e

EVALUATION OF THE SECTION 316 STATUS
OF DELAWARE FACILITIESWITH
COOLINGWATER 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 1990FOREWORD

Facil PrePa W.A. John Divis Resou orderThis document, "Evaluationof Section 316 Status of Delaware ,itieswith Cooling Water Discharges: ,redby Versar, Inc., ESM Operations (contributingauthors: Richkus, C.F. Stroup, J.M. Dietz) under the direction of Mr. Davis, ProjectManager, Water Quality Management Branch, ion of Water Resources, Delaware Department of Natural rces and Environmental Control (DNREC). Final Report" was

The DNREC purchase for thiswork is 366082.



# .

iiiTABLE 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

VI. INTRODUCTION

Section 316 of the Federal Water PollutionControlAct and amendments, referred to as the CleanWater Act, requires that the intake and discharge effects of cooling water withdrawal systems be evaluated for their effect 

### on balanced indigenouspopulations of aquatic organisms. It further requires installation

### of Best Technology Available to minimize entrainment/impingement impacts. Twelve facilities that are'subjectto Section 316 have thus far been permitted by the state of Delaware.

Section 316 is implementedas part 

### of the NPDES permitting process. ~t requires that the owner/operator 

### of a facility supply all 

### of the data necessary for the regulatoryagency to make a reasoned evaluation as to the effects of the coolingwater systems

### on aquatic life. regulations,the regulatory agencymay then grant the facilitya variance from relevant water quality standardsbased 

### upon a showing 

### of minimal harm. The original 316 applications 

### in Delaware, from those few facilitiesthat 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 receivingwater quality (particularly

### in the DelawareRiver) have occurred since the 

### 1970s as is evidenced 

### by changes in the abundanceand distribution 

### of potentially impactedaquatic organisms. Ecological characterizationsbased upon studies conducted 

### 15years 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 cannotmeet thermal

For all 

### of these reasons, the Delaware Departmentof 

### 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 informationnecessary to carry out 316 reviews, to enable DNREC to identify and acquire that informationand 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 thatwhich is rele1-1for assessing impacts and the current statusof ecosystems

0 Develop detailed status reports documenting findingsof 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 SeafordNylon Plant; General Chemical corporation; Hercules Research Center;

### rcI Americas, Inc.; NVF Newark Plant and Yorklyn Plant; and Star Enterprise1

0 Prepare a summarydiscussion 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, identifyingdata gaps and information needs and suggestingactionswhich 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, incorporatingmaterial and findingspresented in all previousprogress reports. Detailed status reports for each facilityare included in-AppendixA. In each 

### of the facility reports, specific recommendations are presented with regard to informationneeds and 316 review requirements. Chapter

### Ir presents a summaryand evaluation 

### of 316 Evaluation Criteria,and Appendix B presents additional legal opinions fromVersar'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 requirementsand Chapter IVpresents conclusionsand recommendations with regard to Delaware's permit complianceand review procedures.

I-211. 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 acceptableharm, environmental factors to be considered, and cost-benefit considerationsunder 5 316(a)and 5 316(b) 

### of CWA. Inconsistenciesbetween the various 

### legal decisions which 

### may serve 

### as precedents 

### are also discussed as are general principles 

### of administrative lawwhen such principles are relevant and assist in the resolution 

### of conflictsamong the decisions 

### re-. viewed. Discussions pertaining to 

### S 316(a)and S 316(b) are presented separately

### and the interrelationshipsbetween 5 326(a) and 5 316(b) are discussed at the end of the chapter.

A. SECTION 316(a)

Section 316(a) 

### of the CleanWater 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 limitationproposed for the control 

### of the thermal component 

### of any discharge from such 

### source will require effluent limitationsmore 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 limitationunder such sections 

### €or suchplant,with respect to the thermal component 

### of such discharge (takinginto account the interaction

### of such thermal component with other pollutants), that

### will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenouspopulation 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

11-1lieswith the applicant (i.e., the owner/operator 

### of the facility). First, the language 

### of S 316(a) requires the owner 

### or operator to "demonstrate tothe satisfaction 

### of the Administrator (or,if appropriate, the State)" that thermal limitationsare overly stringent. Second, the federalAdministrativeProcedure Act (APA) provides that 

### in federal rule-making and adjudicatory proceedings "theproponent 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)decisionspreviously 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 involvesdetermination

### of how much evidence is required to supportan administrativedecision. The federalAPA 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" (5U.S.C. 

### 5 556(d)]. The APA 

### also provides that 

### in reviewing

### an administrative action, federal courts shalldeterminewhether the action 

### is "supported by substantial evidence" [SU.S.C. 

### 5 706(2)(E11. Court cases define "substantialevidence " as thatwhich a reasonablemind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion.
In theAnclote Plant decision, the 5 316(a) variancewas denied in Part because 

### of the utility's failure to Drovide "completeand scientifically reliabl; data.

### " Electric v. Costle, the courtheld that the agency must provide 

### "somebasis" for appellate review. 

### In In Re 

### Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, theAdministratorheld that the applicant must Provide sufficient evidence for a "reasoneddecision." It InViiginia

has ais0 been 

### held that the applicantmust 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 informationmade available should be presented in 

### an interpretable, comprehensive,narrative summary. In theWabash River and Cayuga Generatina Stations decision theAdministrator required evaluation of worst case conditions

### as a part of the measures of variation. Summary Statement: Applicantsmust supply the best information reasonably available that allows a regulator to reach a reasoneddecision. This information should allow the determiSI-2nation 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 demonstratingno 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 IndianRiver Plant and CaDe Canaveral Plant decisions, EPA found that adverse impactswere "significant"but that the balanced indigenouspopulation was not "endangered." This conclusion seems inconsistentwith the requirement to "assure the protection" of balanced, indigenous populations. Other decisions have applied more stringentdefinitions 

### of "appreciable harm." The Wabash River and Cayuqa Generating Stations decision found a "minimalreduction"

### in populations to be acceptablebut 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 environmentwarranted a reduction in intake flows. In all cases evaluations 

### of appreciableharm have been made 

### by considering the long-term consequences

### of the impacts identified. Summary Statement: Some impact is acceptableunder 5 316(a);however, that impact should not result in appreciable harm to biota characteristicof the receivingwater body over the long term.

Environmental Factors to be Considered

An applicantmay satisfy 5 316(a)by: (1)showing the absence of prior appreciableharm; (2) showing that representative important species (RIS)are protected: or (3)submitting

11-3other biological and engineering.data. Thus, there is more than one way to demonsttate compliancewith 

### 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 coolingwater

0 The degree of certainty as to the nature and magnitude of impacts including reasonable measures of variation.
The Brunswick Steam Plant decisionheld that 

### 5 316(a) requires considerationof a11adversely affected fish populations 

### and any elementsof the aquatic ecosystem necessary to support a balanced population. However, in In Re Public Service Co. of New Hamushire the Administrator held that itmay 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 tomake 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

11-4may themselvesbe 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 theWabash River and Cayuga Generating Stationsdecision theAdministrator required consideration of "worst case" conditions. The capacity of receivingwaters to assimilatepollution may be considered under 5 316(a) (seeWeyerhaeuser v. Costle). This reflects the tolerance of 5 316(a)to allow adverse impacts which do not interferewith balanced, indigenouspopulations. 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 representativeof 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 consistentwith theWabash River and Cayuga Generating Stations decisionwhich holds that consideration of economic factors ___--_ is appropriate only in establishing "original thermal limitations" and not 

### in determiningwhether 

### 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."

11-5Burden 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-isa-reasonablebasis 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 applicantmust show that the regulator's position 

### is not a "reasoneddecision." 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 ismore appropriate for minimizing environmental impact.

Standard of Proof

The Office 

### of General Counsel Opinion #63, states that EPA must provide "clearwritten notice of the factualand legal determinations" which provide the basis for dischargepermit conditions. The dischargepermit conditionsmust 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-6Degree of Acceptable Harm

Section 316(b)requires the use of the "best technology available" for "minimizingadverse" 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 achievedby means other than alterations to intake structures. Changes 

### in operational modes were required for theAnclote 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 SettlementAgreement. 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, notmandates:

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 thatmight be required to accommodate a reduction in intake capacity 0 General environmental effects 

### of cooling 

### towers

0 Effectsof 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 locationwith respect to spatial and temporal distribution of aquatic species

0 Location 

### of spawningareas 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 andmagnitude of measured or predicted impacts

0 Dams and 

### pools associatedwith intake structures.
It should be noted that because S 316(b) uses the term “coolingwater intake structure”,it does 

### not authorize the imposition 

### of a specific closed-cycle technology, such as cooling towers. However, S 316(b)authorizes limitationson the withdrawal 

### of coolingwater, the practical effect of which may be to require 

### a closed-cycle system. Section 316(b)determinations are not dependent upon thermal limitations imposedunder 5 301 or S 316(a). An operatormay 

### 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 structuresare minimized.

CostlBenefit Considerations

The decision in In Re Public ServiceCo. of New Hampshire states that “best technology available”means “best technology commercially available at an economicallypracticablecost.“ 

### 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

11-8cost to consumers was not an “impracticableor 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) technologywhich may be required is not limited to the dollar value of environmental benefitswhich 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 compliancedetermination 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 effectsmust be considered as a part 

### of this compliance determination. Section 316(b) 

### of CWA requires that entrainmentand 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 environmentalbenefits. The intake technology required under S 316(b) 

### is the available technology that reduces plant impacts to the greatestpossible degreewhere cost is

### notwholly disproportionate to ecological. benefit. Since the cooling water intake structure and capacitymay 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.

11-9D. 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 forDelaware‘s thermal discharges. The review has also identified principles of administrative lawwhich guide the decision-making process. 

### of all these criteria, the singlemost 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.

11-10111. GENERAL S 316 EVALUATION REQUSREHENTS

A. MODES OF IMPACT

The magnitude of impact of power plants (orother facilities that withdraw water for cooling purposes) on aquatic biota is influenced by plant engineeringdesign and operating practices (e.g., the location, design, construction, and capacity of intake structures and intakewater 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 (Clarkand Brownwell 1973; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976, 1977a, 1977b; Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1986). Figure 111-1 is a schematic representationof cooling water 

### flow through 

### a generic generating facility showingmajor 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 (Clarkand Brownwell 1973). Impingement often causes immediate mortality by abrasion 

### or by restricting movement of oxygen-bearing water across gills (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 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 (AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers 1982). Impingement is of major concernwhen lasses to juveniles of commercially or recreationally important species are large relative to the stock size of these biota in the receiving water body (Hansonet al. 1977, Barnthouse and VanWinkle 1983.

111-1Figure 111-1. Path of water flow through a power plant using once-through cooling and locationsof 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 curtainwall (not present at all plants). Organisms,mainly fish and crabs, too large to pass throuqh intake screensmay become trappe'don them (i.e., are impinged). Intake screens are periodically rotated to wash off imuinqed organisms and either return them to the receiving water (predominantlyvia the discharge canal)or remove them from site. 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 organismsare also exposed to lethal levels of chlorine and its residuals durinq warm months. Larqe organisms (fishand crabs)may alsobe entrained into unscraened augmentationpumps, which are present at some power plants. During auxiliarypump entrainment, fishand crabs experience mechanical damage from contact with internal pump Structures. Organisms surviving entrainment and impingement (ifa fish return system is present) are exposed to continued excess temperaturesand possibly to chlorine residualsdurinq transit down the discharge conduit or canal enrouteback to the receivingbody. Organisms in the receivingwater may be exposed to elevated temperaturesand potentially stressful chemical substances in the discharge plume. Currents associatedwith the discharge plume may causehabitat modifications through bottom scouring and changes in circulation patterns.
111-24 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 (Hansonet al. 1977). Since screens are used to prevent entrainment of larger biota, entrainment is of principal concernwhen 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 (Boremanet 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 plantswith 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 themagnitude of the temperature increase comparedwith ambient water temperatureand 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 concernwhen biota attracted to thermal effluentsduring the winter are suddenly exposed to cold temperaturesduring plant shutdowns (Hansonet 

### 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 (Capuzzo1979). 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 (Coutantand Talmadge 1977).

Site Characteristics

The physical, chemical,and biological characteristicsof 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 IMPACTASSESSMENT

The modes 

### of impact described above are generic to most facilities utilizing surface waters for coolingpurposes. 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 facilitywill always 

### be, to a large extent, site specific. However, it is possible 

### to identifykey elements 

### of studies that are necessary to address eachmode 

### of impact. Site-specific tailoring of studiesgenerally 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 assessedwith regard to the general study guidelines presented here.
In general, 

### 316 evaluations require that the 

### loss of organisms caused by plant operationsbe 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 populationbeing lost to plant operations include: population; impingement; entrainment; and,discharge.

0 Pouulation


# -- Population studies should be comprehensive, and cover all important ecosystem elements,with particular emphasis

### on commercialand recreationallyimportant species, speciesof special concern (e.g., threatened,endangered), 

### and species likely to be exposed to the greatestdegree of impact.

111-40 

# -- Studies should employ state-of-the-art sampling gear,deuloyed in a standard and technically acceptabiemanner. 

# -- Spatial distribution of sampling should be sufficient to ensure that elements of the population outside the area ofpotential impact are being sampled, and to the extentpossible, the entire affected population. reference locations are to be compared as a means 

### of evaluating impact, sampling stations shouldbe 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 impactedand



# -- Temporal distribution of sampling shouldbe sufficient to document seasonal change 

### in distribution and occurrence so as to completely document an annual cycle 

### of exposure to impact; sampling intensity shouldbe higher during the portions 

### of the year when most sensitive life stages are present or when the greatestdegree 

### 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 onmigratory anadromous fish). Imoingement Sampling shouldbe conducted throughout the year, in order to characterize seasonalvariations 

### 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'onwater withdrawal rates, 

### in order to establish impingement rates as a function

### of water withdrawal with acceptable statistical reliability. Sampling design should reflect normalplant operational procedures, so that estimates accurately reflect total impingement. Impingement mortality studies should documentbath short-term and long-term mortality;mortality factors applied to measured impingement rates should reflect those mortalities incurredunder 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 consistentwith 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., verticalmigration,day/night net avoidance behavior) of the organismsbeing sampled.


# -- Deployment 

### of sampling gear in intake and discharge flows should

### be such that sampling efficiency 

### is either comparable or can 

### be normalized toa standard 

### €or both locations.


# -- Vertical and horizontal distributionof sampling locations shouldbe such that the entire intake and/or discharge flow is adequately represented in the estimates 

### of total entrainmentderived from the samples.


# -- Sampling gear and laboratoryprocessingmethods should be state-of-the art,with appropriate quality control on quantitativeand taxonomic data


# -- Entrainmentmortality studies shoulddocument 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 todocument temperature increases over ambient inboth horizontal and vertical dimensions (i.e., a three-dimensional plume); this information is necessary to 

### assess compliancewith Delaware‘s nev thermalmixing zone requirements.


# -- Sampling should 

### be done at all tidal stages, for those facilities in tidalwaters.


# -- Studies shouldbe done during all seasons,with particular emphasis on the summerperiod when thermal impactsmight be expected to be greatest.

111-6

# -- Studies shouldbe donewhen the facility is at 

### full permitted 

### level of operations; studiesconducted at partial operation shouldnot be used to assess compliance with water quality regulations.



# -- Xodels or statisticalprocedures applied to predict thermal plumes should be state-of-the-art.

0 Discharge Impacts (Thermaland Non-thermal) 

### All available literature informationshould be used to establish those ecosystems componentsmost 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. INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS FOR STATE S 316 EVALUATIONS

Detailed reviews of utility 

### 316 Demonstrationsgenerally require specialized technical capabilitiesand oftenentail extensive amounts of technical effort. In situations

### where potential or actual environmental impacts are large 

### and/or where public concern is high, the manpower requirementsfor conducting the review and then supporting administrative hearings

### or litigation 

### in state or federal court are often large.
Because most stateshave assumed responsibility for the administration 

### of the NPDES permit program within their jurisdiction, the burden of 316 evaluationshas fallen

### on the state agencies. 

### Severaldifferentprocedures have been followed 

### by states 

### in order to meet their permitting needs.
In the StateofMaryland,a major controversyover the construction of a large nuclear power plant (Calvert Cliffs) 

### on themainstem of the Chesapeake Bay resulted in tho 1972passage 

### of legislation creating the Power Plant Siting Programwithin 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 constructionand operation 

### of such facilities

### would not have significant impact on human health and the natural resources

### of the state. Theprogram

III-7was specifically designed not to generate a new state bureaucracy. A small administrative Staffwas establishedwithin Maryland DNR, 

### and allmajor program work was contractedout to topical "program integrator" contractors.
At the present time, program integratorsare funded covering biology (terrestrialand aquatic),atmospheric sciences, solid waste and engineering, and economics. Contracts are awarded through competitive bid for 5 year terms. Statementsof work are revised each year,with from 20 to 30 differentprojects being conductedduring 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 forbiology, atmospheric sciences and engineering. Lesser amounts

### are used to cover economics and 

### to cover specific additional contractneeds. Integrators generally contribute to the selectionand 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 electricbills. 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 regulatoryauthority in the State 

### of Maryland. The Maryland Department of the Environment (NDE) is the agency which issuespermits. Formal inter-departzcntal agreements exist which identifyMDNR 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 expertisewhich 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 establishedwhat appears to be a unique means-of meeting the needs for special expertise and extensive manpower to conductdetailed reviews 

### of 316 Demonstrations produced by utilities. New Jersey's 

### program arose as a result of enabling legislationwhich was 

### necessary for the state to assume responsibilityfor 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. Themajor utilities in the state were the first permittees to challengethis legislation in court. The suit was ultimately settled out of court, with the stipulation that the utilitieswould provide funds to the state for contractorswho would assume the task 

### of reviewing permit applications, including those for variances. This stipulationprovided for the consultant’swork 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 Killand 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, fromvirtually no review to,more generally, a limited review by a single individualassigned 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 agencieswithin 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 controversiesover power plant impacts have not been as prevalent in recant years as theywere during the 1970s. 

### This lack 

### of controversyhas undoubtedly contributed to the 

### loss of special power plant impact expertise 

### in most 

### of the state as well as the federalagencies. 

### 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 reviewsnationwide. That team was disbanded before 1980,and USFWS retains no special structure to address power plant issues. The Environmental Protection Agency has a singleNational Expert 

### on steam electric power plants (CharlesKaplan,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-9model for the state to followwould 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 expertisewhich 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 staffwould 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. .TheNew 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.

111-10IV. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific conclusions and recommendations for each of the 

### 12 facilities reviewed are included in the individual facility status reportspresented 

### inAppendix 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 facilitieswhere compliance was assessed, the assessmentwas done under old water quality criteriawhich have been recentlymodified and adopted (February 1990). The "reopener clause" included in all

### of the current facilitypermits allowspermits to be opened and modified, under SectionB

# -- Responsibility, S.b(3)(a), if there has been a revision of the statewater quality standards. It appears that sinceDNREC 

### has modified the thermal mixing zone criteria, and since all 

### of the facilities have permit temperature limits greater than the maximum temperature allowed by statewater quality standards,a compliance evaluation of each facilitywith,athermal discharge relative to the newmixing 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 authorizeddischarge" as a basis for permit modification. 

### appear to be a basis for permit modification for those facilities discharging into thatwater body under this part 

### of the "reopen8r clause.

### " Improvement in the DelawareRiver ecosystem

### would

One additional legal questionwhich arose during this project had to dowith which facility had responsibility

### for addressing 316(a) issues 

### in the case of Star Enterprise's plant, which discharges its own effluent aswell as those 

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

IV-1I WLLI~ 

## w Lu

I 

# 1 I



# ul LUW~ 

## w

CI 

## c



## r
m I I 1 I

IV-2

### in Appendix B, Star has responsibility for assessing impact. In addition, that assessment should include considerationof the impacts from the intakes of the other facilitiescontributing to Star's discharge.

316(b) Status
Compliance with S 316(b) is necessary for any facilitywhich withdraws water for cooling purposes (See response to Question 2 inAppendix B), regardless of whether the facilityhas 

### 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) evaluationduring 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 intakeswere Best TechnologyAvailable 

### (BTA). For the other nine facilities, no information appears tohave been collected to assess the potential impacts resulting from water withdrawal or to determinewhether existing intakes represent BTA. Besides the standard "reopener clause"discussed above 

### in reference to 5316(a) issues,nine of the twelve facilitieshave provisions for opening and changing a permit with regards to 316(b) issues under the Special Conditions sectionof the permit. All 

### of these "reopener clauses" are similar in that they stipulate that the state

### may 

### perform analysesor biosurvcys of the receivingwaters and based on the results 

### of those studies, reopen and modify the permit during its term. The Special Conditions sectiondiffers between the permitswith 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 receivingwaters' designatedprotected uses... or 

### poses 

### an unacceptable threat to human health." For DPcL's DCTP and EMPP, entrainment, impingement,and thermal impactsare specificallymentioned as being included 

### in possible analyses or biosurveys. At NVF Yorklyn and Star Enterprise,the results 

### of the state's analysesor biosurveysmust show that the water quality in the receivingwaters "isharmful to indigenous fish and aquatic life" ta allow reopening of the permit under the Special Conditions section. No "reopenerclause" existswithin the Special Conditions sectionof 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-3based 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 facilitiesan opportunity to perform new, current sudieswhich 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 choosesnot 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 reasonablebasis that existing intake technologiesare not minimizing adverse environmental impact,DNREC could take a protective position and require stringentBTA (i.e., cooling towers,as NJDEP has done). This position 

### by the state then shifts the burden ofproof 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, itwould appear that a facility may have 

### no obligation to provide the state with impingementor entrainment dataunless 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 

### inAppendix 8). Thermal Discharge



### All of the 

### 12 facilitiesaddressed in this project were selectedby DNREC for reviewbecause they use surfacewaters 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 IndianRiver and Edge Hoor power plants and du Pont's Seafordplant)have conducted thermal studies 

### in the 1970swhich'appear to be technically adequate. Results 

### of these studies appearuseful to evaluate the status of complianceof these facilities with new thermal mixing 

### zone regulations. However, the qualifier "appear" is 

### used here because the conclusion on adequacywas based on 

### a general assessment of the scope 

### of the work done and not 

### on a detailed, analytical reviewof the modeling and statisticalwork performed. Such detailed assessmentswere beyond the scope 

### of this project. The permits for both of the power plants require that additional thermal studiesbe conducted by DP&L (discharge canal temperature monitoring at IRPP and a thermalplume field

IV-4survey

### at EMP?). These studieswere scheduled to commence 

### early 

### in 1989 and data may 

### now be available to contribute tothermal compliancedeterminations under the recently adoptedwater quality standards. Given the ecological importance of the NanticokeRiver and the large amount of water used 

### by the Seaford facility relative to the amount of river flowpast the plant, compliance with thermal mixing zone requirements should be reassessed. If du Pont cannot demonstrate compliancewith 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 thermalplume study in 1977. However, the study reportwas 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 allof the facilities, the permit temperature limit for the cooling water discharge exceeds themaximum discharge temperature allowed under state regulation (86OF). This suggests that 

### a thermalmixing zonemust have been defined for the facility and that compliancewith that mixing zone should be assessed.
Two facilitiesappear to not be subject to thermal discharge regulations: DP&LfsDelaware 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 receivingwater body.

Recommendations

1. As newwater quality standardshave been adopted (February1990)’with modifications to therinal regulations, the permits of the ten facilities to which the regulations agply should be reopened and thermal 

### compliance assessed; currentdischarge monitoring or thermal plume data should be required by the permittees and reviewed, and appropriate characteristics

### of the receivingwater body necessary to assess compliance with new thermalmixing zone regulations (e.g., width, net flow,cross-sectional area) should be documented to permit the complianceassessment.

IV-52. For those facilities found to be in compliance,a formal finding shouldbe documented in DNREC files, together with supporting informationand 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 (althoughthis option is likely to be operational unfeasible formost owner/operators).
Population Sttldies
Studies of populations 

### of organismspotentially impacted by plant operations appear to have been done at 

### only two of the twelve facilities reviewed. Studies at the IndianRiver 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 studieswere done 

### in the mid-1970s. The water quality status 

### of the Delaware River estuary, 

### on which DP6rL’s Edge Moor facility is located, has improvedmarkedly since the mid-1970s. There have also been documented increases in fish stocks (e.g., striped bass) and a general enhancementof the ecosystem 

### in the plant vicinity. As a result,the population studies conducted 

### in the 1970s are not representative

### of current conditionsnear the plant site,and conclusionsabout 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 studynear 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 relationshipbetween 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 impactswas identified or reviewed. A more extensive search for available information 

### on the current status of the estuary would be appropriate before proceeding furtherwith a reassessment of the IndianRiver Power Plant impacts.

IV-6For the remaining eight facilities which have thermal 

### discharges (twofacilities have 

### no applicable thermaldischarge,as discussed above), 

### no population studieswere 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 compliancewith thermalmixing zone regulations and if there appears to be little likelihood

### of major intake impacts (thisissuewill 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 compliancewith thermal mixing zone requirements,as a 

### basis for conducting a current and representative 316(a)Demonstration. In essence, no existingpopulation data are considered useful for either a 316(a)Demonstrationor a 316(b) evaluation. 2, Any new populations studies should follow the general guidelines presented 

### in Chapter 111. Itwould be advisable to have study designs reviewed 

### by the state prior to study implementation. The review should not, however, be interpreted as unequivocalapproval of the study conducted. This stepwill, however, reduce the prospects for technicaldisagreements later 

### in the 316 reviewprocess.

Nan-Thermal Discharqc

The only information concerningnon-thermal discharge impacts available 

### for this review were generated 

### by DNREC and du Pont Seaford. The state conductedwhole effluent, i'n-situbioassay tests for 11 of the facilities (notestswere conducted at DP&L's Indian River Power Plant) and du Pont Seafordperformed a 

### chronic toxicity test of it5 combined discharge. Five 

### of the facilities are required

### by their permits to conductbiomonitoring (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-7CSBA-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 informationshould only requested for those facilitieswhich are required to be submit 316(a)Demonstrations. The type 

### of information requiredwill have 

### to be identified 

### on a case-by-case basis, after the thermal complianceassessment 

### is completed.
Impingement and Entrainment
Impingementand entrainmentare addressed together here because both represent modes of intake impact and studies 

### of both are essential to accomplishinga 316(b) evaluation. As is shown in Table IV-1, only three 

### of the facilitiesreviewed 

### in this study appear to have conducted impingementand entrainment studies. 

### None of these studieswere deemed to be adequate for an assessment .ofcurrent intake impacts or 

### fora currentBTA evaluation. There appears to be no information available for the smaller facilitieson the design and operational characteristics 

### of their intake structures, including suchbasic information

### as whether the intakes have screensor 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 definitelywarranted, togetherwith at least a preliminary characterization

### of the ecosystem exposed to impact, before any conclusionsabout potential intake impacts are drawn. Based--onsuch basic and preliminary assessments, it should be possible to identify those facilities for which more rigorous studies arewarranted.



### 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 forundertaking a step-wise evaluation of the intake status 

### of these facilities. Facilitiesmay not object to providing fairly limited and basic information which is readily available. Such preliminary informationcan then serve as the basis for requesting additional and more detailed information, for those facilitieswhere it appears to be appropriate.

Recomme mndations: 

### 1. For each of those facilitieswhere no informationon the structure and operational characteristics

### of their intake is available (asnoted 

### inAppendix A), such information should be requested, including the following specifics:


# -- Specificationsof 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 screeningor grating over the intake opening (e.g., screen mesh, size 

### of openingsbetween trash bars,mode of operation for any traveling screens, typical cleaning

### procedures)


# -- Specificationsof water withdrawal procedures (e.g., intakevelocity at the intake opening, standard daily, seasonal and annual operating procedurestvolumeswithdrawn) 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) shouldbe documented. Such informationmay be available from the facility operator 

### or from one 

### of the other state agencies. 3. For each 

### of the facilities where no informationon the ecosystem in the vicinity 

### of the intake is available, solicit from each facility any informationwhich they 

### may have (thisactionmay already have been doneduring the initial phase 

### of this project; however, a follow-up requestmay stillbe appropriate,particularly 

### if it is linked to the request for intake structureand opera

### tions information). 

### If the facilityhas 

### no data of information,appropriate state agencies shouldbe contacted to determine if they have any relevantdata.

IV-98

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 availablewhen this project was oonducted should be reviewed to assess the potential for impact. "Potential"would be based primarily on the presence of important specieswhich appear to be vulnerable to impact from the type of water withdrawal occurring. 5. For those facilities identified ashaving 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 intakemodification can then be made. It is likely that a facility operator may disagree with the state's conclusions and recommendations. However, the facility operatorwould 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. DNRECmay 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 compliancewith 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 firmbasis 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-10current 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-11V. 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, DomesticWastes, and Thermal Deformations,Vol. V, Part 4 

### of Marine Ecology, A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in Oceans and CoastalWaters, 1769-1914. 0. Kinne, ed. New York, NY: JohnWiley & Sons. Earnthouse, L.W., and W. Van Winkle. 1981. The impactof impingement on the Hudson River white perch population. 

## - In: Issues Associated with ImpactAssessment, 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 temperaturepreference data.

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

Delaware DNREC. 1974. RegulationsGoverning 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-1Delaware 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 SurfaceWater Quality Standards,Hearing Draft, 20 July, 1989.

Delaware DNREC. 1989. Draft executive order to amend Delaware SurfaceWater Quality Standards, Hearing Draft, 20 July, 1989. Received from J. Davis, DelawareDNREC, 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 coolingwater intakes: An overview. Marine FisheriesReview 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 coolingwater intake structure demonstration 

### of impact for the SalemNuclear 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 DelawareRiver with particular reference to anadromous fish. Paper presented at A workshop 

### onAmerican Shad, 14-16 December, 1976, in Amherst, Hass. Maurice, K.R., R.W. Blye, and P.L. Harmon. 1987. Increased spawning 

### by American shad coincidentwith improveddissolved oxygen 

### in the tidal DelawareRiver. 

### In: Proceedingsof the International Symposium 

### on Common Strategies

### ofAnadromous 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-2Miller,'R.W. 1987. Species list for June 1987 IndianRiver fish kill compiled 

### by R.W. Miller, Delaware DNREC. Miller, R.W. 1987. Summary of IndianRiver 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 IndianRiver fish kill

### by
Miller, R.W. 1989. Fish kill. Delaware Conservationist 32:38. Miller, R.W. 1989. The 1987-88 IndianRiver 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 environmentalstudy

### 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&GCo. Polgar, T.T, J.K. Summers, and M.S. Haire. 1981. Assessment 

### of potential power plant entrainment impact at Morgantown Steam Electric Station, In: IssuesAssociated with Impact Assessment, Proceedingsof the FifthNational 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 surfacewaters

# - Final Report. Prepared

### by Limno-Tech, Inc. for the DelawareDNREC. Scotton,L.N. 1970. Occurrence and distribution 

### of larval fishes 

### in the Rehobeth and IndianRiver 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. ProjectP-37-3-2. Summers, P. 1987. Fish population study. DelawareRiver Basin Commission report,W. Trenton,New Jersey.



### v-3Thayer,G.W., D.R. Colby,M.A. Kjelson, and MOP.Weinstein. 1983. Estimates of larval-fishabundance: diurnalvariation and influences

### of saqlinggear and towing speed. Transactionsof the American Fisheries Society 112:272-279.
Developmentdocument 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 ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA). 1976.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA). 1977(a). Interagency 316(a) Technical GuidanceManual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear FacilitiesEnvironmental Impact Statements. U.S. EPA, Washington,DC.
U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA). 1977(b). Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of CoolingWater Intake Structures 

### on theAquatic 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 spawningactivity 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 spawningand 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 andWildlife ManagementCooperative.

v-4APPENDIX A
facility 316 Status Reports

.

A-l

### I. CIBA-GEIG?

Plant Characteristics

CIEA-G2IGY’s Quinacridone facility is located 

### inNewport on the Christina River and manufactures organic pigments and chromium dioxide. Previously,CIBA-GEIGY dischargednon-contact coolingwater, cooling tower blowdown, water softener backwash and stormwater to the Christina River (ata 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 coolingwater purposes, itnow 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 riverwater intake accompanying the U.S. 

### Army Corps 

### of Engineers’permit (NAPOP-Et-81-0311-3, requestedby CIBA-GEIGY 6 May 1981) illustrates that there are two existing 12-inch intakepipes ‘extendingapproximately 50 ft into the ChristinaRiver. 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 fromdu Pont 

### in 1984,

### a request for a water allocation permit was submitted to DNREC (3April 1984). Accompanying this requestwas 

### a description 

### of the river water intake indicating the existence of only one surface intake 

### in the ChristinaRiver which usually withdrew water forup to 3 to 4 hours a day on alternate days. Thiswater was pumped to three reservoirs (witha 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 withdrawalwas 0.4 MGD. It 

### is also unknownwhether this description accurately portrays the current number of intakes 

### or operatingpractices.

Ecosystem Characteristics

The Christina River is a tributary of the Delaware River and in turn receives input 

### from smaller water bodies such asWhite Clay and Brandywine creeks. Besides 

### flowingpassed Newport, it traversesWilmington before discharging into the Delaware River. The CIBA-GZIGY facility is located approximately 9miles 

### upstream of the confluence 

### of the Christinaand Delaware rivers and water depth is approximately 8-10 feet at the river intake. This area is freshwater tidal and designateduses include: public water

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

### of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife, and agricultural water supply. No other informationwas available for review concerning the ChristinaRiver ecosystem.

Permit Infomat ion

The NPDES permit for this facilitywas 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 stormwaterdischarge, 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 rainfallmeasurements)and temperature 

### of outfall 001 bi-weekly and four times per month, respectively. The other seven outfallshave no effluent limitationsother than "onlyuncontaminated stormwater may be discharged through these outfalls". Other permit requirements include the monitoring 

### of some organics and metals atoutfall 001 and a fewmetals 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-GEIGYpermit application,

### 15April 1988).

ImpactDetermination 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 effluentbioassay tests performed 

### on outfall 001 

### by the State of Delaware

### on threeseparatedays in June 1987. Results of the acute toxicity tests performed on this outfall indicate a significantamount 

### 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-4during 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) Demonstrationwould 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 facilityno longer has a thermal discharge. However, the permit for one of the "stormwater"dischargeshas 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 compliancewith thermal regulations,and a 316(a) Demonstrationwould not be necessary. 2. No evidence exists that the state has developed a position with regard to the status of intake structuresat this facility. CIBA-GEIGY has not conducted any population, entrainment, or impingementstudies thatwill aid DNREC's evaluation of potential intake structure impacts. If the state has reasonablebasis 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 (oramore cost effective alternative) represents BTA 

### by producing a 316(b) evaluation. However, the mode of operation (3-4hours 

### of withdrawal per day, every other day) and the nature 

### of the intake (one-two 12-inch diameter surfacepipes) 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 evaluatewhether existing intake structures constituteBTA.

A-S3. 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-6RELEVANT

# 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 PermitNumber WPCC 31068/74. Effective date: 17 October 1983. Delaware DNREC. 1984. TemuoraryWater Allocation Permit,No. 84-0023, granted to CIBA-GEIGY Corporation,Quinacridone facility. Effective date: 12April 1984.

. Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES PermitDE 0000400 for CIBA-GP'fGY Corporation,Quinacridone facility. State PermitNumber 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 continueduse, intake,and NPDES discharge from du Pont Co., Quinacridone facility,to CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, Deming, J.L. 1984. Letter (includingrequest for temporary water supply allocation permit) from J.L. Deming,CIBAGEIGY Corporation, to P.J. Cherry,'DelawareDNREC, 3 April 1984. Department 

### of theArmy. 1981. Permit for E.I. 

### du Pont de Nemours & Company, Quinacrindone facility. PermitNo, NAPCP-R-81-0311-31. Expirationdate: 31December 1984. Hull, G.H. 1984. Letter (includingrequest 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,DelawareDNREC, 10 November 1989.
(a) Non site-specific citations are listed 

### in the referencesfor 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 60miles upestuary from the mouth of the Delaware Bay. DCPP is a single unit coal-fired steam electric generating facilitywith-a net generating capacity of 

### 135 MWe. Its dominantdischarge is water used for once-through cooling. DCPP receives its once-through cooling from a river pumping stationowned and operated by Star Enterprise (letter

### from W.G. Watts, DP&L to S.W. Cooksey,DNREC, 

### 15 November 1989). After use, the coolingwater isdischarged with Star Enterprise and Akzo Chemical Co. dischargesas a combined discharge to the DelawareRiver. This outfall is located 

### on Star Enterpriseproperty. DCPP does'notchlorinate its coolingwater since Star Enterprise chlorinatesat 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 DelawareCanal. Designated uses for this region of the DelawareRiver 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 fromwater treatmentplant operations,pump bearings coolingwater, boiler blowdown and sludge dewateringwaste. Two other outfalls are intermittentdischarges 

### of runoff from the coke storage area (noflow limit)and effluent from the metal cleaning wastewater treatmentplant (0.22 MGD). The fourth discharge is a combined discharge of the three other 

### outfalls with the once-through, non-contact coolingwater 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-8outfalls do not have temperature limits. The outfall of the water treatment plant and miscellaneous dischargeshave 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.

ImpactDetermination Studies

No population, thermal,non-thermal, entrainmentor impingement studies

### have been conductedby DP&L for the DelawareCity Power Plant. The only available data to evaluatenon-thermal effects 

### of the DCPP discharges are the 24-hr whole effluentbioassay 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) (seeAppendix 

### B, Section 3). Any intake impactswhich 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 Plantdischarge 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 compliancewith the temperature limit specified in its permit, and would not be subject to mixing zone requirements or responsible for applying for an alternativeeffluent limitation (or conducting a 316(a) Demonstration)if the final discharge from Star Enterprise into the DelawareRiver 

### is not 

### in compliance with thermal regulations. No information

### was

A-9provided to determine if the facility,

### in fact,was achieving compliance with 

### its permit. environmental consequences of thermaldischarges from this facilitywould 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.
No studies are required for this facility. 2.RELEVANTDOCUMENTS!a

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for Delaware Power and Light, Co. (DPLL), Delaware City Power Plant. State PermitNumber 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 (includingcooling 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 fromWilmington 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 reportsLIA 1974a, 1974b, 197s. 1976, RMC and J.E. Edinger Assoc. 1979). As a decade has gassed since the mast remcof tnese reportswere 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 801me. 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 servicesUnits 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 forUnit 3 and two for Unit 4. Pumphouse 3 services Unit 

### 5 and contains eight screens.
Trash racks, consisting of bars with slotwidths 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 (exceptduring 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 (atleast 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 (onceor 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-12Once coolingwater 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 atapproximately 10 fps. stated a maximum total of 1770 cfs (1144MGD) is discharged from EMPP, although this value now exceeds EMPP's currentpermitted discharge of 1070 MGD. condensers is 5.6OC for all unitswith 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 (generallydefined 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 extensivemarshlandwith occasional small,sandy beaches. This region is characterized by relatively little shorelinedevelopment. Wilmingtonmuch of the shorelinehas 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 droughtyears the salinity intrusionhas extended upriver 

### of Philadelphia. been a recognized problem in the Delaware River estuary for two centuries and has been the focus of rigorous abatementprograms for over 50 years. Specifically, spatial distributional patterns for dissolved oxygen concentrationhave historically shown a sag, caused by inputs 

### of industrialand municipal wastes,between Philadelphia and Wilmington. The duration and extent of the dissolved oxygen sag downstream of Philadelphiahave decreased in recentyears {Albert 1988)and evidence exists that fish populationshave respondedpositively. An increase 

### in spawning activity ofAmerican shad has been observed as well as a general increase in the number of fish speciesutilizing thisperturbed 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

Pollutionhas

Designated surface water uses for the Delaware River in

A-13Pt

### rmit Infomat i

### on

The NPDES permit forDP&L's Edge Moor Power Plantwas revised in 1988 and is due to expire in October 1991. EMPP has six permitted outfalls: condenser coolingwater (oneoutfall for all five units), boiler blowdown, three screenbackwash outfalls and runoff from the flyash 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 flyash disposal site outfall is 

### unknown and the quantity of effluent dischargednot covered under the permit; however, the concentrationsof 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 coolingwater 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 chlorinenor 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 conductedby@over a two-year period (1974-3976) 

### sampled phytoplankton, zooplankton,benthic communities, and fish. Stations were evenlydistributed 

### from three miles nort- the EMPP to 

### less than 

### 1mile south 

### of the facility. Phytoplanktonwere sampledmonthly 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-14were collected at the surface and at 4 

### m. Sampleswere analyzed for chlorophyl1.aand 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. Sampleswere collected by pumping 132 gallons of surface and bottom water through 80 ,mu plankton nets. Biomass and species compositionwas determined on collected samples. Sediment sampling to evaluate benthic communitieswas conducted bimonthly from January through September 1975 at nine stations in the vicinity of EMPP. TWCJ samples were collected at each stationwith 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 (dryweight)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 (+2miles from the facility)with simultaneous 3 minute surface and-bottom tows of 0.5 m diameter, 0.5-mm mesh conical nets. Seines (10and 25 ftwith 1/8 in mesh) were used to sample six shore zone areas (fromapproximately 3 miles north to 1/2 miles south of the Station) semimonthly from December 1974 to September 1975. Trawls (16

### by 4 

### ftwith 

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

### from December 1974 to September 1975, at 13 day stationsand monthly from April to September 1975 at six night stations. Gillnets (3.5 inchmesh 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 (Albert1988). This increase is due to increased treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaterswnich discharge into the Delaware Estuary. This improvement 

### in water quality has resulted in increased stripedbass spawning-inthe vicinity 

### of EMPP, strongly suggesting changes 

### in indigenous populations since the 1970s studies.

DPCL has recognized the changes in the DelawareRivet ecosystem since their population studieswere accomplished in the 1970s. In response to the concerted management efforts andintense interest concerning stocks of striped bass, DP&L initiated a striped bass ichthyaplankton survey invicinity of EMPPin 1989 (RMC 1989). Daytime Samplingwas performed 

### from 5 April through 

### 15 June in the immediatevicinity 

### of EMPP. Sampling frequencywas twice per week inApril and May and once per week in June. Two non-consecutive tows were taken at each of three stations on each date. Sampleswere collectedwith 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 flowmeter mounted in the mouth of one of the nets. Best methods reasonably availablewere used in this ichthyoplankton study. The results 

### of this surveyprovide information on the abundances

### of stripedbass 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 informationwas 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 (seereferences marked by asterisks). However, available historical information documentspast compliance of the thermal dischargewith past regulations (Vasuki1976). It is unknown whether recent surveysprovide evidence of continued compliance of the discharge with currentwater quality regulations. The only information available for review were temperature profile studiesperformed 

### by IA for DP&L (IA1975). profiles were recordedbiweekly 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 smallwith temperaturesgreater than 2OF above ambient not extending more than 200 ft across the es.tuaryand less than 2000 ft longitudinally. Projections 

### from the data (presented

### in figure form only) indicate the thermalplume extends less than 500 ft across the estuary and less than 1mile 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 comglianceunresolved. 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 settlingpond 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 effluentbioassay tests performed by the State of Delaware on the three outfalls during March 1988. The results of these acute toxicity testsperformed on the cooling water outfall indicated a minimal amount of mortality 

### of the test organisms (< 5%). However, testing 

### of the boiler blowdown discharge indicated substantialmortality (> 90%) 

### for fish, and invertebrate testmortalities 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 (3days)does not adequately (technically) address long-term variations that typically occur in discharges.

Entrainment

Entrainment samplingprogramswere conducted at EHPP between July 1974 and September 1975. Sampling locations, frequencyand methods varied over the 14months. The locationwhich had the most consistent, longest running samplingprogramwas 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 (encompassingboth day and nighttime hours). Two sampleswere collectedevery two hours over this 12 hour period. Sampling was conductedat 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 sampleshad no volume associatedwith them. For most of the study a modified 0.25-m plankton net was used. This net was three meters long and cylindrical 

### in shapewith 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. Samplingwas attempted 

### in the diocharge tunnels pEior to completemixing in the commondischarga but was found to be ineffective and discontinued after four months. The entrainment samplingprogram 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-17of 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&Lattempted 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 samplingwas performed;

Finally,

Impingement
Impingement studieswere conducted at EMPP between October 1973 and September 1975. Sampleswere collected from the screen wash basins associated with each of the three pumphouses. Collectionswere 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 

### aweek 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 samplingwas increased 

### to semimonthly. counted and measured; fish were also weighed. was noted with fish being classified as live, recycled (signsof obvious decay). were based onnumber 

### 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 existwith DP&L's impingement program. The first limitation stems from the frequency of sampling. The sampling frequencybetween October 1973 and March 1974 (30minutes, 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-18account 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 (asDPCL 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 latentmortality 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 itdoes 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-192. Historical thermal studies appear adequate to document the size and extent 

### of the thermalplume and compliancewith 1976 thernal regulations was documented. Recent thermal 

### plume data were unavailable for this review. 3. only limited data are available fromwhich to evaluatenonthermal 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 currentwater 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 facilitybe 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 studieswould 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 ichthyoplanktcnpopulations. 3. While DP&L submitted a 316(b) evaluation, no material reviewed by this project indicatesthat the state conducted a detailed technical review of this submittal. Thus, there is no record 

### of a 

### formaldecision on the part 

### of DNREC that existing intake structures at EMPP constituteBTA, 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 technologywill constitute BTA.

A-20RELEVANT

## 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 (UnitNo. 5; DPQL). 

### * Dissolved oxygenmonitoring, 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 throughNay, 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. (Approvalof EMPP's thermal plume sampling plan, amended 2/16/89.)

A-21RMC and 

### J.E. Edinger 

### Associates, Inc. 

### 1979. An evaluation

### of the coolingwater 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 fromN.C. Vasuki, Delaware DNRC to H.P. Hoen, DPLL, 15 July 1975. (Waiverof 316(a) Demonstration and notification 

### of discharge compliance with DelawareWQS). Watts, W.G. 1989. Letter (includingcoolingwater intake/discharged 

### systems chronology 

### of 

### submittals for the Edge Moor Power Plant) fromW.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. 

### * Documentsunavailable for review.

A-224. DP&L

# -- INDIAN RIVER POWER PLANT

Plant Characteristics

The Indian River Power Plant (IRPP)is locatednear Millsboro and on the western end of Burton Island,above the southernbank 

### of the IndianRiver- This location is approximate

### ly 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 generatingunits (345We)with once-through coolingwater 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 centrifugalpumps 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 (fourfor 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 coolingwater 

### from the IndianRiver through an intake structure located 

### on the south shore opposite Ballast Point. The water passes through a 95 ftwide 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 thiswidth for the next 190 ft to just in front 

### of the intake to Unit 1where 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 equippedwith 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

(dependingon loading) with an 80-100 psi spraywash into a concrete sluiceway. The sluiceway carries the wash material to the discharge canalwhere it 

### is released.

A-23The IRP? periodically chlorinates intakewater to control biofouling 

### of condenser tubes in the coolingwater systems of the three units. The frequency of this chlorination 

### is variable depending on extent of biofouling. Duringwinter months chlorination of intakewater 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 toa bulkheaded discharge canal were it is released. This discharge canal also receives effluent from other areas of the station that include: servicewater 

### for cooling machinery; intake screen washdown; a small domestic wastewater treatment facility;an industrial wastewater treatment facility; and a sedimentationbasin. Thesewaters are carried 510 

### ft atvelocities between 

### 1.73 and 2.61 fps in this canal and discharged into Island Creek, which flows approximately 2 miles in an easterlydirection at velocities ranging from 0.26 to 0.88 fps before discharging into Ware Cove and the IndianRiver Estuary

# . The coolingwater passes through thg condensers

### of each unit

Ecosystem Characteristics

The IndianRiver Estuary 

### is a shallow, stratified coastal plain estuary extending only 

### 14miles from its origin at Millsboro Dam to the outlet totheAtlantic Ocean. Average depths are only 5.3 ftwith maximum depths of 30 

### ftnear the outlet; tidal range is 2 ft. Channel depths range fromabout 6 to 10 ftwith much of the estuary consisting ofvery 

### shallow tidal flats (normallyexposed at 

### low tide).
A two-layered circulationpattern exists 

### in this estuary (i.e., low salinityoverlying intruding denser higher salinity water). of Atlantic Ocean water (9.2*10 greater than the freshwatercomponent (7.1'10 ft /day). Xowever, due to the narrowwidth of the estuary above the Bay, freshwater conditionsdominate the upger portion 

### of the estuary (i..e.,the regions in the vicinity 

### of Millsboro Dam). Water 

### flow

### in the estyry 3s dominated 

### by tidalmovement 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 traataentplants. These inputs result 

### in

A-24lowered dissolved oxygen in the estuary from the input of both biological oxygen demand and increased phytoplankton praduction.
A variety of habitats are foundwithin the IndianRiver 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 (StatePermit Number WPCC 30138/76; NPDES Permit Number DE 0050580) 

### for the IRPP in 1988with 

### an expiration date of September 24, 1992. This permit establishes authorization for the facility to discharge effluent from various outfalls into a combineddischarge canal with the IndianRiver Estuary as the receivingwaterbody. The permit identifies 18 distinct outfalls from the IRPP. Outfalls 001 through 006 are the non-contact coolingwater discharges for the three coal-fired once-through coolinq water systemunits. 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 servicewater 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 severalheavy metals. Outfalls 019, 020, 021, 029 are the backwash 

### from the sgray cleaning of intake screens for 

### all four 

### of the Units (includesthe 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 industrialwastewater 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 (Outfall033),which also receives effluent from outfall 028 and 030, is to be monitored monthly for TSS, oil and grease,and pH. Outfall 037

A-25is runoff from the ash landfill sedimentationbasin. 

### 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 sufficientdata 

### in a discharge application to permit review and selection of monitoring requirements.
In the Special Conditions section (A.3) of thispermit, 

### a mixing zone for IRPP's thermal discharge is defined. At the time this permit was reissued (1988)thismixing 

### zone definitionprovided specific numeric criteria for thermal discharge regulation when statewater quality standards were composed of general, narrative constraints. Now that new water quality standardshave been adopted, the mixing zone criteria in IRPP's permit should be compared to currentwater quality standardsand a decisionmade 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 impingementwere evaluatedby Ecological Analysts, Inc. (EA)

### for DP&L as part 

### of a 316(a) Demonstration (EA1976) and a 316(b) evaluation (EA 1978).
Population

EA'S population surveys were conducted over 

### a two-year period (1974-1976) 

### inwhich phytoplankton, zooplankton,benthic communities, and fishwere sampled. Stations were evenly distributed from 2.5 miles above the IRPP to 6 miles below the facility

# . Phytoplanktonwere sampled semi-monthly at stations 

### from June 1974 to June 1975 and from flayto August 1976 

### by collecting a 5 

### gallon surface samplewhile transversing 80 

### m. Phytoplankton in the estuary were characterized

### by determining chlorophyll-a, biomass, productivity, and species compositionat each station. 

### Zooplanktonwere sampled at the same stations as phytoplankton twice per month from June 1974 to May 1975 

### and monthly from June 

### 1975 toAugust 1976. Samples were collectedduring oblique tows using conicalplankton nets (153pm 

### mesh for microzooplankton and 505 prn mesh formacrozooplankton). Biomass and species composition

### was determined on collected samples. Sediment sampling to evaluate benthic communitiesoccurred quarterly over a two year period starting 

### inAugust 1974 and

A-25ending in May 1976. Additional sampling was conducted near 

### industrial discharges and during a 24-hr tidal period study at a single station. Two sampleswere 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 studieswere incorporated into the fisheries studies except for samplingwith 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 towswere conducted at 10 stationswith 505 Nm conical nets using oblique tows. Beach seines (50ft seines with 0.25 in mesh) and otter trawls (16by 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. Gillnetswere 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 studieswere also adequate to address the spatial and temporal variations that occur in the IndianRiver 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 increasemay have resulted in changes in indigenouspopulations in the Indian River Estuary. Fish kills below IRPP over the past severalyears may be an indicationof 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 stationswithin 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 salinitymeasurements 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-27Indian 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 studieswere 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 indigenouspopulations. 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 (howeversmall)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-28were 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 effectsof 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 (oxygendemand)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 facilitiesunder review,

### no information was provided concerning any state bioassay tests conducted.

Entrainment

An entrainment samplingprogram was conducted at IRPP between October 1975 and December 1976 (althoughactual entrainment sampling began in June 1975, the full comptehensiveprogram was not in place until October). Sampleswere collected 

### from the intake canal approximately 65

### m down the canal from the trash racks but prior to the firstunit. Samplingwas conducted twice a month over 24 hourswith five sample sets (consistingof 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 sledwas held horizontally stationarybut obliquely sampled the water column at bottom,mid and surfacedepths. Volume of water filteredwas measured 

### by a flowmetermounted inside the mouth of the net. In addition, an intensive, studywas conducted to investigate.the level 

### of variation associatedwith only sampling twice a month. Daily sampling over a two week period was accomplished between June and July 1976. Best methods reasonably availablewere used in this entrainment sampling 

### program. Initial and latent entrainment viability studieswere 

### also conducted on a semimonthly/monthly basis between June 1975 and December 1976. Collectionswere made with the same gear as was used in the entrainment abundanceprogram. Organismsused as controls and in thermal experimental treatmentswere collected from the intake canal at the same site as abundance sampling. Organismsused 

### in discharge experimental treatmentswere 

### collected from the discharge canal where it flows under the roadway bridge. Both thermal and discharge experimental organismswere held in dischargewater for 2-4 hours and then 

### in ambientwater for 96 hours. Best methods reasonablyavailable were used for the determinatianof 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-29experienced 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 speciesmeasured (TL). Data were expressed as catch per unit volume. Similar to entrainment, DPLL conducted a study to investigate the day-to-day variation in themean catches of organisms on the screens. During each seasonmultiple-day samples were taken to estimate the confidencewith which each monthly impingement estimate was made. Best methods reasonable available were used in this impingement abundance samplingprogram. Samples were collected in the sluiceway

Impingement viability studies were performed semimonthly between November 1975 and December 1976. Organismswere 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 impingementwere 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'chlorinationmay underestimate total mortality and hence impingement loss estimates. This

A-30DP&L also conducted several specialized studies,

### 'oneof which was a traveling screen collection efficiency test. However, the results of this studywere never used in the calculations of impingement 

### loss. Impingement estimatesand the results 

### of the initial and latent mortality testswere used to calculate impingement losses 

### for each season and annual losses for 1975 and 1976. Without correcting for ccrllectionefficiency, these loss estimates constitutean underestimate. Fractional losses and the equivalent adult model were used to assess the impact of IRPP on the IndianRiver ecosystem.

Conclusions



### 1. Comprehensive populations studies in the IndianRiver 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 ecosystemmay have changed during the last decade, and data collected at that timemay not be relevant to current conditions. 2, Extensive data were collected to document and predict the magnitude and extent 

### of elevated temperaturesfrom 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 conclusionas 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 technicallyadequatemanner. Although DPhL's estimates 

### of impingementand entrainment appear to be underestimated appropriate correction factors can 

### be applied and reasonable estimates 

### of losses calculated. However, the studieswere conducted in the mid-1970s and thus may not be representative 

### of current conditions in the IndianRiver 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 (ifadequate)

### or new thermal

### plume projections (ifexisting results are determined to be inadequate)

A-312. to determine if the discharge is in compliancewith new thermalmixing zone requirements.
If the discharge is out 

### of compliancewith 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,impingementand 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 compliancewith-currentthermal regulations and a new 316(a) Demonstration+isrequired, information concerning intake structure impactsnecessary for 

### a 316(a) variance could be used 

### in the state's BTA decision-making process.

A-32

## .-

RELEVANT DOCUMENT~ 

### a

DelawareDNREC. 1988. NPDES Permit DE 0050580 for the DP&L Indian River Power Plant. State PermitNumber WPCC 3013B/76. Effectivedate: 25 September 1988.

PermitWPCC 30138/76. NPDES Permit DE 0050580. Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for IndianRiver Power Plant. State
EcologicalAnalysts, Inc (EA). 1976. Ecological studies in the vicinity of Indian River Power Plant 

### for the period June 1974 throughAugust 1976: A 316(al Demonstration. Prepared for DPLL. Volumes 1-6.
EA. 1978. Impact of the coolingwater 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 IndianRiver 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, IndianRiver Power Station, Unit 4. Millsboro, Delaware. Watts, W.G. 1988. Letter (including discharge canal temperature sampling plan, DPcL, IndianRiver Power Plant) fromW.G. Watts, DP&L, to F. Henshaw, XI, Delaware DNREC, 15November, 1988. Watts,W.G. 1989. Letter (includingcoolingwater intake/discharge systems chronology submittals 

### for the DPhL IndianRiver Power Plant) fromW.G. Watts, DPLL, to S.W. Cooksey, Delaware DNREC, 15 November 1989.

Non site-specific citationsare listed 

### in the references

### for main body 

### of the report. la)

A-335. 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 fromWilmington SuburbanWater 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 structuresor discharge configurationswas available fo

### 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 (seeSection 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. industrialwater 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 treatmentplant (4.7 MGD). Two other outfalls,which are each a combination 

### of non-contact cooling water from industrial processes and stormwater (6.0MGD and 3.0 MGD), are identified in the permit. The fourth outfall identified 

### is stormwater 

### (noeffluent limitations). The wastewater and noncontact coolingwater outfallshave dailymaximum temperature limits 

### of 43OC (110OF). These outfalls

### also have limitationson BOD and TSS,with thewastewater outfallhaving limitations on varqous metals aswell. water and non-contact cooling water effluentsmust have continuous temperature and flow monitoring and that biomonitoringbe conducted quarterly. The permit stipulates that thewasteA-34Impact Determination Studies

No population, thermal, entrainmentor impingement studies were available for review. A referencewas made by du Font to a

"316demonstration" that was submitted to DNREC in October 1977 €or the wastewater treatment plant outfall (letterJ.F. Lane, du Pont toP. Janiga,DNREC, 7 November 1989). This letter states that "the equipment thatwas the main source 

### of the heat in discharge 001 then,no longer exists." Although this "316demonstration"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 studieswere available for review. The only available datatoevaluate 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-relateddata 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 statewater quality criteria temperature maximum of 86*F),the specificationsof that mixing zone 

### do not appear in any 

### of thematerial reviewed. Thematerial reviewed also does not present any information that

### would document that the facility 

### is 

### in compliance with thermal regulations;if the facilitywere 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 structuresat 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-35letter 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 orundertake the burden of demonstrating that existing technoloqy (ora 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 itswater 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 informationwould likely be applicable to du Pont‘s Edge Moor facility. 3. Once the information noted in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate those data to determinewhether 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-36RELEVANT 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 deNemours h Company, Edge Moor. State PermitNumber WPCC 31938'/76. NPDES Permit DE 0000051. Lane, J.F. 1989. Letter (withattachments) from J.F. Lane, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, to P. Janiga, Delaware DNREC, 7 November 1989.

\

_. (a) Non site-specific citationsare listed in the references for main body of .thereport.

A-376. 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 Plantmanufactures nylon 66 resinwhich is spun into a fiber at this facility. Electricpower 

### for manufacturing processes is provided 

### by an on-site steam-electricpower plant operated 

### by E. I. du Pont. This facilitywithdraws 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 (1SOFhigher than intakewater) aswell 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 structureor the 

### discharge canal at this facility was available.

Ecosystem Description

The Nanticoke River 

### is located on theAtlantic Coastal Plain and is a tributary 

### of the ChesapeakeBay. 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 throughoutmuch 

### of its lengthdue to it being located 

### on the Coastal 

### Plain. DNREC has classified this river for a number of uses: industrialwater 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 locatedwithin 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-38are 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 invicinity 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 Plantwas available for review.

Permit Information

E.I. du Pont de Nemours C Company was reissued a NPDES permit (State PermitNumber 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 amaximum 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 

### flowmonitored continuously, and daily monitoring of pH and TRC. COD, BOD5, TSS, TRN, oiland grease, and fecal coliform are monitored weekly, and quarterly biomonitoring and organic analysis are required for this outfall. Outfall 

### 007 (ashpond 

### overflow) and Outfall 008 (treatedwastewater 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).

24-39Data were available from bioassay tests performed 

### by DNREC and EA (EA1989) 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 surveywhich utilized infrared scanning techniques, was conducted 

### in Hay 1974. The second studywas 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 2OFas far as 1mile 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 

### mortality

# . 2. Thermal studies conducted 

### in 1974may 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 structuresat this 

### facility. Du Pont has not conducted any population,entrainment, or imuingement studies thatwill 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 recreationaland/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 (ora 

### 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 consistentwith those occurring at the time the thermal studieswere done. Determine if the facility 

### is in compliance with the new Delaware thermalmixing zone criteria. A lack 

### of compliancewould 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 informationnoted 

### in Item 2 is obtained, evaluate those data to determine if detailed entrainment

### or impingement 

### studies are warranted, and decidewhether 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 intakeDNREC

### may consider conducting relevant studies to aid in the ETA decision-making process.

A-41RELEVANT

## DOCUMENTS(a)

Bertels, J.H. 1989. Letter (includinga 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 theNanticoke 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-427. 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. Itmanufactures 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 industrialtreatment processes are discharged into 

### a sluicewaywhich in turn empties into the Delaware River. According to the NPDES permit and a plant flow schematic submittedwith the permit application,.coolingwater 

### is withdrawn 

### from the Delaware River (28.0 MGD), the Chester MunicipalWater Company (1.6MGD) and the Wilmington Suburban Water Company (0.02MGD). 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 informationwas provided relative to discharge operations 

### or to detailed descriptions of in,t a

### ke 

### st ructu

### re

### s

# . Ecosystem Characteristics

General Chemical Corp. is locatedbetweenWilmington and Philadelphia and as such has similar ecosystem characteristicsas DP&L's Edge Moor Power Plant (seeSection 3 of this appendix). No ecosystem informationwas 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 qualityproblems. The designated uses 

### for the Delaware River 

### in the vicinity 

### of Delaware Valley Works 

### are: industrialwater 

### supply,primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreationandmaintenance 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 facilityhas one permitted combined outfall of 33.3 MGD which is composed of 11 components. These components consist of effluents associated

A-43with power generation (once through coolingwater,boiler blowdown and softener backwash), industrialprocesses 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 stipulatednot to exceed 41°C (105OF)and must be measured daily. The permit further requires continuousmonitoring of flow. General Chemical Corp. is directed by the permit to begin quarterlybiomonitoring no later than June 1992.
Impact Determination Studies

No population, thermal,non-thermal, entrainmentor impingement studieshave been conductedby General Chemical Corporation's DelawareValley Works (letter

### from A.B. Steiner, General Chemical Corp. to S.W. Cooksey, DNREC, 9November 1989). The only available information with which to evaluate nonthermal effects 

### of the General Chemical's discharge 

### is from the 24-hr whole effluentbioassay testsperformed by DNREC. These tests were performed 

### on three separatedays, two in June 1987 and one 

### in September 1987. this outfall 

### has variable toxicity. Fish experienced minimal mortality (<

### IO$), but invertebratemortality 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-relateddataor informationavailable 

### for the General Chemical facility is from the DNRECbioassay 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 l0SoFexceeds the statewater 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 compliancewith thermal criteria; if the facilitywere 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-44facility. 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 reasonablebasis 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 (ora more cost effective alternative) represents BTA 

### by producing a 316(b) evaluation.

Recommendations

1.

2.

3. Acquire thermal dischargemonitoring records, attempt to establish the status 

### of the thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluatewhether the facility is 

### in compliance with thermal discharge regulations. Given the small amount of discharge (33MGD) relative to the size.ofthe Delaware Estuary at the point of discharge, it 

### is likely that a complete evaluation will indicate that the facilitymeets thermal discharge criteria, in which case no ecological studieswould be necessary. If a 316(a) variance were determined to be necessary, the resultant 316(a) Demonstrationmust take into account intake structure impacts and shouldprovide DNRECwith informationnecessary 

### 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 sourcewater body in the vicinity of the intake. 

### If currentdata 

### are collected for DP&L's Edge Moor Plant these could be examined for possible inclusion in 

### an aquatic characterizationof the Delaware River near GCC. If no currentbiological/ecological information exists, DNREC 

### may consider conducting relevant studies toaid 

### in the BTA decision-making process.

A-45RELEVANT

## DOCUMENTS(a

Allied Chemical Company. 1974. Application for renewal of NPDES

Allied Chemical Company. 1977. Application for renewal of NPDES Permit DE 0000655 for DelawareValley Works.

PermitDE 0000655 for DelawareValley Works. Allied Chemical Company. 1982. Application for renewal of NPDES

Delaware DNREC. 1989. NPDES PermitDE 0000655 for the General Permit DE 0000655 for DelawareValley 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 PermitNumber WPCC

Delaware DNREC. Fact sheet for General Chemical Corporation

General Chemical Corporation. 1988. Application for renewal of NPDES Permit DE 0000655 for GCC DelawareValley Works. Steiner,A.H. 1989. Letter fromA.H. Steiner,General Chemical Corporation, to S.W. Cooksey,DelawareDNREC, 9November 1989.

(a) Non site-specific citationsare listed 

### in the references for main body of the report.

A-468. HERCULES RESZARCH CENTER

Plant Characteristics

The Hercules Research Center is a corporate research and development facility for Hercules, Inc., a major chemicalmanufacturing comgany. It is located in the Wooddale area 

### of Wilmington and is situatedon the westernbank 

### of Red Clay Creek. This facilitywithdraws a small amount of water fromRed 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 incorporatestraveling screens;however,

### no further informationdescribing the intake structure, discharge configuration,or increase in temperature at this facilitywas available.

Ecosystem Characteristics

Red Clay Creek is a 

### small freshwater stream that 

### flows in a southeasterlydirection from Pennsylvaniato its confluencewith the Christina River (atributary 

### of the Delaware River). DNREC has classified this stream for public and industrialwater supply, primary contact recreation (for lakes and ponds 

### on the basin), secondary contact recreation,fish aquatic life and wildlife, cold water fishdesignation fromMarch through June from the Pennsylvania/ Delaware line to slightlyabove 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 designationof Red Clay Creek and is likely to containwarm water species. No information describing the stream in the vicinity 

### of the Hercules facilitywas 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 expirationdate of 22 October 1990. The permit allows this facility to discharge non-contact cooling water from Outfall 001

A-47at the rate 

### of 0.35 MGD into Red Clay Creek (thereceivingwaterbody) 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 coolingwater. Residentpopulations 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 (maximum86"F),a mixing zonemay 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 invertebrateson 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 (3days) that may not adequately (technically)address long-tern variations that can occur in discharges. Further, no studieswere conducted by Hercules to assess impacts of the intake structure (i.e., entrainmentand 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 documentswhether 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)Demonstrationwould 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 reasonablebasis to decide that existing technology does not constitute BTA and puts forth a technology that does, Herculesmay either acceptDNREC's decision or undertake the burden of demonstrating that existing technology (ora more cost effective alternative) represents BTA by producing a 316(b)evaluation.

Recommendations

1. Acquire thermal dischargemonitoring records,attempt to establish the status 

### of a thermal mixing zone for the facility, and evaluatewhether 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 informationnecessary 

### for the state's BTA decision. 2. If a 316(a)Demonstration is not necessary, request that the facility provide informationon 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 informationnoted 

### in Item 2 

### is obtained,evaluate those data to determine if detailed entrainmentor 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 statemay consider conducting its own studies to provide data 

### for the BTA decision. 4. 

### If no information exists

### on the general biological/

A-49RELEVANT

## DOCUMENTS( a

Carlson, N.P. 1989. Letter (includingNPDES permit DE 0000230 application, and process/discharge description for Hercules Research Center) fromN.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 NumberWPCC 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-SO9. IC1AMERICAS, INC.

Plant characteristics

IC1Americas, Inc.’s Atlas Point Plant is located on Cherry Lane in New Castle,which is approximatelytwo miles southwestof 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 facilitywithdraws a small amount of water 

### from the DelawareRiver Estuary for cooling chemicalprocess reactors in the Hydrogen Plant and Polyols and Sorbitol areas of the facilityand forplant processwater. Cooling water withdrawal from the Estuary 

### by the.plant is roughly 12.0 MGD. This chemical plant releases coolingwater from five separate outfalls along the Delaware Estuary. Plantprocess wastewater is released 

### to the New Castle sewer system. No information describing the intake structure,the discharge configuration,

### or increases in coolingwater 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 (Section3). 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. industrialwater supply,

Permit Information

IC1Americas Inc. was reissued an NPDES permit (StatePermit Number WPCC 3127A/74; NPDES PermitNumber DE 0000621) for the Atlas Point Plant-in 1984 which expired inNovember 1989. A current,active permit was not available for this review. The expired permit authorized this facility to discharge effluent fromvarious outfalls into the Delaware River Estuary (receiving waterbody). The permit identified seven different outfalls from theAtlas Point Plant. Outfalls 001A, 0019, 002, 003, and 005 were cooling water and surfacedrainage discharges from the various chemical manufacturinq areas of the plant. These dischargeswere monitored continuously for flow,week days for

A-51temperatureand pH, and monthly for BOD and TSS,and had 

### an

were permitted to discharge excessive stormwaterdrainage and overflowing process water during high rainfall events. Discharges 

### from these two outfalls were monitored for BOD 

### , TSS, pH, chromium, iron,phenols, surfactantsand toluene ezch day when discharging occurred. effluent temperature limit 

### of 43OC (110 

# sF). Outfall 004 and 006

IrnDact Determination Studies

The outfalls from the IC1Americas facility that discharge into the Delaware River are primarily coolingwater 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 studiespertaining to the extent 

### of the thermal plume or its effect 

### on populationswere available for these discharges. Data were available from bioassay tests performed by DNREC to evaluate non-thermal effects

### of this discharge. The stateperformed 24-hr static acutewhole effluent bioassays using both fish and invertebrates

### on three separatedates during April 1987 and January 1988 on discharges from Outfall 001A. Toxicity tests 

### of this outfall resulted 

### in no mortality in testswith fish and a minimal amount 

### of mortality of the invertebrates (maximum

### of 30%). This testing was limited

### by the number of tests (31, the shortperiod of evaluation (3days) 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., entrainmentand impingement).

Conclusions

1.

2. The only impact-related data or information available for the IC1Americas 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 (permiteffluent temperature limit is llO°F), the specifications

### of that mixing 

### zonedo 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 compliancewith thermal regulations; if the facilitywere 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-523. No evidence exists that the statehas developed a'position with regard to the status of intake structuresat 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, IC1may either accept DNREC's decision or undertake the burden of demonstrating that existing technology (ora 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)Demonstrationmust take into account intake structure impacts and should provide DNRECwith information necessary for the BTA decision. 3. If a 316(a)Demonstration is not required request that the facilityprovide information

### on the nature 

### of itswater 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 currentdata 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 informationnoted 

### 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 informationexists 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-53RELEVANT DOCUMENT& a

Delaware DNREC, 1984. NPDES Permit DE 0000621 for IC1Americas, Inc,, Atlas Point Plant. State Permit Number WpCC 3127A/74. Effective date: 8 November 1984.
Delaware DNREC, Fact sheet for IC1Americas, 

### 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 (Newarkplant) 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 withdrawsnon-contact cooling water and process water (0.37MGDf from an intake located a short distance above North Chapel Street Bridge 

### on White Clay Creek. Of this, 0.33 MGD is used as coolingwater for the surface condensers and is released back intoWhite Clay Creek below the bridge. The 0.04 NGD of process water 

### is discharged into theNew Castle County sewer system. No other informationdescribing 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 sevenmiles into Delaware before its confluence with the ChristinaRiver. DNREC 

### has classified this stream for public 

### and industrialwater 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), agriculturaluse fornon-tidal portions, navigation for tidal portions, and passage of diadromous fish. The facility-islocated in the cold water fishdesignation area of White Clay Creek. This designation indicates coldwater speciesmay 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-55Permit Information

NVF Company was reissued a NPDES permit (StatePernit 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 (receivingwaterbody). The permit identifies a maximum discharge temperature of 41°C (105°F)for this outfall and requiresmonitoring 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°Fmaximum), the facilitymust have been granted a mixing zone. However, no specifications of a mixing zonewere provided in the permit or any other documents reviewed. No studieswere available to characterize the ecosystem 

### ofWhite 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 (3days), 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-56out 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 (ora 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 thermalmixing 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 facilityprovide 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 forWhite 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-57RELEVANT 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 forNVF Newark Plant. State Permit Number WPCC 3023B/75. NPDES Permit DE 0000434.
Jordan Jr., J.E. 1989. Letter (includingflow diagrams for Yorklyn and Newark Plantsffrom 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-5811. NVF YORKLYN PLANT

The NVF Company’s Primary Products Division (YorklynPlant) 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 streamwhich eventually.flows into the Christina River (atributary of the DelawareRiver).

Plant Characteristics

The NVF Yorklyn Plant manufactures vulcanized fiber and waterleaf paper from cloth cuttingwastes 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 treatmentplant 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 combineddischarge 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 facilitywas available.

Ecosvstem Characteristics

Red Clay Creek is a small freshwater stream that flows in a southeasterly direction from Pennsylvania to its confluencewith 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 tidalportions, 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 coldwater as well as warm water speciesmay 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-S9Permit Information

NVF Company was reissued a NPDES permit (StatePermit Number WPCC 3019B/75; NPDES PermitNumber DE 0000451) for the Yorklyn Plant Complex or' the Primary Products Division in 1984. That permit expired on January 1, 1988,and no informationwas available to determine the form inwhich the permit was renewed. The permit authorized the facility to discharge effluent from the wastewater treatment plant (Outfall001) and a combinationof non-contact coolingwater, steam condensate,boiler blowdown, zeolite regeneration water, and stormwater (Outfall002) into Red Clay Creek (receivingwaterbody). 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 002was to be monitored continuously for flow, weekly for temperature,pH, and zinc, monthly for BOD and TSS, and biomonitoring every three months. The permit hsoidentified a maximum discharge temperature of 38OC (100OF)for Outfall 002.

Imuact Determination Studies

No information pertaining to thermal effects of the Outfall 002was available for this facility. The maximum temperature permitted (lOO°F)and the volume 

### of the maximum permitted discharge (2.2 NGD) could result inwater quality standardsbeing violated due to the small size and designateduses 

### of the 

### receivingwaterbody (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. Temperatureand flow data to characterize the discharge 

### flow,Red Clay Creek and the mixing zonewill be required to determinewhether NVP Yorklyn is 

### in compliancewith thermal regulations. Given that the permit limit of lOOOFexceeds the water quality criteria 

### of a daily maximum temperature limit (86*F),it would appear that the facilitymust 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 whatevermixing zone requirementmay have been granted. The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of the discharges forYorklyn are the bioassay testsperformed by the State of Delaware. Statewater quality standards require the discharge exhibit acute whole effluent toxicity of less than 50% mortality of the indicator organism and no observable chronic

A-60toxicity in waters outside the regulatory mixing zone..The state performed 24-hr static acutewhole effluentbioassays on both outfalls using invertebrates on three separatedates during March and August 1987. Mortality 

### in these toxicity tests was variable forboth 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 testswhich 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 studieswere conducted at the Yorklyn plant to assess impacts 

### of the intake,structure (i.e., entrainment and impingement). While 

### n:data appear tobe available concerning entrainment and imping%aent, our experiencewith 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'tsand 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 someparticular 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 documentswhether the facility is in compliancewith thermal regulations. If the facility is not 

### in compliance with thermal regulation, a 316 variancewould be required and hence a 316(a)Demonstration. 3. No evidence exists that the state has developed aposition 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 technologydoes not constitute BTA and puts forth a technology thatdoes,

### NVF may either accept DNREC's decision 

### or undertake the burden of demonstrating that existing technology (oramore cost effective alternative) representsBTA by producing a 316(b) evaluation.

Recomxnendations

1. The NVF Yorklyn NPDES permit provided for this review expired in 1988; the status of the reissuanceand any changes in operating practices 

### or effluent limitations should be confirmed. 2. Acquire thermal dischargemonitoring records,attempt to establish the status of a thermal mixing zone 

### for the facility,and evaluatewhether 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 impactsand should provide DNRECwith 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 informationnoted in Item 2 is obtained,evaluate those data to determine if detailed entrainmentor impinqcment studies are warranted;based on existingdata 

### 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-makingprocess.

A-62RELEVANT

## 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 .mainbody of the report.

A-63

### 12. STAR ENTERPRISE

Plant Characteristics
Star Enterprise (Star)in located in DelawareCity 

### 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 dischargeswater into the DelawareRiver 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 pilebefore tricklingback to the intake canal in front of the traveling screens (R.Hiller, DNREC,personal communication). No other informationhas been provided concerning the specifics of the intake structure,operatingpractices 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
Starwithdraws 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 DelawareRiver 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 surfacewater uses are the same as for the DCPP (see Section 2). Like DP&L's Delaware City Power Plant,

Permit Inf

### orma tion

The NPDES permit for this refinerywas reissued in 1989 and is due to expire in January 1994. outfalls. One is the combined total discharge to the Delaware River (452MGD) exclusive of the outfall from the ballast water treatment system 

### (noflow limits) located at Star's docking facility. Of the other five outfalls, four are generated 

### by Star and the other by a combinationof effluents from DPLL's The permit indicates seven

A-64DCPP and Akzo Chemical Co. Although the discharges from DPhL and Akzo Chemical are includedunder Star's permit (aswell as their own), this outfall does not have any flowor temperature limits, only TOC. The four outfalls generatedby Star include: wastewater treatment facility effluent (outfall601, 13MGD), 

### noncontact cooling water (398MGD), discharge from API Separator (noflow limit) and a discharge that combines outfall 601with storm- and groundwater 

### (noflow 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 flowswith those of DP&L's DCPP (75HGD, 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 studywhich was submitted tb DNREC in 1977 (seeletter from R.G, Soehlke, Star Enterprise to S.W. 

### Cooksey, DNREC, 9 November 1989);however, this reportwas 

### not available for this review.

Non-thermal
The only available data to evaluate non-thermal effects of this facility's dischargesare the 24-hr whole effluentbioassay tests performed 

### by DNREC. These testswere performed on'three separate days during Hay 1988 

### on fivedifferent 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 singlemonth 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 (IA1979). Sampleswere 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 betweenApril and August 1978. Nighttime sampleswere collected monthly in September 1977 and betweenApril andAugust 1978. 

### No samplingwas performed in January and Februarydue to icing conditions. On each samplingdate two samples,each consisting of tow replicate tows,were collected at 3-hour intervals. Samgles were takenwith 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 (againstStar's withdrawal flow). Volume of water filtered was determined

### by a 

### flowmeter mounted on the net. Length measurementswere made on a subsample 

### of ichthyoplankton and macrozooplanktonand density estimates calculated. Generally this entrainment study used best methods reasonably available. Sampling gear and location,collectionmethod, level 

### of replication, and frequency within a sampling interval were adequate. However, limitations existwith the frequency and types 

### of sampling events. Although sampling was conducted at night during 

### somemonths, best methods would have been to collect nighttime sampleswhenever daytime sampleswere 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 frequencyof collection was increasedduring the critical spring months, weekly samplingduring all months 

### of the year would more adequately account for within month variation 

### in the abundance 

### of ichthyoplanktonand 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-66Star's entrainment estimates,protective assumptionsand information from scien- tific literature. The most serious limitation to this entrainment study is the fact that no population studies of the DelawareRiver 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 studieswere done over 10 years ago, and major changes in the Delaware River ecosystem

(e.g., improved water quality, increases in stripedbass.stocks) suggest that old data are insufficientto 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 tablewas compiledby DelawareDivision of Fish and Wildlife. These tables do not provide any descriptionof the intake structure,plant operating conditions or collection methods. Without this information the studiesproducing 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 operationsand discharge characteristics have not been altered since that studywas conducted, theremay be sufficient informationto determine if the facility meets new state thermal discharge criteria. However, there 

### is 

### no specificationof a mixing zone for this facility against which to compare the resultsof the therlaal plume study. If the plant were found to be out of compliance, studies to supporta 3P6(a)Demonstrationwould 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 cannotbe evaluatedwith the information available for review;however, these data also cannot be considered representativeof current condiA-67tions at the plant site. No population surveyswere performed and a formal 315(b) evaluation appearsnot 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 representativeof current thermal discharge characteristics.
2. The status of the thermalmixing 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 reviewedwithin the context of the thermal mixing zone to determine if the facility is 

### in compliance. should be requested to provide new thermalplume data to document compliance status. compliance, then a 316(a)variance may be requested and a 316(a) Demonstrationproduced. Demonstration must take into account intake structure impacts and should provide DNRECwith informationnecessary for a BTA decision. Alternatively,the facility If the facility is out of The resultant 316!a)

A 316(b)evaluation

### was apparentlynever submitted for this facility. Given that the existing entrainmentand 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) Demonstrationis not 

### required. The appropriateway 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 specifiedmodifications, Star must collectnew data and information to support its own contentions. review and evaluation for adequacy. Such studieswill then be subject to

A-68RELEVANT

### DOCUMENTS(a
Daily intake screen catch,Getty Oil Corporation, 1974-75. Data tables. 

### * Delaware DNREC. 1977. Submission to DelawareDNREC: 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 toquantify densities of ichthyoplanktonand macrozooplanktonentrained 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 invertebratesimpinged 

### 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, DelawareCity 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-69APPENDIX B
Legal Opinions on Delaware-specific 316 Issues

B-1. WESTON. PATRICK.WILLARD & REDOING

C3UNSELLORSATUW

80STON.MAS SAC WUSETTS 07109 A C*OpCsSIONAL ASSOCIATION

a4 ST4WSTRFCT

10171742-9310 TELICOCILR 16171742.1734

MEMORANDUM

TO: Versar, Inc.
FROM: 

### Edward 

### F. Lawson 

## &
DATE: November 13, 1989 SUWECT: Responses ta questions concerning cooling water intake 'structuresand 

### 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 CleanWater

### Act, 33U.S.C. 1326. Thepurpose of this memorandum 

### is to provide 

### answers to those questions.



### The 

### answerto 

### 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 necsssarv? mance with sect 

### +ion 316(b) 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 structurebut nopoint sourcedischarge. 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

# . Thedifficulty 

### inansweringthequestion

### arisesbecause 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 coolingwatar intake

### structuresreflectthe best tec.hnology available for 

### minhizing adverse environmental impact

# . (Emphasis

, added.) This language 

### is ambiguous

### because it 

### isunclearwhetherthe ofthe

phrase "applicable to 

### a point 

### source" 

### is diracted 

### at the develmof thestandard for

### coolingwater intakestructures

### or the

### -cat ion

'me 

### facilityupon

### which thisquestion 

### isbaseddischarges its 

### cooling 

### water either 

### to a

### municipal sewer:

### or to 

### a "French

### drain". Under the 

### Clean 

### WaterAct, such .dischargesdo 

### 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 sewerand 

### a French drain are not "navigable waters", discharges to such sewersand 

### drains are 

### not "point sources#. qualification, includes 

### a discharge of 

### a pollutant. 

# . "

# .3 

### of that standardtocooling 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.meant3at

### the intake structure standard 

### is applicable only where a 

### facilitywith 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 316(b)

# . 40.CtF.R. 5 401.14 provides as 

### follows: Thelocation,design, constructionand capacity of

### cool

### inuwater btak e structuresof

### anvuoG 

### source for 

### which 

### a standard 

### is established pursuant to section 301

### or 306

### of theAct shall raflect the best technology available 

### for minimizing adverse environmental impact, in accordanca

### with the provisions of Part 4'02 of this chapter. (Emphasisadded.) The highlighted language seems to indicate that 

### there 

### must be a connectionbetween 

### the intakestructureand 

### apoint source inorder 

### for

### section 315(b) 

### tobe 

### 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: Penitconditionsmaybe 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 thesearguments,Ibelieve thatsection316{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 tlesituationuponwhichthepresent question 

### isbased 

### in considering section 316. Generally, facilitieswhich withdraw cooling 

### water have point source discharges. 

### In addition, 

### I question whetller the discharge ofuncontaminated 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 Frenchdrain systems 

### would seem 

### to be 

### evennore 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 whichwould 

### cause intsrfarancswith the

### treatmentplant. 40 C.F.R.. § 403=5(b)(4). 

### Those

### regulationsalsoprohibit 

### discharges ofheat 

### in amounts which 

### interzerta 

### with biological 

### activity at treatment plans 

### or in quantities that cause the

### tempexatusat the treatinent plant toexceed 40'C (104' 

### F). 40C.F.R. Q 403.S(b) (5)

# . The latter requirementmay bealtered by the

### owner of thetreataantplant.

# 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 thelegislationwhichbecame theFederalWater PollutionControl Action Amenments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) 

### The original version regulatedonlythernaldischarges. Section 316(b)was addedduring 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 intakestructures

### of steam-electricgenerating 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 theWaterPollutionControlActAmendments
Of 1972, 

### January 1983, page 264. 

### This languagedoes 

### not link the regulation of 

### intake structures to point 

### source discharges. Third, there 

### is language

### inboth

### EPA General Counsel Opinions and a 

### federal court 

### case indicating that the effects 

### of 

### cooling
Water intake

### structuresmustbe considered irrespectiveof them1 discharges. T3e-folTowing language appears 

### in Decision

### No. 63:



### 'This does 

### not

### mean that the impacts of intake 

### structuresdo 

### 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.esSteel Comoratlou v. 

### Train, 556 F.td 822, 849 (7thCir. 1977).6 The questions presented again ask whether actions under Section 316(b) 

### are dependent uponI 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). Thermaleffluent limitationsimposedpursuant to Section 301

### or 306 andmodified pursuant to Section 316(a) address the problem of the dischargeof largevolumesofheatedwater

### 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 toprevent damageassociated withthedischarge of heated water and required 

### EPA to establish regulations 

### under Section 316(b) to minimize adverse environmental impact associated with the withdrawal of watar 

### forcooling puqoses. 

### such. itwould be 

### cont- ram 0 Conuressiw 

### tent. the Q 

### vera11 obi ‘ectivesof the FwPa and common sense 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 discharas of heatedwater, 

### (Emphasisadded.) 

## **+

Decision No. 63 at 381-382. Similarly, the following language appears



# u. at 

### in Decision

### No. 41 (June1, 1976):


### As discussed 

### in terms ofIssue 

### I, §316(b) and theraal effluent limitation standards 

### require independentdeterminations. Section 316(b)

### is ccncarned with theadverseenvironmental impact 

### of L9e

### witndrawal of cooling water rather

### than the discharue 

### OF heated water. The §316(b) standard 

### is-whetherthe cooling 

### water intake 

### structure raflects LIe best technology available 

### forminimizing 

### adverseenvironmental 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=aphasisoriginal).
201-202.7 Thediscussion 

### of section 316(b) inVirainia 

### Electric b Powex Co, v. Cos-, 566 

### F. 2d 446 (4th Cir. 1977), 

### is also helpful. That 

### caseholds that thestandardsapplicable to intakestructures



### are not "effluent limitationsn: NO contention 

### is raised that the 5 316(b) regulations are themselves effluent limitations. It 

### is obviousthatthey

### 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 Courtwere 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 apoint 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 of8 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 facilitieswhere themaldischarges 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 thema1pollution. For these 

### reasons, I recommend that 

### Delaware apply section 316(b) to facilitieswhich have 

### coolingwater intakes

### but 

### no point

source discharges.

separately. 

### For purposes 

### of simplicity the 

### answer will be based


### upon the following .factpattern: Facility 

### A discharges 

### its own 

### thermal

### and non-thermal pollution

### aswell

### 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 withrespect to its own thermaldischarge and the 

### thennal effluent 

### it 

### has 

### agreed to accept 

### fromFacility B. The

### basis For

### thisconclusion 

### is theplain 

### languageofsection 316(a)which puts the burden upon "the owner 

### or operatora of the9 point 

### source. by Facility A. 

### Inthis

### case, thepoint 

### sourc8 

### is ownedandoperated

b. es ertion 31 Bfa) demonstratioq. The section 316(a) demonstration program forFacility A

### must take 

### intoaccount 

### 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, SubpartH, and by



### anumber of judicialand administrative decisions applying section
316.
40C.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 

### alternativeeffluent 

### limitationdesiredby 

### the ive 

### bacr c 

### e tcaeaer with 

### alL discharger, -a thewt

ths 

### protection and 

### propagationof 

### abalanced,

### indigenous

### community of 

### shellfish, 

### fish and wildlifa 

### in and 

### on the body of 

### wstisr 

### into which the discharge 

### is to be made. 

### (Emphasisadded). 

### 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 thebalanca, indigenouspopulation and, 

### therefore,

### nust be taken into 

### account.10 In 

### addition, 5 125-73(~) (1) allows existing 

### discharges of themal 

### pollutiontobase theirsection316(a)

### demonstrationsupon (*the absence of 

### prior appreciable hamn. Section 125.73 

### (c) (1) 

### (i) requires the 

### absence of 

### appreciablehamtobe 

### shown [Tlaking

### into

### account the 

### interaction

### of 

### such thermal

### componentwith

### otherpollutantsandthe 

### additiveeffect 

### of other thermal 

### sourcestoa balanced, 

### indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife

### inand 

### on the body 

### of water 

### intowhich the 

### dischargehas 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)

### wasaddressed 

### in Decision


### No.



## ra,63



### at as follows: [UlnderSection 316(a) the 

### peruinpact 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 shouldbe 

### 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



### hisdecision 

# -
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 thedischarge nustbe determined not by cansidering its impact 

### on some hypothetical unstressed environment, but by considering its impacton theenvironment into which the discharge Will 

### be mad8; this environmentalwill necessarily be impacted by. the 

### intake.
at 13.

Although the Seabroo&decision considers

### only the cumulative impacts of 

### cooling watsr intake 

### structures, otherdecisions 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 statedthat 

### "[t]h8 thermal

### effectsupon the


### RIS 

### from Units 1 

### and/or 

### II must be 

### considered 

### in light 

### of other


### stresses on or expected

### on thesespecies."

# u.at 2~.~ Similarly,

a letter dated February 26, 1986, 

### inwhich 

### EPA made its 5 316(a) determination

### oftheCayuga

### andWabashGenerating 

### Stationsoperated by-thePublic Serrica Company of 

### Indiana, noted that "20miles of the 100 

### miles 

### used 

### in thr 

### analysis 

### is also effected 

### [sic]by the municipal-industtial 

### complex 

### in the

### Terre Haute 

### area." These

### daczsions

### furtherestablishthr

### necessityofconsidering
the impact 

### of them1

### discharges in the context 

### of other 

### factors affecting fisheriespopulations.



### %e 

### Detsmfnation, with

### one

### minor exception, vas adopted 

### in 3;n,the Watt= 

### of Bogton 

### Edfson Companv, Pm Nuclear Station ts 1 and 

### 2, Initial 

### Decision (July26, 1978)..I

12

C. 

### The intake strxb C’jreg Under the facts described above, section 316(b) clearly

### applies to

### FacilityA because 

### ithas 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 withdraWal Deat

### svs auencv/divisign is rtsggOnS&le for rtg 

### mlementat 

### ionj,

The State 

### of Delaware 

### does have 

### a water 

### withdrawal permit system which 

### is administeredby the Department 

### of Natural 

### Resources 

### and 

### Environmental Control (theDepartment). This agency

### has thepower 

### to adopt, 

### enforce, amend 

### or repeal 

### rules and regulations to 

### control,conserve and 

### manage thewaters of the Stata. Theregulations requirewatarallocationpennitsforallwater withdrawals greater 

### than 50,000 gallons 

### in any 24 

### hour 

### period. Application 

### forapennit

### must bemade totheDepamemt, 

### whichwill
process it 

### inaccordanca

### with 7Da1. C. 5 6004and make

### a decision. 

### All

### applicantsmust

### drmon8trata

### inwritingtheexistence

### ofawater conservation 

### proqramr 

### suitable to 

### their 

### particular use. 

### This
program 

### should 

### includemonitoring and evaluation of usage, 

### a leak detection 

### and controlprogram, 

### use of beat 

### practicablemethods to

cansenewater, 

### providingemployees and 

### customers

### with 

### information
about the 

### need to conserve water, evaluation of the potential to



### use less than potable water, and establisfimant of 

### pricing13 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 approvalby theDepartsent,permitsmaybemodified ortransferred.
A permit will specify 

### an 

### expiration date and 

### a maximumwithdrawal
rate 

### in terns of days, 

### months 

### and years. 

### It will 

### require the applicant tometerwater withdrawals and 

### filewater

### 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 alsoimpose otherconditionsas deemed appropriate. Rept8SentatiVeS 

### of the Departtent

## , the Delaware Geological Surrey and theUnited StatesGeological Survey are allowed, under 

### each permit, to enter the facilities 

### or property toobserre 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 ofwater withdrawal



### on fish and 

### otheraquatic lifa. Section 3.03, 

### which sets surface
waterwithdrawal 

### limits,specifiesthat

### w[w]ithdrawalsfromsurface
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
everybody 

### of water under Delaware jurisdiction. 

# aSection 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 togrant 

### an allocationpermit. Thepolicy 

### 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 theStat8. 7

### Del. C. 5 6001(b)(2). An
express purpose 

### of that chapter 

### is to.provide 

### a wprogram for the protection and conservationofthe land,

### water,Udem~ater, 

### andair



### resources. 

# . 

# . for the conservation 

### of wildliffe and aquatic 

### life." 7 

### Del. C, 8 6001 (c)(3). Furthennore, 

### the statute "shall be 

### liberally

### crxmtrued 

### inordertopreserve the land,airandwater



### resources 

### of the State." 7 

### Del. C. 5 6020. Lastly, case 

### lawhas 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 ofthe environment 

### is the paramount consideration." 

### Statsv. Gattv Oilwanv(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 technologyavailable standard 

### in section 316(b) shouldbe appliedtointake

### structures irrespectiveofthepresence 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.