NC0000272_Thermal Issues Presentation_20111011

Are We Still in " Hot Water"
Over Thermal Issues at Power Plants ?
Third EPRI Thermal Ecology and Regulation Workshop
October 11, 2011
SE�am
Turbine Electricity
Him. Charles C. (Chuck)
Fuel Generator
�Qil�r Coutant, P h D
tvondenser
Close warm. Cooling Oak Ridge National Laboratory
�yt3e tower
(retired)
Intake coal
(cool) Dnce-through Discharge Blowdawn
(warrnerl Coutant Aquatics
- - - - - - � � �- -- Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Thermal issues are still with us
• Despite closed-cycle cooling being required
for new power stations (existing stations still
use once-through cooling)
Despite Nfive decades of focused thermal-
effects research and analysis ( lab and field )
Despite ^'four decades of CWA 316(a )
demonstrations of "no prior harm"
• Despite Nfour decades of related NEPA impact
analyses ( primarily nuclear plants)

Why ?
• Increased regulatory attention to 316(a )
demonstrations by states and EPA. Some perfunctory early
316(a) demonstrations and renewals did not follow regulations and
guidance
• Stringent state thermal standards, often based heavily on
lab data, that force 316(a) variances
• Unsettled notions about community ecology as used in
the statute and regulations ("balance" "diversity"
"sustainability"...)
• NEPA analyses needed by NRC for nuclear plants
• Opponents seize on issues, including thermal
• Poor communication/education
will discuss each in turn ...

Regulatory Attention : Brief Regulatory Review
• 1965- Federal Water Pollution Control Act :
mandated water temperature standards
• 1970- National Environmental Policy Act
( NEPA) : mandated Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
for federal licensing actions (Calvert Cliffs decision required
thermal analyses for nuclear power plants)
• 1972- Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a ) :
allowed thermal discharge variance ("alternative effluent
limitations") from thermal standards on demonstration of a
"balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife" in/on the water body for NPDES permits (usually
state issued with EPA oversight)

Regulatory Attention : Brief Review ( continued )
• date?- 40 CFR 125 .70-125 . 73 (Subpart H ) : "Criteria for
Determining Alternative Effluent limitations Under Section 316(a)
of the Act" : BIP/BIC = "biotic community typically characterized by
diversity, the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes,
presence of necessary food chain species and by a lack of domination by
pollution tolerant species." Plus other important requirements and
caveats.
• 1977- Interagency 316(a ) Technical Guidance Manual
and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear
Facilities Environmental Impact Statements ( EPA and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) : Guidance for predictive and
"no prior harm" demonstrations, but decision ultimately up to the
"Administrator"
• ^01976-2010- Key Administrative decisions :
magnitude of effect, additional specific criteria, etc.

Regulatory Attention :
What' s currently happening?
• Emphasis on variance renewal at ^'S-year NPDES
intervals
• Requirement of full biological demonstration studies at
each renewal (rather than cursory review and update)
• Strict adherence to Subpart H BIP/BIC criteria of
diversity, sustainability, food chain species, and lack of
domination by pollution-tolerant species.
• Inclusion of all trophic levels ( biotic categories) in
demonstration : phytoplankton, zooplankton, shellfish
( macroi nve rte b rates), fish, wildlife.
• Interpretation of a BIP/BIC as what would have been
there without the thermal discharge (not just "a" BIC)

Regulatory Attention :
What's currently happening? (continued )
• Emphasis on cumulative impacts, such as regional fish
population trends that may be affected by the thermal
discharge (Subpart H; Brayton Point decision )
• Emphasis on indigenous species except for historically
non-native species introduced in connection with
management or species whose presence results from
irreversible prior modifications (Subpart H ) .
• Strong scrutiny of Representative Important Species
( RIS) selected as indicators
• Despite RIS, insistence on full community analysis
• Examination of plume effects, e.g., mortality, zone of
passage

Regulatory Attention :
What's currently happening? (continued )
• Stronger EPA oversight of states with delegated authority
• Detailed review of study plans prior to start (state & EPA)
• EPA or state may set an alternative effluent limitation that
differs from the one proposed by the applicant, which the
facility may not be able to meet (e.g., Brayton Point).
What's needed to stay out of regulatory "hot water" :
• Give careful attention to regulations and guidance in preparation of
demonstrations of no prior harm
• Give conclusions in terms of meeting specific regulatory criteria
• Consult with state/EPA Region on what they expect, before 316(a)
studies begin
• Encourage dialog over findings—rarely is it all cut and dried

Thermal Standards
• A facility' s thermal discharge can either meet
in-stream thermal standards or seek a 316(a )
variance
• Restrictive thermal standards force seeking of
variances
• There is need for re-evaluation of laboratory-
based thermal standards to bring them in line
with field experience of habitat use

CommunityEcology
• The science of aquatic community ecology has yet to mesh well
with the regulatory criteria for "balanced"
• A multitude of diversity indices are applied; what is best?
• Sustainability through cyclic seasonal changes is poorly defined
• What percentage constitutes "domination"?
• How similar does a thermally influenced biota need to be to a
reference site when all communities differ to some extent?
• How can one exclude non-indigenous species from consideration
when they are nearly everywhere and their ranges are expanding?
• One person's nuisance species is another's game species.
• To what baseline does "cumulative impact" of thermal and all other
stressors refer?
• Despite avowed emphasis on community, the final decision often
relates to impacts on few key species of special interest
10

NEPA
Although use of closed-cycle cooling reduces
thermal loading by >90%, there still is a thermal
discharge in the blowdown (water released from
the cooling cycle to prevent buildup of salts;
replaced by water withdrawal ) .
Blowdown discharge must meet in-stream thermal
standards and have a demonstrated low impact in
NEPA analyses for nuclear plants ( NEPA requires
independent analysis, not just certification )

Opponents, Communication, Education
• A facility may have active opponents as well as
institutional regulators ( particularly proposed facilities)
• Thermal discharge issues are likely to be raised (using
old fears) and need to be countered with data and
analyses
• Reputable reference documents are needed to
summarize the history of thermal discharge analysis,
regulation, and results (for educated lay public)
• EPA's temperature guidelines could stand updating
based on decades of experience (results of studies,
administrative decisions, current thinking)
12

Conclusions
• Thermal ecology research and analysis are still needed
• Existing thermal discharges are facing increased scrutiny by
regulators
• Opponents of a facility often use thermal discharge issues
to foster their objectives
• Community ecology is sufficiently undeveloped that the
law's mandate for "balance" is unclear (especially as
related to temperature effects)
• Facility managers need rigorous, relevant data from lab and
field studies that are analyzed specifically for their site to
address the 316(a) criteria for identifying and quantifying
any undesirable thermal impacts (whether for 316(a),
NEPA, or countering opposition)
13