that will aid DNREC's evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. If the state 

has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology 

does not constitute BTA and puts forth a technology that 

does, IC1 may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake 

the burden of demonstrating that existing technology (or a 

more cost effective alternative) represents BTA by producing 

a 316(b) evaluation. 

Recommendation 

1. The IC1 NPDES permit ptovided for this review expired in 

November 1989; the status of the reissuance and any changes 

in operating practices or effluent limitations should be 

confirmed. 

2. Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations. If IC1 is not in compliance with thermal discharge regulations, the resultant 

required 316(a) Demonstration must take into account intake 

structure impacts and should provide DNREC with information 

necessary for the BTA decision. 

3. If a 316(a) Demonstration is not required request that the 

facility provide information on the nature of its water 

intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of 

trash racks or screens), the mode of its operation, and 

biological/ecological characterizations of the source 

waterbody in the vicinity of the intake. If current data 

are collected for DPCL's EMPP these could be examined for 

possible inclusion in an aquatic characterization of the 

Delaware River near XCI. 

4. Once the information noted in Item 3 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine if detailed entrainment or impingement studies are warranted; using existing or new data, 

evaluate whether the existing intake represents 3TA, given 

the nature of the ecosystem exposed to impacts. 

5. If no biological/ecological information exists for the 

Delaware River in the vicinity of the intake, DNREC may 

consider conducting relevant studies to aid in the BTA 

decision-making process. 

A-53 
RELEVANT DOCUMENT& a 

Delaware DNREC, 1984. NPDES Permit DE 0000621 for IC1 Americas, 

Inc,, Atlas Point Plant. State Permit Number 

WpCC 3127A/74. Effective date: 8 November 1984. 

Delaware DNREC, Fact sheet for IC1 Americas, Inc., Atlas Point 

Plant. NPDES Permit DE 0000621. State Permit Number 

WPCC 3127A/74. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 
10. NVF NEWARX PLANT 

The NVF Company’s Primary Products Division (Newark plant) 

is located on Margaret and Race streets in Newark and is situated 

on the southern bank of White Clay Creek. This facility is located approximately two miles east of the Maryland/Delaware 

line, a short distance from Route 2. White Clay Creek is a small 

freshwater stream that eventually flows into Christina River (a 

tributary of the Delaware River). 

Plant Characteristics 

The NVF Newark plant manufactures vulcanized fiber products 

(e.g., boards, sheets, and tubes) and waterleaf paper from purified wood pulps. This facility withdraws non-contact cooling 

water and process water (0.37 MGDf from an intake located a short 

distance above North Chapel Street Bridge on White Clay Creek. 

Of this, 0.33 MGD is used as cooling water for the surface condensers and is released back into White Clay Creek below the 

bridge. The 0.04 NGD of process water is discharged into the New 

Castle County sewer system. No other information describing any 

discharge canal, the intake structures, or thermal increases of 

effluent from this facility was available. 

Ecosystem characteristics 

White Clay Creek is a small freshwater stream that flows in 

an easterly direction from Maryland approximately seven miles 

into Delaware before its confluence with the Christina River. 

DNREC has classified this stream for public and industrial water 

supply, primary contact recreation (for lakes and ponds on the 

basin), secondary contact recreation, fish, aquatic life and 

wildlife, cold water fish designation (for a portion of the 

creek), agricultural use for non-tidal portions, navigation for 

tidal portions, and passage of diadromous fish. 

The facility-is located in the cold water fish designation 

area of White Clay Creek. This designation indicates cold water 

species may be found in the vicinity of this facility. No information describing the stream in the vicinity of the NVP Newark 

plant was available for review. 

A-55 
Permit Information 

NVF Company was reissued a NPDES permit (State Pernit Number 

WPCC 3023B/75; NPDES Permit Number DE0000434) for the Newark 

plant in 1985, with an expiration date of 16 October 1990. This 

permit authorizes the facility to discharge non-contact cooling 

water from Outfall 001 into White Clay Creek (receiving waterbody). The permit identifies a maximum discharge temperature of 

41°C (105°F) for this outfall and requires monitoring continuously for flow and quarterly for temperature, BOD5, TSS, pH, and 

zinc. 

Impact Determination Studies 

The one outfall from the NVF Newark plant into White Clay 

Creek discharges primarily non-contact cooling water. Since the 

10S°F temperature criteria specified in the permit exceeds the 

state water quality criteria (86°F maximum), the facility must 

have been granted a mixing zone. However, no specifications of a 

mixing zone were provided in the permit or any other documents 

reviewed. No studies were available to characterize the ecosystem of White Clay Creek or assess thermal impacts on that 

ecosystem. Data were available from bioassay tests performed by 

DNREC to evaluate non-thermal effects of this discharge. The 

state performed 24-hr static acute whole effluent bioassays using 

both fish and invertebrates on three separate dates during 

February 1987. These toxicity tests indicated no mortality of 

the test fish, but the bioassays resulted in 100% mortality of 

the invertebrates. This testing was limited by the number of 

tests (3) and the short period of evaluation (3 days), which may 

not adequately (technically) address long-term variations that 

can occur in discharges. No studies were conducted at this 

facility to assess impacts of the intake structure (i.e., 

entrainment and impingement). 

Conclusions 

1. The only impact-related data or information available for 

the NVF Newark plant are those from the state bioassay tests 

conducted in February 1987. 

2. While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for their thermal discharge, the specifications 

of that mixing zone do not appear in any of the material 

reviewed. The material reviewed also does not present any 

information that would document that the facility is in 

compliance with thermal regulations. If the facility is 

A-56 
out of campliance, a 316(a) variance would be required and 

hence a 316(a) Demonstration. 

3. NO evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard tu the status of intake structures at this 

facility. NVF has not conducted any population, entrainment, or impingement studies that will aid DNREC's evalution of potential intake structure impacts. If the state 

has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology 

does not constitute ETA and puts forth a technology that 

does, NVF may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake 

the burden of demonstrating that existing technology (or a 

more cost effective alternative) represents BTA by producing 

a 316(b) evaluation. 

Recommendations 

1. Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thernal discharge regulations. 

pliance with thermal discharge regulations, the resultant 

required 316(a) Demonstration must take into account intake 

structure impacts and should provide DNREC with information 

necessary for a BTA decision. 

If NVP is not in com2. If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request that the 

facility provide information on the nature of their water 

intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of 

track racks or screens), the mode of its operation, and 

biological/ecological characterizations of the source 

waterbody in the vicinity of the intake. 

3. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine if detailed entrainment or impingement studies are warranted, and decide whether the existing 

intake represents BTA, given the nature of the ecosystem 

exposed to impacts. 

4. If no biological/ecological information exists for White 

Clay Creek in the vicinity of the intake, DNREC may consider 

conducting studies, the results of which could aid the BTA 

decision-making process. 

A-57 
RELEVANT DOCUMENT& a 

Delaware DNREC. 1985. NPDES Permit DE 0000434 for the NVF 

Newark Plant. 

Effective date: 17 October 1985. 

State Permit Number WPCC 3023B/7S. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for NVF Newark Plant. State Permit 

Number WPCC 3023B/75. NPDES Permit DE 0000434. 

Jordan Jr., J.E. 1989. Letter (including flow diagrams for 

Yorklyn and Newark Plantsf from J.E. Jordan Jr., NVP 

Company, to M.C. Blosser, Delaware DNREC, 9 November, 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. 

A-58 
11. NVF YORKLYN PLANT 

The NVF Company’s Primary Products Division (Yorklyn Plant) 

is located in the Yorklyn Plant Complex in Yorklyn and is situated on the western bank of Red Clay Creek. This facility is 

located approximately one mile south of the Pennsylvania-Deiaware 

line on Yorklyn Road next to the Marshall Bros. Paper Hill. Red 

Clay Creek is a small freshwater stream which eventually. flows 

into the Christina River (a tributary of the Delaware River). 

Plant Characteristics 

The NVF Yorklyn Plant manufactures vulcanized fiber and 

waterleaf paper from cloth cutting wastes of the garment industry. This facility withdraws water from Red Clay Creek for the 

non-contact cooling of surface condensers in a zinc concentration 

system and paper presses. This facility has two discharges: 

from the wastewater treatment plant serving NVF Yorklyn as well 

as Marshall Bros. paper mill; and a combined discharge of steam 

condensate, non-contact cooling water, zeolite regeneration 

water, and stormwater. The combined discharge is apparently 

released into Red Clay Creek via a discharge canal (see schematic 

in NPDES permit). No information describing this discharge 

canal, any intake structures, or thermal increases of effluent 

from this facility was available. 

Ecosvstem Characteristics 

Red Clay Creek is a small freshwater stream that flows in a 

southeasterly direction from Pennsylvania to its confluence with 

the Christina River. DNREC has classified this stream for public 

and industrial water supply, primary contact recreation (for 

lakes and ponds on the basin), secondary contact recreation, 

fish, aquatic life and wildlife, cold water fish designation from 

March through June from the Pennsylvania-Delaware line to 

slightly above Yorklyn, agricultural use for non-tidal portions, 

navigation for tidal portions, and passage of diadromous fish. 

The facility is located near the designated cold water 

fishes portion of Red Clay Creek, but it could not be determined 

where the exact boundary for the cold water portion occurs. This 

designation suggests that cold water as well as warm water 

species may be found in the vicinity of this facility. However, 

no information describing the stream in the vicinity of the NVF 

Yorklyn Plant was available for review. 

A-S9 
Permit Information 

NVF Company was reissued a NPDES permit (State Permit Number 

WPCC 3019B/75; NPDES Permit Number DE 0000451) for the Yorklyn 

Plant Complex or' the Primary Products Division in 1984. That 

permit expired on January 1, 1988, and no information was available to determine the form in which the permit was renewed. The 

permit authorized the facility to discharge effluent from the 

wastewater treatment plant (Outfall 001) and a combination of 

non-contact cooling water, steam condensate, boiler blowdown, 

zeolite regeneration water, and stormwater (Outfall 002) into 

Red Clay Creek (receiving waterbody). The permit required monitoring of Outfall 001 daily for pH, weekly for BOD, TSS, and 

surfactants, monthly for zinc, TDS and sulfates, and biomonitoring every three months. Outfall 002 was to be monitored continuously for flow, weekly for temperature, pH, and zinc, monthly 

for BOD and TSS, and biomonitoring every three months. The 

permit hso identified a maximum discharge temperature of 38OC 

(100OF) for Outfall 002. 

Imuact Determination Studies 

No information pertaining to thermal effects of the Outfall 

002 was available for this facility. The maximum temperature 

permitted (lOO°F) and the volume of the maximum permitted discharge (2.2 NGD) could result in water quality standards being 

violated due to the small size and designated uses of the receiving waterbody (Red Clay Creek). The interaction of the high 

temperatures of this discharge with the wastewater treatment 

plant discharge could have serious consequences on biota directly, and on dissolved oxygen in Red Clay Creek. Temperature and 

flow data to characterize the discharge flow, Red Clay Creek and 

the mixing zone will be required to determine whether NVP 

Yorklyn is in compliance with thermal regulations. 

Given that the permit limit of lOOOF exceeds the water 

quality criteria of a daily maximum temperature limit (86*F), it 

would appear that the facility must have been granted a mixing 

zone. However, the mixing zone is not specified in the permit or 

in any other information available for review. In addition, no 

information is provided to indicate that the facility is in compliance with whatever mixing zone requirement may have been 

granted. 

The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

the discharges for Yorklyn are the bioassay tests performed by 

the State of Delaware. State water quality standards require the 

discharge exhibit acute whole effluent toxicity of less than 50% 

mortality of the indicator organism and no observable chronic 

A-60 
toxicity in waters outside the regulatory mixing zone.. The state 

performed 24-hr static acute whole effluent bioassays on both 

outfalls using invertebrates on three separate dates during March 

and August 1987. Mortality in these toxicity tests was variable 

for both outfalls, ranging from 0 to 100% for the effluent from 

the wastewater facility, and 5 to 100% for the combined cooling 

water discharge. This mortality raises serious questions regarding these discharges and the non-thermal impact on the receiving 

waters. This type of testing 1s appropriate to evaluate nonthermal effects of the outfall, but the limited number of tests 

(3) does not adequately (technically) address long-term 'variations that typically occur in discharges. A greater number of 

tests over a longer time period will be necessary to evaluate 

the non-thermal effects of this discharge. No material was 

received from the state regarding results of bioassay tests which 

NVF was required to conduct as part of their permit. 

NO studies were available with which to characterize the 

ecosystem of Red Clay Creek. No studies were conducted at the 

Yorklyn plant to assess impacts of the intake, structure (i.e., 

entrainment and impingement). While n: data appear to be available concerning entrainment and imping%aent, our experience with 

large power plants located on freshwater rivers is that the magnitude of these impacts tend to be low. This is due to the 

reproductive characteristics of most freshwater, riverine fish 

(i.e., nest builders) and the limited movement patterns of both 

adul'ts and juveniles. However, these sources of impact could be 

important if the portion of the river or stream in the immediate 

vicinity of the facility intake is of some particular importance 

for some species. 

Conclusions 

I. The only impact-related data or information available for 

the Yorklyn plant are those from the state bioassay tests 

conducted in March and August 1987. 

2. While it appears that the facility should have a specified 

mixing zone for their thermal discharge, the specifications 

of that mixing zone do not appear in any of the material 

reviewed; the material reviewed also does not present any 

information that documents whether the facility is in compliance with thermal regulations. If the facility is not in 

compliance with thermal regulation, a 316 variance would be 

required and hence a 316(a) Demonstration. 

3. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position 

with regard to the status of intake structures at this facility. NVF has not conducted any population, entrainment, 

or impingement studies that will aid DNREC's evaluation of 

A-61 
*- 

potential intake structure impacts. If the state has reasonable basis to decide that existing technology does not 

constitute BTA and puts forth a technology that does, NVF 

may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake the burden 

of demonstrating that existing technology (or a more cost 

effective alternative) represents BTA by producing a 316(b) 

evaluation. 

Recomxnenda t i ons 

1. The NVF Yorklyn NPDES permit provided for this review 

expired in 1988; the status of the reissuance and any 

changes in operating practices or effluent limitations 

should be confirmed. 

2. Acquire thermal discharge monitoring records, attempt to 

establish the status of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluate whether the facility is in compliance 

with thermal discharge regulations. If NVF is not in 

compliance with thermal discharge regulations, the resultant 

required 316(a) Demonstration must take into account intake 

structure impacts and should provide DNREC with information 

necessary for a BTA decision. 

3. If a 316(a) Demonstration is not necessary, request that the 

facility provide information on the nature of their water 

intake structure (e.g., location, orientation, presence of 

trash racks or screens), the mode of its operation, and 

biological/ecological characteriza- tions of the source 

waterbody in the vicinity of the intake. 

4. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate 

those data to determine if detailed entrainment or impinqcment studies are warranted; based on existing data or data 

from new studies, determine if the existing intake represents BTA, given the nature of the ecosystem exposed to 

impacts and the potential magnitude of those impacts. 

5. If no biological/ecological information is available for Red 

Clay Creek in the vicinity of the intake, DNREC may consider 

conducting relevant studies, the results of which may aid 

the BTA decision-making process. 

A-62 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a 

Delaware DNREC. 1984. NPDES Permit DE 0000451 for the Yorklyn 

Plant Complex. State Permit Number WPCC 30198/75. 

Effective date: 8 March, 1984. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Yorklyn Plant Complex. State 

Permit Number WPCC 3019B/75. NPDES Permit DE 000045l.. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

.main body of the report. 

A-63 
12. STAR ENTERPRISE 

Plant Cha rac t e r i s t i cs 

Star Enterprise (Star) in located in Delaware City on the 

Delaware River. This refinery is designed to process heavy, high 

sulfur crude oils but also produces heptenes-nonenes, sulfur, LPG 

(propane), gasoline, benzene, toluene, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel 

fuel and No. 2 fuel oil. 

ships and an adjacent docking facility to receive and treat 

ballast water are also located at this site. 

water from and discharges water into the Delaware River via 

intake and discharge canals. 

traveling screen arrangement within the intake structure (see 

Impingement section) which may be rotated once every eight hour 

shift (R. Hiller, DNREC, personal communication. No attempt is 

made to return impinged fish alive to the river as the screen 

washings must traverse a dry sluiceway and rock pile before 

trickling back to the intake canal in front of the traveling 

screens (R. Hiller, DNREC, personal communication). No other 

information has been provided concerning the specifics of the 

intake structure, operating practices or discharge configurations. 

water to be discharged by Star (this does not include the cooling 

water from DPCL DCPP). 

An oil terminal for both trucks and 

Star withdraws 

The refinery also appears to have a 

The NPDES permit allows an average of 398 MGD of cooling 

Ecosystem Characteristics 

A general description of the Delaware River estuary ecoStar is system appears in Section 3 of this appendix (DPCL's Edge Moor 

Power Plant). 

located in Delaware City approximately three miles upestuary 

from the C&D canal. Designated surface water uses are the same as 

for the DCPP (see Section 2). 

Like DP&L's Delaware City Power Plant, 

Permi t Inf o rma t ion 

The NPDES permit for this refinery was reissued in 1989 and 

is due to expire in January 1994. 

outfalls. One is the combined total discharge to the Delaware 

River (452 MGD) exclusive of the outfall from the ballast water 

treatment system (no flow limits) located at Star's docking 

facility. Of the other five outfalls, four are generated by 

Star and the other by a combination of effluents from DPLL's 

The permit indicates seven 

A-64 
DCPP and Akzo Chemical Co. Although the discharges from DPhL and 

Akzo Chemical are included under Star's permit (as well as their 

own), this outfall does not have any flow or temperature limits, 

only TOC. The four outfalls generated by Star include: wastewater treatment facility effluent (outfall 601, 13 MGD), noncontact cooling water (398 MGD), discharge from API Separator 

(no flow limit) and a discharge that combines outfall 601 with 

storm- and groundwater (no flow limit). Besides flow, outfall 

601 has effluent limits for BODS, TSS, oil and grease, nutrients, 

organic compounds, and chromium. Star is required to measure the 

flow and temperature of its total combined discharge once per day 

and continuously, respectively. Daily maximum temperature of the 

total combined discharge is limited to 43.3OC (110°F) and TRC to 

0.2 mg/L. In addition, biomonitoring is required on a quarterly 

basis. 

A discrepancy is apparent in that the addition of Star's 

individual permitted flows with those of DP&L's DCPP (75 HGD, see 

Section 2) and Akzo Chemical exceeds the total allotted discharge 

from Star by 34.2 MGD. Although Akzo Chemical Co. is not being 

reviewed in this program, it is permitted to discharge at total 

of 0.2 MGD (J. Davis, DNREC, personal communication). 

Imuact Determination Studies 

Although Star has not submitted a formal 316(a) 

Demonstration or a 316(b) evaluation, they have conducted some 

thermal, entrainment and impingement studies. In addition, DNREC 

has conducted limited bioassay tests. However, Star has not 

performed any population surveys. 

Thermal 

Star aoparently conducted a thermal plume study which was 

submitted tb DNREC in 1977 (see letter from R.G, Soehlke, Star 

Enterprise to S.W. Cooksey, DNREC, 9 November 1989); however, 

this report was not available for this review. 

Non-the rmal 

The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of 

this facility's discharges are the 24-hr whole effluent bioassay 

tests performed by DNREC. These tests were performed on'three 

separate days during Hay 1988 on five different outfalls, Acute 

A-6 5' 
toxicity tests results indicate all outfalls except one had minimal toxicity (< 5%). This outfall's toxicity resulted in mortality of 100% of both fish and invertebrates tested. This type 

of testing is appropriate to evaluate non-thermal effects of the 

outfall, but the limited number of tests (3) and monitoring only 

on three occasions during a single month is not adequate to 

address long-term variations that typically occur in discharges. 

Entrainment 

An ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton sampling program was 

conducted in the intake canal of Star Enterprise between 

September 1977 and August 1978 (IA 1979). Samples were collected 

in the daytime on a monthly basis between October and December 

1977 and March 1978, and on a semimonthly basis in September 1977 

and between April and August 1978. Nighttime samples were collected monthly in September 1977 and between April and August 

1978. No sampling was performed in January and February due to 

icing conditions. On each sampling date two samples, each consisting of tow replicate tows, were collected at 3-hour 

intervals. Samgles were taken with a 0.5-m, 0.5-mm mesh 

plankton net and towed obliquely from one meter off the bottom to 

the surface. Each tow lasted approximately 5 minutes and were 

performed in a west to east direction (against Star's withdrawal 

flow). Volume of water filtered was determined by a flow meter 

mounted on the net. Length measurements were made on a subsample 

of ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton and density estimates 

calculated. 

Generally this entrainment study used best methods reasonably available. Sampling gear and location, collection method, 

level of replication, and frequency within a sampling interval 

were adequate. However, limitations exist with the frequency and 

types of sampling events. Although sampling was conducted at 

night during some months, best methods would have been to collect 

nighttime samples whenever daytime samples were taken. Samgling 

gear efficiency is lower during the day than at night (Thayer et 

al. 1983) and hence entrainment estimates based on only daytime 

samples are an underestimate of actual entrainment. In addition, 

although the frequency of collection was increased during the 

critical spring months, weekly sampling during all months of the 

year would more adequately account for within month variation in 

the abundance of ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton. With only 

one year of data, this study cannot provide any measure of among 

year variation with which to determine the magnitude of a "worstcase" entrainment year. Although Star did not estimate entrainment losses associated with its cooling water withdrawal, and 

have not provided plant specific information concerning entrainment mortality (mechanical, chemical and thermal) or samgling 

gear efficiency estimates, losses could be determined using 

A-66 
Star's entrainment estimates, protective assumptions and information from scien- tific literature. 

The most serious limitation to this entrainment study is the 

fact that no population studies of the Delaware River were performed in conjunction with sampling in the intake canal. To 

adequately address 5316, entrainment losses must be put into the 

context of the population (i.e., percentage loss to the population). In addition, the entrainment studies were done over 10 

years ago, and major changes in the Delaware River ecosystem 

(e.g., improved water quality, increases in striped bass. stocks) 

suggest that old data are insufficient to evaluate current 

impacts. 

Impingement 

Impingement samples were collected at Star between January 

1974 and November 1975 and during two days in July 1978. Evidence of these collections only exists as data tables. The collecting agency for the 1974-75 time period is unknown; the 1978 

data table was compiled by Delaware Division of Fish and 

Wildlife. These tables do not provide any description of the 

intake structure, plant operating conditions or collection 

methods. Without this information the studies producing these 

data can not be considered technically adequate. In addition, as 

with the entrainment data, the existing information is probably 

not representative of current conditions. 

Conclusions 

1. If the thermal plume study conducted in 1977 is found to be 

technically adequate, and if plant operations and discharge 

characteristics have not been altered since that study was 

conducted, there may be sufficient information to determine 

if the facility meets new state thermal discharge criteria. 

However, there is no specification of a mixing zone for this 

facility against which to compare the results of the therlaal 

plume study. If the plant were found to be out of compliance, studies to support a 3P6(a) Demonstration would have 

to be Conducted. 

2. Entrainment studies conducted in 1977, while technically 

adequate for the most part, are probably not representative 

of current conditions at the plant site. The adequacy of 

the impingement studies conducted cannot be evaluated with 

the information available for review; however, these data 

also cannot be considered representative of current condiA-67 
tions at the plant site. No population surveys were performed and a formal 315(b) evaluation appears not to have 

been done for this facility. 

Recommendations 

1. The 1977 thermal plume study should be obtained and reviewed, together with past and current operations of the 

facility, to determine if that study was adequate and 

representative of current thermal discharge characteristics. 

2. The status of the thermal mixing zone for this facility 

should be clarified and a specific thermal mixing zone 

defined; results of the thermal plume study, if it is determined to be technically adequate, should be reviewed within 

the context of the thermal mixing zone to determine if the 

facility is in compliance. 

should be requested to provide new thermal plume data to 

document compliance status. 

compliance, then a 316(a) variance may be requested and a 

316(a) Demonstration produced. 

Demonstration must take into account intake structure 

impacts and should provide DNREC with information necessary 

for a BTA decision. 

Alternatively, the facility 

If the facility is out of 

The resultant 316!a) 

A 316(b) evaluation was apparently never submitted for this 

facility. Given that the existing entrainment and impingement information is outdated and may also be technically 

inadequate, new data are needed to document current entrainment and impingement impacts of this facility. However, the 

burden of proof that existing intake technology is not BTA 

is on the agency, which precludes requiring the facility to 

conduct new studies if a 316(a) Demonstration is not required. The appropriate way to proceed with this facility 

is for DNREC to document the current status of the ecosystem 

in the vicinity of the facility, and use that information to 

document the need for modifications of the intake structure. 

If the facility does not agree to the specified modifications, Star must collect new data and information to support 

its own contentions. 

review and evaluation for adequacy. 

Such studies will then be subject to 

A-68 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS( a 

Daily intake screen catch, Getty Oil Corporation, 1974-75. Data 

tables. 

* Delaware DNREC. 1977. Submission to Delaware DNREC: water 

quality standard thermal plume study, from Star Enterprise, 

28 June 1977. 

Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES Permit DE 00002Ei6 for Star 

Enterprise, Delaware City facility. State Permit Number 

wPCC 32563/74. Effective date: 31 January, 1989. 

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Texaco Refining and Marketing 

Inc., Delaware City facility. NPDES number DE 0000256. 

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1979. A study to quantify 

densities of ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton entrained 

in the cooling water intake canal at the Getty Delaware 

City, Delaware facility, September 1977-August 1978. 

Prepared for Getty Marketing & Refining Company. 

Number and weight of fishes and invertebrates impinged in 

24 hours on July 18 & 19, 1978, on the Getty intake screens. 

Data table compiled by the Fisheries Section, Division of 

Fish and Wildlife, Dover, Delaware. 

Soehlke, R.G. 1989. Letter (including a chronology of 

submissions for the Star Enterprise, Delaware City Plant) 

from R.G. Soehlke, Star Enterprise, to S.W. Cooksey, 

Delaware DNREC, 9 November, 1989. 

(a) Non site-specific citations are listed in the references for 

main body of the report. * Document unavailable for review. 

A-69 
APPENDIX B 

Legal Opinions on Delaware-specific 316 Issues 

B-1 
. WESTON. PATRICK. WILLARD & REDOING 

C3UNSELLORS AT UW 

8 0 S TO N. MAS SAC W US ETTS 0 7 10 9 

A C*OpCsSIONAL ASSOCIATION 

a4 ST4W STRFCT 

10171 742-9310 

TELICOCILR 16171 742.1734 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Versar, Inc. 

FROM: Edward F. Lawson & 

DATE : November 13, 1989 

SUWECT: Responses ta questions concerning cooling water intake 

'structures and theraal discharges 

Versar, Inc. has been retained by the State of Delaware to 

review a rimer of cooling water intake structures and Lleraal 

discharges, During the course of that work, a number of legal 

issues have arisen concerning the scope and applicability of 

section 316 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326. The purpose 

of this memorandum is to provide answers to those questions. 

The answer to this question is "no". Section 316(a) applies 

only when the owner or operator of a point source of thermal 

pollution seeks a varianca from effluent limitations. Unless a 

variance is sought, a 'section 316(a) demonstration study is 

unnecessary. 
2 

2. If a facilitv withdraws cbolino water but hgg 

DO mint sourceT thermal discharae. 1s 

mance with sect +ion 316(b) necsssarv? 

This question is difficult to answer because there is no 

precedent on point. In Fact, it is doubtful that in considering 

section 316 Congress envisioned a situation in which there would 

be an intake structure but no point source discharge. Although the 

issue is debatable, I recommend that the State of Delaware assume 

that section 316(b) is applicable in the absence of a point source 

discharge . The difficulty in answering the question arises because 

language of section 316(b): 

Any standard established pursuant to section 

301 or section 306 of this act BIIsj anucabh 

ta a mint sourca shall require that the 

location, design, construction, and capacity 

of cooling watar intake structures reflect the 

best tec.hnology available for minhizing 

adverse environmental impact . (Emphasis , added.) 

This language is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the 

of the 

phrase 

"applicable to a point source" is diracted at the develm of 

the standard for cooling water intake structures or the -cat ion 

'me facility upon which this question is based discharges its 

cooling water either to a municipal sewer: or to a "French drain". 

Under the Clean Water Act, such .discharges do not fall within Lle 

definition of "point sourcem. Section 502 (14), 33 U.S.C. § 

1362(14), defines "point source" to include any pipe, etc. Yrom 

Which pollutants ara or may be discharged." Section 502 (16) 

states that: "The tam 'discharge', when used without 

Section 502 (12) ,in turn, defines "discharge 02 a pollutant" to 

include "any addition of a pollutant to navigable waters from any 

point source. IS Because a municipal sewer and a French drain are 

not "navigable waters", discharges to such sewers and drains are 

not "point sources#. 

qualification, includes a discharge of a pollutant. . " . 
3 

of that standard to cooling water intake structures. That is, does 

the phrase aean that the intake structure standard shall be 

included with the standards governing point sources or does the 

phrase.mean t3at the intake structure standard is applicable only 

where a facility with an intake structure also has a paint source 

discharge? 

The argument that intake structures are regulated only when 

there is a point sourc8 discharge is supported by the EPA 

regulation iaplementing section 3 16 (b) . 40. CtF.R. 5 401.14 

provides as follows: 

The location, design, construction and capacity 

of cool inu water btak e structures of anv uoG 

source for which a standard is established 

pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the Act shall 

raf lect the best technology available for 

minimizing adverse environmental impact, in 

accordanca with the provisions of Part 4'02 of 

this chapter. (Emphasis added.) 

The highlighted language seems to indicate that there must be a 

connection between the intake structure and a point source in order 

for section 315(b) to be applicable. 

There is also language in the Decision of the [EPA] General 

Counsel No. 63 (July 29, 1977) (herainaftar referred to as 

"Decision No. 63") which supports L!is analysis. In addressing 

the question of.- whether an. effluent limitation for a themal 

discharge must be established before section 316 (b) is applicable, 

the General Counsel advised as follows: 

Penit conditions may be imposed under Section 

316(b) so long as there is a standard 

promulgated pursuant to Section 301 or 306 

which could be applied to the point SOUTCI 

disc5argar. 
4 

u. at 378. It should also be noted that this language indicates 

that section 316(b) conditions are to be imposed by means of a 

discharge penit. Such a permit is not required in the absence of 

a point source discharge. 

Notvithstanding these arguments, I believe that section 3 16 { b) 

should be read to apply to cooling water intake structures 

irrespective of the absenca of a point source discharge. This 

conclusion is based on several factors. 

First, as noted above, it is doubtful that Congress 

contemplated tle situation upon which the present question is based 

in considering section 316. Generally, facilities which withdraw 

cooling water have point source discharges. In addition, I 

question whetller the discharge of uncontaminated cooling water to 

municipal sewers is a camon ocr~rrenca as such discaarges would 

unnecessarily decrease the hydraulic capacity of municipal 

treatnent plantsO2 The hydraulic capacity of French drain systems 

would seem to be even nore limited. If the facts upon which this 

question is based are unique or unusual, then there is greater 

flexibility in intatprating section 316(b). 

2EPA's pretreatment standards for publicly owned treatinent 

plants preclude the introduction of any pollutant at a flow rate 

which would cause intsrfarancs with the treatment plant. 40 C.F.R.. 

§ 403=5(b)(4). Those regulations also prohibit discharges of heat 

in amounts which interzerta with biological activity at treatment 

plans or in quantities that cause the tempexatus at the treatinent 

plant to exceed 40'C (104' F). 40 C.F.R. Q 403.S(b) (5) . The latter 

requirement may be altered by the owner of the treataant plant. u. 
5 

Second, the legislative history to section 316 suggests that 

Congress intended section 316 (b) to be applied independently of 

section 316(a) .3 Section 316 first appeared in the House version 

of the legislation which became the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Action Amenments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) The original version 

regulated only thernal discharges. Section 316 (b) was added during 

Conference Committee deliberations and the record of the Senate 

consideration of the conference Committee Report on S. 2770 

includes the following: 

Section 316 (b) requires the location, design 

construction and capacity of cooling watar 

intake structures of steam-electric generating 

plants'" to reflect the best technology 

available for minimizing any adverse 

environmental impact. The reference hela to 

"best tsc.hnology available" is intended to be 

interpreted to mean the best technology 

available commercially at an economically 

practicable cost. 

A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 

Of 1972, January 1983, page 264. This language does not link the 

regulation of intake structures to point source discharges. 

Third, there is language in both EPA General Counsel Opinions 

and a federal court case indicating that the effects of cooling 

Water intake structures must be considered irrespective of them1 

discharges. T3e-folTowing language appears in Decision No. 63: 

'This does not mean that the impacts of intake structures do 

not have to be considerad in evaluating altarnative ef f bent 

limitations under section 316(a). 

he application of section 31B(b) is not limitad to stmelectric generating plants. ted S.es Steel Comoratlou v. 

Train, 556 F.td 822, 849 (7th Cir. 1977). 
6 

The questions presented again ask whether 

actions under Section 316 (b) are dependent 

upon I and basically subserJient to, 

determinations regarding thersal effluent 

lizitations under Sections 301 and 316(a). 

Section 316(b) is independent of thersal 

effluent limitations established pursuant to 

Section 301, 304, 306 or 316(a). 

Thermal effluent limitations imposedpursuant 

to Section 301 or 306 and modified pursuant to 

Section 316(a) address the problem of the 

discharge of large volumes of heated water into 

the aquatic ecosystems. Section 316 (b) 

addresses the problem of the withdrawal of 

large amounts of water from the aquatic 

ecosystem. 

Recsgnizing this situation, Congress required 

€PA to establish theraal effluent limitations 

to prevent damage associated with the discharge 

of heated water and required EPA to establish 

regulations under Section 316 (b) to minimize 

adverse environmental impact associated with 

the withdrawal of watar for cooling puqoses. 

such. it would be cont- ram 0 Conuressiw 

tent. the Q vera11 obi ‘ectives of the FwPa 

and common s ense to restrict the auolication 

of solutions to the ~roblms associated wit& 

the wit= a W a1 of water to the solutioag 

qggl-ed +t o Dravant -acres from -e d ischaras 

of heated water, (Emphasis added.) 

**+ 

Decision No. 63 at 381-382. Similarly, the following language 

appears 

u. at 

in Decision No. 41 (June 1, 1976): 

As discussed in terms of Issue I, §316(b) and 

theraal effluent limitation standards require 

independent determinations. Section 316 (b) is 

ccncarned with the adverse environmental impact 

of L9e witndrawal of cooling water rather than 

the discharue OF heated water. The §316(b) 

standard is -whether the cooling water intake 

structure raf lects LIe best technology 

available for minimizing adverse environmental 

impact rather Llan whether the discharge 

exceeds a theraal limitation or whether the 

dischrge interferes with the prcgagation of 

balanced indigenous population of shellfish, 

fish, and wildlife. (E=aphasis original). 

201-202. 
7 

The discussion of section 316(b) in Virainia Ele ctric b Powex 

Co, v. Cos-, 566 F. 2d 446 (4th Cir. 1977), is also helpful. 

That case holds that the standards applicable to intake structures 

are not "effluent limitationsn : 

NO contention is raised that the 5 316(b) 

regulations are themselves effluent 

limitations. It is obvious that they are not, 

for the statute defines "effluent limitation#* 

as "any restriction established by a State or 

the Administrator on quantities, ratas, and 

concentrations of chemical, physical, 

biological, and other constituents which are 

discharged from point sources into navigable 

waters, . . ." § 502(11). The regulations 

involved here are cancaned with structures 

used to withdraw water for coaling purposes, 

not with discharges of pollutants into the 

water. 

at 449, footnote deleted. It should be noted, however, that 

neither the EPA Decisions nor the Court were concerned with the 

issue being addressed here. Moreover, there is language in 

Virus Elec, +yic & Power Co. which cuts the other way: 

In contrast, the section 316(b) regulations 

hers do refer to infomation that must be 

considered in detamining the type of intako 

structure -at individual point sources may 

employ. , . , 

;EB. at 450. 

The final argument in favor of applying section 316(b) to 

intake stnrrcturgnr irrespective of the existence of a point source 

discharge is camon sense, In enacting section 316(b) I Congress 

plainly intended to address the adverse impacts associatetd with 

entrainment in addition to the effects of therrnal discharges. 

mera is no evidence that Congress intended that the effect of 
8 

cooling water intake structures be ignored simply because thema1 

pollution is not a problem. The fact that section 316(b.) applies 

to intake st,uctures at facilities where themal discharges either 

meet effluent limitations for heat or alterative limitations 

established pursuant to section 316(a), indicates that section 

316(b) should also apply in the absence of thema1 pollution. 

For these reasons, I recommend that Delaware apply section 

316(b) to facilities which have cooling water intakes but no point 

source discharges. 

separately. For purposes of simplicity the answer will be based 

upon the following .fact pattern: Facility A discharges its own 

thermal and non-thermal pollution as well as thermal pollution from 

Facility B and non-thermal pollution from Fadlie. C. 

a. 

the entire thermal component of the discharge from Facility A, 

including tfrra theraal pollution whicil Facility A accepts from 

Facility 8. mat is, the owner of Facility A must either comply 

with applicable eZZluent limitations or satisfy section 316 (a) both 

with respect to its own thermal discharge and the thennal effluent 

it has agreed to accept from Facility B. 

The basis For this conclusion is the plain language of section 

316(a) which puts the burden upon "the owner or operatora of the 
9 

point source. 

by Facility A. 

In this case, the point sourc8 is owned and operated 

b. es ertion 31 Bfa) d emonstratioq. The section 

316(a) demonstration program for Facility A must take into account 

all stresses on the aquatic environmmt, including the effects of 

non-thermal pollution and intake structures at Facility A and 

elsewhere. Guidance on this issue is provided both by EPA's 

section 316(a) regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 125, Subpart H, and by 

a number of judicial and administrative decisions applying section 

316. 

40 C.F.R. g 125.73(a) sets forth the section 316(a) standard, 

stating that alternative thermal effluent limitations may be 

established by a demonstration that the alternative limitations 

assure the protection of a balanced, indigenous population. The 

regulation then states as follows: 

This demonstration must show that the 

alternative effluent limitation desired by the ive bacr c 

e tcaeaer with alL discharger, -a the wt 

ths protection and 

propagation of a balanced, indigenous community 

of shellfish, fish and wildlifa in and on the 

body of wstisr into which the discharge is to 

be made. (Emphasis added). 

This languaqa statas very clearly that section 316(a) studies nu5t 

account for other factors affecting the balanced, indigenous 

population. Effluents from non-therxual discharges clearly affect 

the balanca, indigenous population and, therefore, nust be taken 

into account. 
10 

In addition, 5 125-73(~) (1) allows existing discharges of 

themal pollution to base their section 316(a) demonstrations upon 

(*the absence of prior appreciable hamn. Section 125.73 (c) (1) (i) 

requires the absence of appreciable ham to be shown 

[Tlaking into account the interaction of such 

thermal component with other pollutants and the 

additive effect of other thermal sources to a 

balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, 

fish and wildlife in and on the body of water 

into which the discharge has been made... 

This provision requires that a Section 316 (a) demonstration 

consider both the cumulative effects of heat and the synergistic 

effects of heat and otber pollutants. 

The question of whether the impact of cooling water intakes 

must be considered under section 316(a) was addressed in Decision 

No. 

ra, 

63 

at 

as follows: 

[Ulnder Section 316(a) the peru inpact of 

the less stringent thermal limitation must be 

considered. For exanple, a less stringent 

limitation might lead to the withdrawal of a 

greater volume of cooling water and greater 

circumstances should be taken into account in 

making dataminations under Section 316(a). 

(Emphasis orzgiaal.) 

mortality of entrained organisms. such 

382. 

Similarly, in -e ~attsr of Public Sertica Co-v of MW 

10, 1977)', the Administrator of EPA ruled that impacts on 

populations caused by cooling water intake structures must k 

- his decision v* 

reasons unrelated to 

- wa subsequently reversed in wt Anti 

Gas-, 572 F.2d 872 (1st Cir. 1978), for 

tne questions of cumulative impacts. 
considered under § 316(a) : 

Id. 

The effect of the discharge nust be determined 

not by cansidering its impact on some 

hypothetical unstressed environment, but by 

considering its impact on the environment into 

which the discharge Will be mad8; this 

environmental will necessarily be impacted by. 

the intake. 

at 13. 

Although the Seabroo& decision considers only the cumulative 

impacts of cooling watsr intake structures, other decisions have 

stated the need to consider cumulative impacts. generally. In a 

decision under S 316(a) on the Pilgrim Power Plant in Plymoutl9, 

Massachusetts captioned "Determination Regarding Issuance of 

Proposed NPDES Permit NO. MA 0025335" (March 11, 1977), the EPA 

Regional Administrator stated that "[t]h8 thermal effects upon the 

RIS from Units 1 and/or II must be considered in light of other 

stresses on or expected on these species." u. at 2~.~ Similarly, 

a letter dated February 26, 1986, in which EPA made its 5 316(a) 

determination of the Cayuga and Wabash Generating Stations operated 

by-the Public Serrica Company of Indiana, noted that "20 miles of 

the 100 miles used in thr analysis is also effected [sic] by the 

municipal-industtial complex in the Terre Haute area." 

These daczsions further establish thr necessity of considering 

the impact of them1 discharges in the context of other factors 

affecting fisheries populations. 

%e Detsmfnation, with one minor exception, vas adopted in 

3;n, the Watt= of Bogton Edfson Companv, Pm Nuclear S tation 

ts 1 and 2, Initial Decision (July 26, 1978). 
.I 

12 

C. The intake strxb C’jreg Under the facts described 

above, section 316(b) clearly applies to Facility A because it has 

both an intake structure and a point source discharge Under the 

analysis set forth above in response to Question 2, the intake 

structure for Facility B should also be regulated under section 

316(b) even though Facility B does not have a point source 

discharge. 

ware ha ve a watq 

tern. and if so. what 

4. Does the State of Dela 

withdra Wal D eat svs 

auencv/divisign is rtsggOnS&le for rtg mlementat ionj, 

The State of Delaware does have a water withdrawal permit system 

which is administered by the Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (the Department). This agency has the power 

to adopt, enforce, amend or repeal rules and regulations to 

control, conserve and manage the waters of the Stata. 

The regulations require watar allocation pennits for all water 

withdrawals greater than 50,000 gallons in any 24 hour period. 

Application for a pennit must be made to the Depamemt, which will 

process it in accordanca with 7 Da1. C. 5 6004 and make a decision. 

All applicants must drmon8trata in writing the existence of a water 

conservation proqramr suitable to their particular use. This 

program should include monitoring and evaluation of usage, a leak 

detection and control program, use of beat practicable methods to 

cansene water, providing employees and customers with information 

about the need to conserve water, evaluation of the potential to 

use less than potable water, and establisfimant of pricing 
13 

schedules, 

Generally, petlnits Will be granted for thirty years and all 

will be subject to review every five years. The pennits are 

renewable when they expire and will be renewed with the sane 

conditions and limitations if the use remains reasonable. Upon 

approval by the Departsent, permits may be modified or transferred. 

A permit will specify an expiration date and a maximum withdrawal 

rate in terns of days, months and years. It will require the 

applicant to meter water withdrawals and file water use reports at 

least once a year to the Department. Under the pennit, all wells 

must be equipped wit3 Water level recording mechanisms. The 

Department may also impose other conditions as deemed appropriate. 

Rept8SentatiVeS of the Departtent , the Delaware Geological 

Surrey and the United States Geological Survey are allowed, under 

each permit, to enter the facilities or property to obserre and 

measure water withdrawal. A permit may also include a list of 

other agencies that may require additional approval such as the 

Division of Public Health, the Public Service Commission, and the 

Delaware River Basin. 

The ragulationr vhich govern the allocation of water require 

the Secretary to tak. into account the effects of water withdrawal 

on fish and other aquatic lifa. Section 3.03, which sets surface 

water withdrawal limits, specifies that w[w]ithdrawals from surface 

waters shall be Ihited to those rates which: , , b) maintain 

adopted water quality standards: c) protect valuable fish and 

wildlife; . . . and F) provide other ecological, recreational, 
' 

14 

aesthetic, and private benefits which are dependent upon surf ace 

water flows.w The Water Quality Standards establish that fish, 

aquatic life, and wildlife are designated uses to be protected in 

every body of water under Delaware jurisdiction. a Section 8 of 

the State of Delaware Water Quality Standards for Streams. 

Therefore, in order to maintain adopted water quality standards, 

the Secretary must consider the entrainment effects of water 

withdrawal. 

Delaware statutes and case law also make- clear that it is 

proper for the Secretary to consider entrainment impacts when 

deciding whetfier to grant an allocation permit. The policy of the 

State, as set out in the Water and Resourcas Chapter of the 

Conservation Act is to control the use of water "so as to 

effectuate full utilization, conservation, and protection of the 

water and air resuuces of the Stat8. 7 Del. C. 5 6001(b) (2). An 

express purpose of that chapter is to. provide a wprogram for the 

protection and conservation of the land, water, Udem~ater, and air 

resources. . . for the conservation of wildliffe and aquatic 

life." 7 Del. C, 8 6001 (c)(3). Furthennore, the statute "shall 

be liberally crxmtrued in order to preserve the land, air and water 

resources of the State." 7 Del. C. 5 6020. Lastly, case law has 

established mt "excapt where a particular course of action is 

clearly mandatsd, the Stat8 may exercise discretion in following 

the pracadures available to it. Protactfon of the environment is 

the paramount consideration." Stats v. Gattv Oil wanv (Eas tern 

Ouerationsl, Tnc., 305 A.2d, 327, 329 (Del. Super. 1973) . 
Conclusioq 

Based upon the analysis set fo-3 above, my advice is as 

follows: 

1. A section 316(a) demonstration is necessary only if a 

variance from effluent limitations is sought. 

2. The best technology available standard in section 316(b) 

should be applied to intake structures irrespective of the presence 

of a point source discharge. 

3. Section 316(a) requires the owner/operator of a point 

source to assume responsibility for all thermal discharges 

including heat discharged by another facility to the 

owner/operator's facility. 

4. A section 316(a) demonstration must account for all 

stresses OR the aquatic environment including thermal pollution, 

non-thermal pollution and the effects of intake structures. 

5. The State of Delaware regulates the withdrawal of water 

and has the authority to regulate the impact of withdrawal on 

fishery resourc8s. 

N1392 

L.